Donald Trump at One Year

 

So, here we are at the one-year mark.  The good news is that civil society continues to flourish and democracy, though wounded, is far from dead.  The bad news is that we have three more years of this and whether democracy can take three more years is anybody's guess.

The obvious thing to do now is a retrospective, sort of like the 100 day retrospective.  How has Trump compared to my worst fears?  A lot has happened since May, but in terms of my fears, less than one might think.

Things that were not as bad as I feared:

Attempts to shut down the opposition:  That was what I feared most -- not so much that he would prosecute political opponents (the independent judiciary would thwart that), but that he would use federal money, tax exempt status, and other regulatory actions I did not know enough about to predict to cut off all funding for the opposition and establish a de facto one party state.  That hasn't happened.  It shows no signs of happening.  I got nervous again after the Charlie Kirk assassination, especially when Steve Miller pledged an "all of government" approach to shut down the opposition in all forms.  That hasn't happened, and so far as I can tell they really aren't planning to shut the entire opposition -- just anyone who opposes ICE.

Schedule F: Again, I considered this very dangerous because it could fly under people's radar screens.  The entire federal bureaucracy could become a patronage organization and an instrument for enforcing ideology and punishing enemies.  In this I underestimated just how much Republicans in general and Trump in particular hate the federal bureaucracy.  Instead, he sent Elon Musk in to wreck general havoc until the entire Cabinet revolted and demanded that he go.  This seriously undercut any plan to weaponize the federal bureaucracy by keeping it from functioning altogether.  Even Republicans are quietly trying to pick up the pieces.

Right wing militias: What was the biggest difference between Trump and Hitler when they both came into power?  Hitler had a large private army and Trump did not.  I feared that after Trump pardoned the Proud Boys for their attempt to overturn the election, they would become the new Storm Troopers and terrorize Trump's opponents into submission.  Yes, we do have a serious online Brown Shirt mob, menacing opponents with threats, SWATting, and unwanted pizza deliveries.  But online Brown Shirts are still not as bad a the real thing, which has not emerged.  And strong-willed opponents have defied them.  The real question is, have the Proud Boys just joined ICE?

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: No, seriously!  I'm not saying these guys are good, obviously.  Patel seems unduly fond of the privileges of the office and runs the FBI like an internet troll, tweeting out possible developments before they are confirmed.  But Kash Patel's FBI has not been fabricating evidence or infiltrating opposition groups (so far as we know). When an arrest turns out to be a mistake, they release the suspect.  Patel appears to have acknowledged that agents fired for being involved in the January 6 investigation were being treated unfairly, blamed his superiors for their being fired, and even encouraged them to sue.  And the FBI did genuinely good work in catching the Capitol Hill bomber and did not cut him a break for being a Trump supporter.  When confronted about this, Bongino answered, "I was paid in the past for my opinions. One day I will be back in that space but that's not what I'm paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts."  And, no, it is not great that Bongino thinks podcasters have no reason to show fidelity to the facts.  But at least he thinks law enforcement does have that obligation.  Yes, I know it is a low bar to clear, but just watch what ICE is up to and recognize that the FBI is not that.

Media control: My fears were somewhat outdated, focusing on attempts to control media by threatening advertisers. I did not understand the degree to which people get their news on social media and how much control of algorithms controls what people see.  I also feared attempts by Trump supporters to buy up media outlets, making mergers contingent on coverage, and perhaps censorship by the FCC.  The buying of out of outlets and politicization of mergers has certainly happened.  Bari Weiss is attempting to subvert CBS.  Many of us feared that big money owners of media like Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon Shiong of the LA Times would fall into line.  Well, the LA Times has been absolutely unsparing in reporting ICE outrages.  The Washington Post continues to say "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and to do fearless exposes.  (See below).  And the Administration continues to leak like a sieve.

The federal district and appellate level judiciary:  I think most of us feared what sort of judges Trump would appoint.  "Most of us" appears to include Federal judges, who have fearlessly and consistently ruled against Trump regardless of which President appointed them.  Very few have retired, presumably fearing just that, and most have apparently vowed to leave the bench only under a different Administration or in a coffin.  Of course, sooner or later one of those has to happen. . . 

Foreign policy:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  If democracy fell in the US, what chance did it have anywhere?  Instead, we are seeing some degree of a thermostatic reaction across Europe -- far right political parties losing popularity because of their association with Trump.  I feared Trump would withdraw from NATO and halt all aid to Ukraine.  That may yet happen, but it is happening in slow motion, which allows other countries to adapt.  I do think he did the right thing in recognizing the new government in Syria and seems to work better with Arab governments than any other President.

Things that are about what I feared:

Pardons:  Trump pardoned the January 6 defendants.  He said he would.  He is prepared to pardon anyone who supports him, bribes him, or claims to be persecuted by the Deep State.  Is anyone surprised?

Immigration:

I said at the 100 day mark:

I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches. . . 

Most of this had not happened at the time, but there had been a group of men deported without trial to a torture prison in El Salvador, with the threat of many, many more to come.  That was thwarted, but, well, the rest of it is very much with us.  What we are seeing now is very much what I most feared.

Prosecution of political opponents:  I believed this would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  There have been a few attempts to prosecute high level political opponents, and more numerous (but still not very numerous) attempts to prosecute First Amendment protected activity surrounding La Migara.  So far the independent judiciary has shot down all attempt to prosecute high-level opponents and most attempt to prosecute First Amendment protected activity.

Abortion;  I did not expect much action on this.  Trump does not care much about it and learned from the 2022 midterms that it was toxic.  So he has wisely stayed away from it.

Things that are worse than I feared:

Tariffs:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  I thought of them as something that could hurt the economy, but not a threat to democracy or the rule of law.  I was wrong.  First of all, thus far tariffs have not hurt the economy and especially have not increased prices as much as I expected.  But more importantly, wildly arbitrary tariffs have been a mechanism for bullying and coercing other countries.  They have also been a source of unaccountable money that can evade Congress's power of the purse strings.  Tariffs are much more dangerous than I realized and must be stopped.

DOGE:  Words fail me.  It certainly never occurred to me that Elon Musk would make a serious attempt to seize control of the government and institute a dictatorship of money and tech.  Nor did I anticipate how much completely random damage he would cause before moving on, or the extent to which he would truly stage a tech coup by shutting federal employees out of their computers and even out of their offices.  The attempt failed.  There may very well come a time when computer programs are good enough to let 89 tech bros take over the entire federal government.  But we are not there.  We are not anywhere close.  I think the government shutdown was one last attempt to create a dictatorship of money and tech, this time by Russ Vought.  It failed.  But the danger was very real, and so is the damage.  The damage is still very much with us.

Attacks on universities and law firms:  On the one hand, yes, I fully expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  It was what Orban did, after all.  It would be harder than in Hungary, obviously, because we have so many more universities, but I did expect it.  I think I expected the attack to take the form of attacks on college endowments and threats to their tax-exempt status.  It did not occur to me how much universities depend on federal grants and I had no idea how much the depend on foreign students.  And attacks on law firms never even occurred to me.

The Supreme Court:  I did not have much confidence in the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that Republican Presidents have an unrestricted license to crime but left a little wiggle room just in case a Democrat is ever able to be President again.  But I at least expected them to set forth their reasoning when upholding blatantly illegal actions instead of issuing emergency rulings that would allow the illegal acts to continue until full briefing and argument.

Health and science: Insane.  I honestly did not expect much movement on this.  RFK, Jr. is hard at work seeking to ruin our healthcare system and undermine science.

The budget;  I did not expect any serious cuts.  I expected the Republicans to follow their usual playbook of making a huge fuss about deficits so long as Democrats were in power and losing all interests as soon as they took power.  I did not take impoundment too seriously because it would be obviously unpopular.  I was wrong.  Republicans have not gone as far as they would like, but they have gone a lot farther than I expected.

Was Ice Barbie a grownup in the room?

The grownups in the room:  Like many people, I was much relieved when Trump named Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Suzie Wiles as White House Chief of Staff.  A President Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or even Chris Christie might have made the same appointments.  Pam Bondi as Attorney General?  Not great, but preferable to either Matt Gaetz or, say, Ken Paxton.  As Attorney General of Florida, she was presumably reasonably qualified and, though somewhat corrupt, did not seem insane.  As for Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, she met my two most important criteria for the job -- she was not Steve Bannon or Steve Miller.  Well, if Kash Patel was not as bad as I feared, the grownups in the room have proven completely useless.*  

Violence against protesters:  I was actually not too worried about this.  Apparently Project 2025 mentions use of the National Guard, which many have taken to mean shooting peaceful protesters.  I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this referred to actual violent riots.  And I was reasonably confident that the 2020 riots were an aberration, born of frustration with COVID lockdowns and would not recur.  And, indeed, there have been many large-scale protests in the first year of Trump with (almost) no riots.**  And the protests have not been met with violence except where La Migra is involved.  Here the violence has been serious -- teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and even live ammunition.  It seems to be the firm and settled position of the Administration that where La Migra goes, the First and Fourth Amendments are suspended. And, indeed, while there does not appear to be a systematic attempt to shut down the opposition in general, there does appear to by a systematic and violent attempt to outlaw any championship of immigrants.

Corruption:  Honestly, I didn't give this subject much thought, assuming we would have other things to think about.  And in one sense, at least, corruption to enrich one man is less dangerous than a systematic attempt to turn the federal government into a patronage instrument for one party.  Parties are a lot more enduring than individuals, after all.  But the extent to which Trump is basing pardons and policy on bribes is truly alarming.  I think I need to back and read articles about systematic corruption to see if we are there yet.

Foreign policy: Seriously, this has gotten alarming lately.  Trump appears to be hijacking Venezuela's oil to create is own private slush fund, and now a "Board of Peace," which appears to be a multi-billion dollar private slush fund to do who knows what.  And threats to start a war with NATO over Greenland?!?!?!  The man appears to be losing his mind!  This is one area that is both not as bad and worse than my fears.  And the worst part -- the not as bad part seems to have passed.  The worse part has just begun.

_______________________________________________
*Actually, I suspect that some day we will learn that some of them have actually been reigning him in, just not as well as the grownups from Trump 1.0.
**There were some significant riots in Los Angeles in June with cars burning and people waving the Mexican flag, but only within about two blocks of the federal building.  Bad, but not on a 2020 scale.

ICE Compared to DOGE: How Does it End?

 

It didn't take me too long to recognize that Elon Musk's rampage through the federal government was not sustainable and had to come to an end, albeit with great damage.  The same applied to the worst of Trump's tariff's -- the markets cracked the whip, and he retreated to tariffs that were merely damaging, rather than ruinous.*

I would like to think that the same rule applies to mass deportations, that deporting so much of our labor force will become so ruinous that it just has to stop.  But at the same time, Team Trump has invested so many resources in mass deportation, and Republicans are so committed to it that it seems hard to imagine them pulling back.

The case for pessimism

The One Botched, Bungled Boondoggle increases the budget for border enforcement from $34 billion to $168 billion -- nearly a five-fold increase.  This is approximately the combined total of all local police budgets in the US.  It also seeks to hire another 10,000 ICE agents, up from the current 20,000 and as much as a 13-fold increase in the detention and surveillance budget.  Many of these facilities are already built, so there will not be much delay.  And detention and surveillance will be a strong interest group fighting any cuts.  Firing tens of thousands of unionized federal employees is not politically feasible (although DOGE has set an interesting precedent here).  ICE has tasted blood and will be extremely difficult to reign in.  And this seems to be broadly desired by Republicans across the board, being offered as a spoonful of sugar to sweeten the bitter medicine if Medicaid cuts.  The only Republican to have questioned the expansion is Rand Paul, whose only objection appears to be a desire for greater accountability for the expense.  And when Trump briefly relented for farms and hotels he quickly reversed, apparently in response to Republican outcry.

Opinion polls are also revealing.  It appears that Americans believe that ICE has gone too far by 54% to 44%. But 80% of Republicans approve, with 31% even saying that ICE has not gone far enough.  So long as 80% of Republicans support ICE brutality, it will be very hard for Republicans to go against it.

In short, Republicans in general and Trump in particular have made mass deportations their signature policy, created a huge bloc of interests in mass deportations, have a rabid base, and will have great difficulty backing down.

The case or optimism

At the same time, sooner or later the economic consequences of deportations on such a scale will make themselves known.  At the same time, immigrants make up about 19% of the US labor force.  Yes, granted, many of them have legal status, but neither ICE nor hardcore Republicans seem to care.  Including undocumented only, Republicans are proposing to deport nearly a third of the workforce in construction, nearly half our workforce in agriculture, nearly a third of home health workers, and perhaps one out of four or five residential care workers.  Deporting so much of our workforce is going to be seriously disruptive and lead to growing pushback.  Donald Trump is showing signs of wavering, proposing exemptions for workers in agriculture and hospitality, though so far not following through.  Immigrant-heavy industries are beginning to experience labor shortages, especially in agriculture.

And now we are getting reports that even ICE is getting tired of this.  At least some ICE officers disapprove of their agency's lawlessness, although I think it is obvious that others love it.  But it does seem plausible that even agents who like the work are getting tired of starting at 4:00 a.m. and working weekends.  And even pushing so hard, ICE is still falling well short of Stephen Miller's goal of 3,000 arrests a day -- an average of 1,200 per day and only two days with 2,000.  The latest budget seeks to expand ICE's workforce by half -- from 20,000 to 30,000.  It seeks to more than double detainee capacity -- from 41,000 to 100,000.  Even with such an expansion, Miller's quota seems like a stretch. At the same time, this has not (thus far) led to widespread resignations or internal protests, and in the absence of such a response, discontent is not much use.  But it does suggests that the ICE rank and file might be more open to being reigned in than one might expect -- so long as the pressure from above relents.

What to Expect

Well, Elon Musk got kicked out when the rest of Trump's cabinet revolted.  All of them, no matter how rightwing, had actual work to get done and were tired of the disruptions.  Is there a chance of that happening here?  Other departments are being asked to divert more and more resources to deportations.  Some of them must be tired of being diverted from their normal missions.  A lot of employers, many of the Republicans, are getting frustrated with labor shortage.  And even Homeland Security is offering a sweetener to its threats -- the opportunity for anyone who self-deports to apply for readmission.  Tr

Sooner or later -- my guess is about 3-4 months, but that is purely a guess -- labor shortages will get so bad that the Team Trump will see no choice but to relent, at least in agriculture.  And if Trump relents in agriculture, how long can it be before other industries want in as well?  He has already proposed an exception for hospitality.  Construction and healthcare will also want in.  And no doubt others.  Trump has proposed to allow employers to "vouch" for their workforce to protect them from deportation.**  A few points are in order here.  

One is that this sounds terribly exploitive.  It makes it essentially impossible for a laborer to change jobs without a sponsor's agreement, and it allows employers to hold the threat of deportation over anyone they consider out of line.

At the same time, not all employers are purely exploitive.  Many will no doubt be willing to vouch for an employee purely as a protective matter.  In fact, I would expect that even if right wingers can eventually be brought around to such a system, they will be absolutely paranoid about fake certifications.

And finally, this will require at least some relenting in ICE's reign of terror.  An end to workplace raids at farms, obviously.  But ending workplace raids will be of limited value of employees can be arrested any time going to and from work, buying groceries, picking up children from school, attending church, etc.  Granted, ICE can continue random sweeps of these place.  But it will at least have to give people the opportunity to present proof of protection by an employer, and will have to respect such a certification.  That might even mean ending outrageous quotas in favor of a more targeted system.  And that, in turn, might require getting rid of Stephen Miller.

Hey, I can dream.

___________________________________________

*And now he is once again threatening ruinous -- starting August 1.  We will see how long that lasts.

**He raised the issue in agriculture only, but one can easily imagine a similar system in other industries.

Whoa!

 

So, with Elon Musk and Donald Trump fighting, should Democrats seek an alliance with Musk, as some have suggested?

On matters of policy, I would say no, absolutely not.  We are fighting the Trump budget on the grounds that it will strip millions of their health insurance.*  Musk's main problem with the bill is that it increases the deficit by not stripping enough people of their health insurance.  

On the other hand, the alarming side of the prospect of a Trump/Musk split has always been that one of them will win -- presumably Trump.  The prospect of Trump using the state to take down the world's richest man has a certain satisfaction, but it has alarming implications.  Hugo Chavez and Recep Erdogan both used fail coup attempts as pretexts to crack down on their opponents and consolidate their dictatorships.

Granted, we are not Russia.  Really we are not.  I am not in the least bit concerned that Musk will lead a private army against Washington, or that he will be killed in a mysterious plane crash.  But Steve Bannon has called for Trump to cancel contracts with Musk's companies, nationalize Starlink, strip Musk of his citizenship and deport him.**If the Trump Administration takes politically motivated actions against Musk or violates his rights, we must all champion him.  If the world's richest man is not safe, who among us can be?***

______________________________________
*And other reasons as well that I hope to write about, but this is the one with the most public pull.
**I can even see a reasonable case for some of these things.  There is widespread suspicion that Musk has used DOGE to increase his federal contracts at the expense of rivals which, if true, should be rolled back.  Many people have made the case that Starlink is too great a concentration of military power in the hands of a private citizen and should be nationalized.  And while I see no good reason to deport Musk for technical visa violations, it has been  happening to a lot of people lately and what's sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander.  But to the extent these things are politically motivated, they are extremely dangerous and must be fought.
***What do I make of Musk's allegations that there is incriminating material against Trump in the Epstein files?  Trump's friendship with Epstein, and his knowledge that Epstein likes 'em young are well documented.  Musk has had enough access to government at all levels that he might have some inside information.  On the other hand, Musk has a longstanding history of believing false and wildly paranoid things, so don't jump to any conclusions.

100 + Days of Substantive Policy

 

Those are my thoughts about the procedural aspects of the Trump Administration.  How do his substantive policies match up to my worst fears, and how do they compare to a smart authoritarian?  The most obvious policies are immigration, education and science, abortion, foreign policy, budget, and the economy, particularly tariffs.

IMMIGRATION

What I feared:  This was another area I was afraid could get really bad.  I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches in Aurora, Colorado.  I did see a distinct countervailing pressure against all of this -- the fear of widespread labor shortages if it went to far.

What has happened:  This is another case of just as bad but in a different way.  Trump has largely halted illegal border crossings and made some use of the military at the border.  So far he has not activated the National Guard for internal enforcement and local law enforcement has shown little interest in taking resources out of fighting street crime and putting them into arresting and holding border crossers who posed no threat to public safety.  But horrific things have happened that I did not anticipate.  ICE has been making arrests of people at routine check-ins at enforcement offices and even at a naturalization ceremony.  It has been seeking deportation of legal residents for political activity or traffic tickets.  And, of course, it has shipped over 200 men to indefinite imprisonment in El Salvador without and process.  And we are starting to see arrests of people -- including a judge and a mayor.  And now Steve Miller is threatening to suspend habeas corpus if courts continue to insist the immigrants are entitled to due process.  (Not within the first 100 days, I admit).  It is terrifying, though a different kind of terrifying than I feared.

What a smart authoritarian would do: I have no doubt that a smart authoritarian would close the border, as Trump has done. The overwhelming deluge on the border was a major reason for Trump's win.  Ending the deluge is altogether in line with Rule Number One of Smart Authoritarians -- stick to popular stuff until you have consolidated complete power.  A smart authoritarian would have a problem here.  A deluge on the border is a story.  The absence of such a deluge it not a story.  But he could at least somewhat overcome that problem by taking a tour of the border, doing photo ops with people who were deluged with border crossers and are no longer having that problem, and getting rightwing influencers to do more stories on the subject.  

No doubt a smart authoritarian would also expel foreign students for expressing political views that he disliked, and any other prominent and outspoken foreigner who opposed him, for that matter.  But it makes no sense to pick a fight with ordinary apolitical types who keep their heads down and conduct valuable scientific research or do jobs Americans don't want.  Especially if it caused labor shortages.  To the extent people are upset about hearing people speak a language they don't understand and recordings that say, "Para espanol, oprima dos," strong pressure to assimilate makes more sense.

But if a smart authoritarian feels that he absolutely must engage in mass deportations to sate his base's bloodlust, a smart authoritarian would first seek to whip of bloodlust outside the base.  Already these measures are beginning to spark a backlash -- and that is ever without serious labor shortages.  Trump has been making a major priority of saying that non-citizens have no right to due process, and pointing to the worst of the worst to justify the point.  But the opposite approach really makes more sense.  Although Trump grossly exaggerates the numbers of fentanyl smugglers, human traffickers, serious criminals and the like among migrants, no one is seriously disputing that a few such individuals really do exist.  Why not hold some highly publicized trials, with graphic details of real crimes?  If you want to stir up real hatred against immigrants in general, graphic show trials of real crimes seem like an effective way to do it.  It would unite that base and swing voters against immigrants and paralyze opponents, who can hardly defend such crimes, and reduce them to sputtering arguments that the defendants are not typical.  Granted, it may take some time to put together such a trial, but so what?  There is no need for hurry.  And presumably different cases are in different stages of preparation.  So much the better.  A series of show trials, one after another, will be more effective in whipping up hate than doing them all at once.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

What I feared:  This one was not on my bingo card.  I knew that Republican don't approve of college education.  They prefer trade schools and believe that studying humanities and social sciences is a frivolous luxury at best, and a source of dangerously subversive ideas at worst.  But I always assumed that Republican understood the value of STEM and favored things like, I don't know, cancer research.  I did expect the Trump Administration to use federal funds as a form of coercion in education.

What has happened:  Trump has put anti-vax lunatic who rejects the germ theory of disease as the Secretary of Health and Human Services and a New Age woo woo type for Surgeon General.  He is senselessly cutting off any health research that contains certain forbidden words about "diversity, equity and inclusion" and cut funding for cancer research and Alzheimers research.  This is in addition to the overall jihad against foreign students and scientists.  The US used to attract first rate students and scientists from around the world.  No longer!

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian would make something like Trump's crackdown on the independence of universities.  A smart authoritarian would also use federal funds as a means of coercion against schools to make them adopt his desired curriculum, or at least keep certain topics out.  And a smart authoritarian would no doubt expel foreign students who expressed dangerous political views, and probably any other foreign resident who did something to offend him.  But he would not attack cancer research or Alzheimer's research or generally come across as anti-healthcare.

ABORTION

What I feared: Trump has been studiously avoiding the issue of abortion, knowing how unpopular a ban is with the general public, even if the Party faithful favor it.  I fully expected him to avoid this hot potato and leave it to the states.

What Trump has done:  He has avoided this hot potato and left it to the states.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  Avoid this hot potato.  Vladimir Putin allows very lax abortion laws, knowing that a crackdown would be unpopular.  What's good enough for Pooty should be good enough for Trump.

FOREIGN POLICY

What I feared:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  Europe, Latin America, Israel, South Korea are all experiencing an erosion in democracy.  Countries that were never democratic, like China or Saudi Arabia, are becoming more autocratic.  We are also well into a second Cold War between an alliance between Russia and China (with China very much the senior partner) and the embattled democracies of the West.  I feared that Trump would switch sides and align us with the autocracies of the world against the democracies.  This would include withdrawing from NATO, halting all aid to Ukraine, encouraging Russian propaganda, and who knows what else.  I also assumed that democratic backsliding would rise or fall together -- if the US had overcome the anti-democratic forces, I expected other countries would follow our example.  If democracy failed here, what chance would it have anywhere else?

On the other hand, I absolutely was not afraid that he would start WWIII or a nuclear war.  In fact, when my anxiety about Donald Trump was at its height, I would look back to my fears of global thermonuclear was when Russia first invaded Ukraine and remind myself -- no matter how bad it gets, at least it won't be that bad.

What happened:  Well, one thing I did not take into account is what might be called foreign policy by Twitter trolling.  It did not occur to me that Trump would propose to annex Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal, and possibly Gaza, or that he would insist on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America or photoshop himself as Pope.  On a much more serious note, I also did not consider that possibility that he might overnight halt all foreign aid and condemn millions in Africa to death by starvation, AIDS and Ebola.  So that part has to be considered worse than my worst fears.

On the other hand, after showing a decidedly pro-Putin tilt in Europe, Trump is now showing signs of disillusionment and may end up adopted a more conventional pro-Ukrainian policy (or he might not.  You never know with the Donald).  And he may be preparing for a nuclear deal with Iran, probably not all that different from the one that he rejected -- Nixon to China and all that.  So Trump's foreign policy might not turn out so badly.

I also knew about the thermostatic effect in domestic politics, i.e., whatever policy is in effect provokes a backlash.  It did not occur to me that the thermostatic effect might go international, and that Trump's deliberate attempts to insult and demean democratic allies would lead to an international backlash against Trumpish parties.  The effect has not been universal.  Alternatives fur Deutschland continues to poll better and better.  The UK Independence Party made major gains in local elections.  But Trumpish parties suffered major reversals in Canada, Australia, and now the Papacy.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian bases foreign policy on one simple premise -- never lose a war.  Many an authoritarian has been brought down by losing a war.  Of course, the surest way to avoid losing a war is not to get into one in the first place.  Donald Trump came to power on a wave of war-weariness and seems to understand this rule and intend to avoid getting into any wars.  So long as he does that, I doubt that anyone but hardcore news junkies like me will care what he does in terms of foreign policy.

THE BUDGET

What I feared:  I never expected much to happen in this regard.  I expected the usual Republican   shuffle -- freak out about deficits as long as the Democrats hold the White House and lose all interest once a Republican is elected.  Also, tax cuts and military spending don't count toward the deficit.  To that you can now add deportation spending.  Also, I though Trump had learned his lesson from the attempt to repeal Obamacare and would avoid diving headfirst into a wood chipper by making serious cuts to mandatory spending.

What has happened:  Not much, at least in the first 100 days.  At least, not much in Congress which so far has limited itself to extending existing spending to the end of the fiscal year.  DOGE, of course, has engaged in massive layoffs and defunding of grants, causing maximal damage to government function with minimal actual savings.  What lies ahead is anyone's guess.  But a few facts remain.  

First, we have been running large deficits since 2001.  So long as interest rates have been low, these have been sustainable, but now that interest rates have gone up, these deficits are no longer sustainable.  That does not mean a catastrophic fiscal crisis, but it does mean that debt service will eat up a larger and larger portion of the budget, crowding everything else out.  Second, any meaningful cuts will be wildly unpopular.  And third, tax increases are against Republican orthodoxy, although it must be noted that that last has changed at least with respect to import taxes, and just might change in other regards as well.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  I would expect a smart authoritarian to kick the can down the road and refrain from any unpopular fiscal consolidation until after he had consolidated complete power.

TARIFFS AND THE ECONOMY

What I feared:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  To the contrary, I hoped Trump would bring on stagflation with ruinous tariffs.  My fantasy on this score ran to Trump combining the worst of his and Kamala Harris's policies -- slap heavy taxes on imports and respond to the resulting price increases with price controls and prosecutions for "price gouging."  It seemed like the most effective way for Trump to completely ruin is presidency, including splitting his base.  If I had any fears, it was of the grownups in the room prevailing and preventing such foolishness.

What happened:  Well, The Donald certainly hasn't disappointed in this regard.  After promising a 10% general tariff, with 60% on China and possibly 100% on car imports on the campaign trail, Trump has adopted and then dropped his insane "reciprocal"  tariffs and moved to a 10% general tariff with 25% on cars and145% (!) on China.  Wall Street understandably freaked out over the "reciprocal" tariffs so Trump, whose whole career has been based on bilking gullible rubes, has discovered that there are no rubes so gullible as the ones on Wall Street and has quieted the stock market by stringing them on with endless promises of a trade deal.  But I don't think painful realities can be denied forever.  West coast ports have seen a dramatic drop in cargo arriving.  Job losses are close at hand.  And these will not be confined to a single sector.  Companies have stocked up on inventory, but it will necessarily run out.  Over the next few months, we will see increased prices, or even empty shelves. And once Main Street starts feeling the pain, Wall Street can no longer be fooled.

I think it is also clear that Trump realizes his mistake and is looking for a face-saving way to retreat.  My guess is he will start his retreat once obvious pain appears on Main Street, probably in the form of carving out more and more exceptions to tariffs until nothing is left.  It has already started.  I don't know how long it will take for the pain to reverse.  Estimates I have seen are that it takes two weeks for ships to load up cargo and 2-3 weeks for them to cross the Pacific, and depleted inventory will not be restored overnight, so at least a few months.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian would take credit for a good economy and leave well enough alone.  Probably a smart authoritarian would do something about bird flu like vaccinating hens and importing more eggs.  I think that people would forgive high egg prices if they knew something was being done and relief was in sight.  Or, put differently, Trump has given us a circus, but forgotten the bread.

In short, Trump has been as bad as I feared on immigration, but in a different way.  He has been much worse on science, remains unknown on the budget, and is threatening to make complete hash out of the economy with his tariffs.  And all that in the first 100 days.  Hold onto your hats, who knows what comes next.

Trump Passed the 100 Day Mark -- How Democracy is Holding Up

 So, Trump has passed the 100 day mark, and everyone has been doing retrospectives.  At this point I am supposed to say that he has been worse than my worst fears.

But that is really not true.  The truth is that Trump has been worse than my worst fears in some ways, not as bad in other ways, and sometimes equally bad, but a different kind of bad.  At least one fear has not come to pass.  Trump is not a smart authoritarian.  He has not saved the unpopular actions until after consolidating power.  

Consider, then, my worst fears, Trump's actions, and the marks of a smart authoritarian.

ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

What I feared:  My worst fears assumed a Trump Presidency and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress which, of course, has happened.  I feared Congressional Republicans would summon all lobbyists and tell them to tell their clients that they had until a certain date to cease all donations to Democratic candidates, parties, and non-profits, and that any business making donations beyond that date would never see any legislation introduced into Congress.  They would also broadly hint that the prospects of getting any sort of legislation onto the floor would be proportional to donations to Republican candidates, parties, and non-profits.  

So far as I know, this would be completely legal.

The Administration would give similar instructions to government contractors.  Contracts would be awarded in proportion to donations to Republican candidates and causes and any donation to Democrats would mean an end to all government contracts.  That would violate Federal procurements law, and presumably at least some contractors would challenge the provisions as violations of procurement laws.  Trump would challenge the laws as unconstitutional infringements on the President's power and, given the history of the present Supreme Court, I would expect him to win.

I also feared he would direct the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to any non-profit that opposed him.  I also anticipated a lot of discriminatory enforcement of regulations based on companies' political donations, or on general ideological grounds.  

I feared the upshot of all of this might be that in the next election, Democrats would have their institutional donations cut off and their aligned non-profits shut down and be unable to compete.  Republicans would win a large landslide and cement their gains.

I also feared that Republicans, having succeeded and largely shutting down the Democratic parties and its non-profits might then start attacking companies that advertised in media outlets that criticized Trump or donated to college endowments.  I also thought that any serious attempt to shut down college endowments would generate enough of a backlash by people who either loved their alma mater or wanted their children to have the chance to go to college that it would fail.

And I expected the Trump Administration to use the threat of loss of Federal funds to bring state and local governments and school districts into line.

What has happened:  Nothing that systematic has happened.  And, quite honestly, DOGE has fired so many people and made such arbitrary denials of grants as to make such a systematic approach difficult.  

On the other hand, the Administration has made a systematic attack on the independence of universities.  It has threatened to withhold all federal funding from Columbia unless the university allowed the government to dictate its internal discipline procedures and take its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department into academic receivership for a minimum of five years.  It demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action based on race or ethnicity, institute affirmative action for conservatives, and submit all of these programs to federal oversight.  When Harvard refused to submit, Trump threatened its tax-exempt status.

I expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  After all Orban did the same.  I did not anticipate that Trump would respond to legal challenges to his actions by attacking elite law firms -- cutting off their security clearance, canceling their contracts, and barring them from government buildings.  Needless to say, this is a very serious threat to the rule of law.

And now most recently he has ordered a Justice Department investigation of Act Blue, the Democratic fundraising platform.  This looks very much like an attempt to defund the opposition.

In short, the game is young.  The so far the Trump Administration's attack on independent and elite institutions has been real, but less thorough-going than I feared.  But there is plenty of time to escalate.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian would combine Trump's actual actions -- attacks on universities, elite law firms, and Act Blue -- with my worst fears -- attacks on a wide range of other institutions as well, and attempts to cut off all Democratic funding.  I may have underestimated the difficulty and institutional safeguards preventing the line of attack I fears.  

But here is the thing.  A smart authoritarian would take care not to combine these attacks with unpopular actions.  While there is some evidence of disapproval of these actions, this is simply not the sort of thing any normal person is going to care about, or be out in the street protesting.  A smart authoritarian would make attacks of this kind and only hardcore political junkies would ever notice.

THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY

What I feared:  I feared Schedule F firings -- replacement of middle management and everyone with policy making power in favor of Trump loyalists.  I feared the subversion of the Federal bureaucracy into in instrument of Donald Trump's will that would entirely disregard the law.  I feared this would turn the executive branch into in instrument of one man's whims in the short run, and in the long run into a patronage instrument for promoting the fortunes of the Republican Party.

Certainly, I assumed that the Trump Administration would drop all employment discrimination cases except for allegations of discrimination against White people.  If, say Target were to sell trans-friendly baby clothes, or Bud Lite were to hire a trans influencer as a promotor, these things would be clearly protected by the First Amendment and government could not ban them outright.  But Trump appointees could harass the companies with a raft of wage and hour investigations and other discriminatory enforcement actions and investigations, to be dropped upon the company pulling the offending products and making a large donation to the Republican Party.

I feared the use of regulatory actions to harass political and ideological opponents.  And I feared the use of threats to funding as an explicit form of coercion, primarily of state and local governments, but possibly other actors as well.

What has happened:  In a word -- DOGE.  Instead of focusing on managerial employees, Elon Musk has been firing "probationary" employees -- anyone who was hired or promoted within the last year.  The point here is to avoid legal challenges because the "probationary" status makes such employees easier to fire.  DOGE has completely ignored the law when it comes to invading Federal agencies, hijacking computer systems, cutting off funds, and locking employees out -- both of the computer and the building.

Grants have been cut off for having words some computer program considered too DEI.  Employment and grant cuts have frequently shown no rhyme or reason, attacking everything from cancer research to national parks to weather forecasting, none of which seems particularly political or ideological.  There has also been use of funding cuts as a political weapon -- against universities or state school systems.

The problem, of course, is that firing in such a random, haphazard manner seriously disrupts operations without actually achieving anything (other than reducing the federal work force).  Services are being disrupted, grants are being cut off for no discernable reason, and such widespread firings are making weaponization of government more difficult instead of easier.

Then again, apparently the Administration has finally issued an executive order seeking to implement Schedule F and replace middle management with loyalists.  As of now it is way too early to know how that will play out.

In short, this is been worse than my wildest fears in terms of damage to government function, random harm to the wider society, and general lawlessness.  But it has also been much less targeted or systematic than I feared, with much less method to its overall madness.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian would choose Schedule F over DOGE.  A smart authoritarian would fire managers and replace them with loyalists, not smash things at random. A smart authoritarian would not fire park rangers, shut down weather stations, defund cancer research, and take other, obvious actions that would upset people.  Replacing middle management with loyalists might still hurt the quality of government services, but it would do so more slowly and subtly, such that most people would not notice anything was wrong until it was too late.

WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

What I feared:  Certainly I expected Trump to pardon all the January 6 rioters and generally use his office and the Department of Justice to shield political allies from all consequences.  I was not all that afraid of Trump arresting his political opponents because of the constraints of an independent judiciary.  There was some loose talk about martial law and deploying the military against citizens or to shoot protesters.  I was willing to give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they only  meant shooting violent rioters.  What I was afraid of what that the Administration would harass opponents with the IRS and regulatory actions.  I also feared that Trump would incited the Proud Boys and other militias against his opponents.

What has happened:  Not too different from my fears.  Certainly Trump has pardoned all January 6 defendants and shielded allies from prosecution.  He has made some scary comments -- challenging the validity of Biden's pardons, for instance, or calling for investigation of officials who said the 2020 election was not rigged -- but so far nothing has come of that.  Some of his more hardcore supporters are disappointed at the lack of action on that front.  Acting US District Attorney for DC Ed Martin has made a lot of threats, but nothing has come of them so far.  

What about weaponization of regulation?  Brendan Carr of the FCC has been harassing networks.  So far the media has held firm.  And, as discussed above, there is the threat to Harvard's tax-exempt status and the order to investigate Act Blue.  And there has been a great deal of use of federal funding as a tool of coercion, but this is different from weaponization of law enforcement or even regulatory agencies.

And then there is the matter of militias.  Certainly there are rumors that Republicans caved to Trump on appointments because of physical threats from militia.  That may be true, or it may not. Certainly judges have not been intimidated.  Widespread protests have taken place and not drawn violent attacks, either from the government or from militias.  A wide range of opponents operate in the open and without fear.  More on this later.

What a smart authoritarian would do:  A smart authoritarian would probably be more effective with regulatory harassment, but I think the Administration has generally been both smart and authoritarian here.

To be continued, in discussions of substantive policy.

Trying to Understand JD Vance's Social Vision

 

I will not waste any brain cells trying to discern the method to Trump's tariff madness.  There is none.  By contrast, I do think that some of Trump's advisor's have a semi-coherent vision that they are trying to execute.

The one that interests me most is JD Vance because he appears to be the closest to the working class populist MAGA appeal.  JD Vance has come out strongly against the post-WWII international order, saying that it does not serve the working class well, and proposing that we put something else in its place.  What he appears to have in mind is a much more nationalist vision, with a focus on each country as a self-contained unit having as little as possible to do with the outside world.

Two things are notable about Vance's vision.  Once is that it is a departure from the Republican Party's old ideology of economic royalism.  Vance does not think that either the free market or capitalists are infallible, and he is willing to allow government intervention on behalf of the working class.  The other is that it is a conservative vision in the sense of favoring depth over breadth in social commitment.  In fact, he appears to believe that the working class is best served by strong social cohesion, and that he sees breadth as a threat to depth and therefore to be excluded.

But how far does this go?

Hershel Walker often sounded like a sort of caricature of this viewpoint -- proposing a sort of hermetic seal around the United States that would stop China from breathing our clean air and keep China's pollution out of the US.  Vance, I have no doubt, is more sophisticated than that.  But his vision sounds like a milder version of the same.  But a lot is unclear.

One thing that is clear is that his vision is one of zero immigration. No family migration, no refugees admitted, no asylum claims.  Afghans who put their lives on the line assisting the US who face torture and execution by the Taliban will just have to find somewhere else to go.  And, so far as I can tell, no naturalization law, no permanent legal residents, no green cards, no work visa, no student visas, no admission of anyone except (presumably) foreign diplomats and tourists.  All  non-citizens should be expelled.  Any work that citizens are unwilling to do can be automated.  

He extends this view to Europe, urging Europeans to refuse admission to any non-Europeans and to expel "the enemy within."  Certainly Elon Musk has maintained the importance of each country keeping its own distinctive character.  Vance appears to agree.

This raises a number of questions.  Nationalists love to mock the liberal vision of all different ethnic groups living side by side in harmony and equality as impractical.  But the nationalist vision of neat lines across the map with only one ethnic group one each side of the line and no moving across is not all that practical either.  In any event, it is out of the question in the US.  At  most, we can halt all future immigration and push heavy measures for assimilation.  How far does Vance (or Musk) propose to take this in Europe?  Clearly he/they want to halt and reverse all non-European immigration.  Are there prepared to tolerate immigration within Europe, or should European countries harden their borders against each other as well?  Both men are notably hostile to the European Union, but is that just because it is friendly toward non-European immigration and other forms of "wokeness," or do they consider maintaining sharp border within Europe to be important?  And have they thought it through at all?

I don't think Vance's vision goes so far as to say no trade.  Even Trump has not formally committed to a policy of autarchy, although he appears to think we should never have a trade deficit with any country anywhere.  I assume Vance is more sophisticated than that.  But he clearly wants much less international trade.  In particular, he emphasizes the importance of everyone having their own manufacturing with good paying jobs.  Again, Vance is thinking mostly about the US which is, after all, a very large country.  One wonders if he would approve of much smaller European countries having more internal trade that would at least allow each country to specialize in a different kind of manufacturing, rather than require each country to go it alone.  (Maybe even some kind of common market).

But clearly he wants a lot of heavy industry and manufacturing with good-paying jobs in the US.  One gathers he is open to manufacturing jobs being union jobs and offering good health insurance and defined benefit pensions.  All this is a clear break with traditional economic royalism.  (More on that later).

This economic vision is closely tied to a social vision, mostly of increased social cohesion.  Central to this vision is that raising male wages will raise the marriage rate.  It assumes that women will be more inclined to marry and less inclined to divorce if men have good paying jobs -- especially if women don't have good paying jobs.  It is also hard not to see this as a way of discouraging college attendance, since it seems clear that the MAGA crowd sees college as something that makes people more liberal and therefore an evil to be prevented. It assumes that men will be less inclined to go to college if they can get a good paying manufacturing job with benefits right out of high school.  (How to keep women out of college is less clear.  The offer of jobs in the garment industry is unlikely to be much of an inducement).

And, in fairness to Vance, one can see other advantages in social cohesion here.  A manufacturing job that offers employment for men's full work life can promote social cohesion in many ways.  It offers enduring friendships with coworkers that may encourage association outside of work, either doing things together as individuals or in an organized fashion.  This is especially true if coworkers also belong to a union together.  And offering a long-term job encourages the workforce to stay in the same place and build strong neighborhoods, and stronger commitments to a long-term church, school, etc.

There is an obvious flaw in Vance's criticism of the liberal post-war international order in favor of a more cohesive, more nationalistic view of each country as a self-contained unit, preserving its unique character, admitting no immigrants, and building its own industrial base.  Such a system can flourish only if it follows another key precept of the liberal international order -- no redrawing of borders.  If countries make a habit of invading each other and annexing each others' territory, it is hard to see how each country can maintain its unique, stable, cohesive character.  People in border areas will either see their nationality change quite regularly, or else will be regularly ethnically cleansed to make way for some other ethnically cohesive, but geographically larger, country.  Either way, it is hard to see how the interests of either social cohesion or the working class would be served by countries invading each other and annexing territory.

I suppose Vance might say he agrees that countries should not invade their neighbors or annex territory.  But if that is the case, why is he so dead set against assisting Ukraine when it is being invaded by Russia, and why does he appear to support the US invading Greenland?  Here I suppose he might say that he likes the no invading part and is just opposed to alliances, which undermine a country's sovereignty by forcing it to other countries' interests into account.  

Or he might say that he likes the no-invading rule but doesn't see it as our place to enforce it.*  By this standard, the no-invading rule would stand, but each country would be on its own if actually invaded.  The result of that would be predictable.  Each country would have little choice but to build up its military to defend against invasion.  That would tend to promote domestic manufacturing, but at some cost to the standard of living.

Or, he might be honest and say that he favors invasions, but only by countries like Russia that uphold illiberal values.

____________________________________
*Or he might say that if I am so committed to countries not invading each other, what about the US invading Iraq and didn't that violate that rule.  And I agree, our invasion of Iraq did violate the no-invading rule.  I opposed it for that very reason.  

We Have Passed the Nazi Mark. Where do Things Stand Now?

 

Well, we have now passed the first 50 days of the Trump Presidency, so we are more than halfway to the 100 day mark.  Of course, that mark is more symbolic than substantive, but assuming that all administrations loose steam over time, there it is.  

We are also passed the 53 day mark that it took Hitler to end the Weimar Republic. How do we stack up?

I would say right now we have a dictatorship of money, tech, and computer access.  Hitler at this point had a dictatorship of police, prisons, and thugs.  Am I worried that we might end up there?  I absolutely am.  But we aren't there yet.

When I say that Trump is violating Rule # 1 of smart authoritarians -- save the unpopular stuff till after you have consolidated complete power -- some people say that these unpopular actions suggest that Trump has consolidated complete power.  Nonsense!  Things are absolutely scary, but Trump is far, far from consolidating absolute power.  

Do I worry that the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters will become Trump's own brownshirts?  I absolutely do, but it will take time for their numbers to build.  Do I worry that Trump will undercut press freedom?  Again, yes, but thus far our outlets -- including despised legacy outlets -- have been quite free in exposing what is going on.  

Other alarming events are underway.  Trump is attacking judicial review of his actions not (so far) by openly defying court rulings, but by denying security clearance and government access to firms opposing him.  He is moving against immigrants -- even green card holders -- in an alarming fashion.  He is using threats to withhold funding in an attempt to coerce policy at universities.  And, perhaps scariest of all, the FBI is seeking to freeze funds and pursue possible criminal fraud charges against any non-profit that accepted Biden-era funds related to climate change.  So, yes, things are scary.

At the same time, I am seeing protests all across the country.  I am not seeing Proud Boys breaking them up.  I am seeing our press continue to expose what is going on.  I am seeing judges rule against the Trump administration time and time again.  I belong to Indivisibles and watch it operating openly, posting pictures to social media.  I am seeing ever growing meetings in local restaurants, whose owners are happy for the business.  I am seeing cars honking their approval when we hold a protest.  I don't think I would see these things at this stage of the game in Nazi Germany.  

Obviously the game is young yet.  A lot can happen over the next four years.  Still, I read over the article on how Hitler ended democracy in just 53 days.  Short version -- the Reichstag fire made a huge difference.  We haven't had a Reichstag fire.  (Some acts of vandalism at Tesla dealerships just aren't comparable).  

I prepared a table and, lest anyone say it shows some alarming parallels, my answer can only be yes, I was deliberately seeking to draw them.  Trump has some advantages over Hitler, most notably, the ability to choose his own cabinet.  But he also has some signal disadvantages.  The biggest one -- nothing even close the Hitler's Brown Shirt army.  At least not yet.  And, once again, his ability to recruit Brown Shirts is going to track with his popularity.

Hitler	Trump
Successfully paralyzed government until it admitted him as chancellor	Successfully paralyzed the Republican Party until it nominated him and did his bidding
Held 37% of seats in the Reichstag as part of a coalition that held 51% of total seats.  Leftwing coalition of Social Democrats and Communists held 38%, Catholic parties held the remainder.	Held a 220-215 majority in the House and 53-47 majority in the Senate.  Democrats or independents caucusing with Democrats held the remainder.
All but two cabinet posts given to coalition partner to reign Hitler in.  One was minister of the interior, in charge of police, federalism, and elections	Full authority to choose cabinet, subject to Senate confirmation.  Senate intimidated into confirming at least three dubious picks.
Goering moved in on Prussian head of police, took over police, authorized them to shoot on sight as real or alleged Communists.  Political opponents arrested.	Elon Musk’s DOGE moved in on many agencies, locked out senior civil servants, shut off funds at will, fired probationary employees.
Goering deputized Prussian Brownshirts with police powers.  Number: About 2 million nationwide, many not in Prussia.	US Marshals deputized Musk’s bodyguard with police powers.  Number: Unknown, but obviously much less.
Courts order release of political opponents.	Courts order release of funds, reinstatement of employees.
Called new elections, hoping to expand his position in the Reichstag.	Appointed three Republicans in the House to executive positions necessitating special elections.  Two Democrats in the House died necessitating more special elections.
Reichstag building burned down, apparently by a lone crazed Communist, emergency decree suspending civil liberties.	Acts of vandalism against Tesla dealerships; AG vows to prosecute them as domestic terrorism.
Communist Party banned, leaders of Communist Party and Social Democratic Party arrested, opposition newspapers shut down.	Spurious defamation suits against various outlets, Associated Press barred from press conferences.  Firing everyone involved in prosecuting Trump, thus-far empty threats of prosecution against a few Democratic leaders.  Private law firms representing opponents denied security clearance and access to government buildings.
Elections 5 days after Reichstag fire, turnout increased by 2 million, most of those votes go to Nazis.  Nazis win 44% of vote, Communists banned, Social Democrats lose only one seat, right wing parties gain a 2/3 majority.	Special elections for Congress not held yet; since all vacant seats are safe seats, unlikely to change composition.  Some swing toward Democrats in state and local special elections.
March 6, Nazis seize state government buildings across the country, tens of thousands of opposition leaders arrested, others flee for their lives.	Freeze all climate-related grants under the Biden Administration and prosecute non-profits receiving grants for fraud.
March 21, all Nazis convicted of crimes advancing Hitler’s fortunes amnestied.  Tens of thousands of arrested political opponents imprisoned in makeshift facilities that become concentration camps.	All January 6 defendants, including violent ones, pardoned on day 1.  (Some have since been rearrested for state crimes or killed by local police).
Jew barred from government employments and professions, attempts to deport all Jewish immigrants stall for now.	All mention of achievements by minorities removed from government websites.  Alarming to strip permanent legal residents of status and deport them, for very minor crimes or expressing pro-Palestinian views.
March 23, Reichstag meets to vote on law giving Hitler dictatorial powers for the next four years.  Communist deputies arrested to prevent them from voting.  Social Democratic leader returns from exile to speak out against the bill, another Social Democrat released from arrest to allow him to vote.  Some other parties express doubts and reservations; all but Social Democrats vote in favor.	Trump pressures all but on House Republican to approve a budget that continues prior funding with minimal reductions but allows Trump/Musk to withhold funds at will.  On March 14, all but one Republicans Senators and 10 Democratic Senators vote to approve the budget.