Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Tag: donald trump

'Critical Deadline': More Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Trump's Unpopular War

Today marks "a critical deadline" for President Donald Trump and his war with Iran, as The Hill reports that he is running out of time to resolve the conflict while more and more Republicans break ranks and threaten to back measures to force the fighting to stop.

As the deadline loomed, the outlet on Friday morning reported that the milestone now "stands to complicate things" with lawmakers, including a growing number of Republicans, who have "voiced concerns" about the war continuing. Per the War Powers Act, the president requires authorization from Congress for a military conflict after it reaches the 60-day mark, which it will do on May 2, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed, dubiously, that the ongoing ceasefire paused the clock on that count.

"And such concerns already played out ahead of the deadline, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on Thursday breaking rank to vote in favor of a war powers resolution to halt military actions against Iran, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)," The Hill reported. "The resolution however, was ultimately defeated for the sixth time by Senate Republicans. Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) had previously indicated that the 60-day deadline would be a sticking point for him did not break with the GOP in the latest vote."

The White House has insisted that talks with Iran are continuing to progress, but The Hill noted that negotiations are "effectively stalled" as Trump digs in on his decision to blockade Iranian ports in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A statement from the administration also warned lawmakers against trying "to score political points by usurping the Commander-in-Chief’s authority" via a war powers vote, despite Congress having the explicit authority to do so.

"The War Powers Act intends to limit a president’s ability to conduct and continue military action without congressional approval," the outlet added. "Should the hostilities continue past Friday, however, it could prove to be another example of how the president takes another opportunity to bypass the legislative branch’s powers."In keeping with Trump's own assertions about the war, House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that a war powers vote was not needed because, he claimed, the U.S. is not actually at war with Iran.

John Ullyot, a former spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee and National Security Council spokesman during Trump’s first term, suggested that historical precedent is not on Congress's side, despite the letter of the law.

"Almost every President who has used force over the last 45 years has ignored the 60-day deadline, so it’s hard for Congress to make a case to enforce it this time around,” Ullyot told The Hill. "If Congress were serious about having a voice on hostilities, it would either change the law, or get serious about its oversight responsibilities and withhold funding when the executive doesn’t cooperate. Neither of those will happen, especially whenever Congress is run by the same party that holds the White House."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

I've always been both a small-r republican and an Anglophile, so I looked upon the British monarchy with at least a pinch of smug superiority. The Windsors are revered for nothing more than birth — not talent, nor accomplishments, nor virtue. It's all a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, when people were not mature enough for representative democracy.

I wasn't feeling smug as I watched King Charles III address Congress the other day. Quite the opposite. Though I remain a small-r republican, I couldn't help but be embarrassed at what we supposedly mature, self-governing Americans have wrought.

Seated behind Charles were the vice president and speaker of the House, among the highest officers of the land. But befitting our descent from mature self-government, they were both bedecked in the MAGA uniform — blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Everything about them — every word, every gesture and even their clothing — attests to their fealty to their liege lord. Ditto for more than half of the representatives and senators in attendance. While they didn't all wear the uniform (they weren't on camera), the Republicans in Congress have surrendered their self-respect and independent judgment to the man who would be king. They are far more subservient to Trump than any member of Parliament is to Charles.

Trump revels in the servility of his vassals. The White House tweeted a picture of the two men with the caption "two kings." Yes, this tweet is partly a troll to enrage the "libs," but frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Trump aspires not just to be a king but to be a god-emperor. Look around — the massive Trump banners defacing official buildings, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute of Peace, the coins, the proposed triumphal arch, the Trump ballroom, the reflecting pool (which will now look like Mar-A-Lago north), the new passports, the Trump class battleships, the national park passes, to say nothing of sidelining Congress, disregarding court orders, making unilateral war, and attempting to criminally prosecute his critics — all of it flagrantly un-American. And this from the party that garlands itself in flags and showy patriotism.

King Charles had a tricky task. His government (did you notice the way he referred to Kier Starmer as "my" prime minister?) and our other European allies are both horrified and scared about what Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship. They've been adopting different tactics — concessions, flattery, toughness — to deal with the unhinged president who has stooped even to threatening military action against a NATO ally. Are the British questioning the "special relationship" with the United States?

Oh, yeah. In contrast to King Charles' soothing words, the Financial Times reports that Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Christian Turner, told a visiting group of students in early February that the phrase "special relationship" was "quite nostalgic, quite backward looking" and that the only country that currently enjoys a special relationship with the United States is "probably Israel." He did add that "there is a deep affinity between us, particularly on defense and security," but the message was clear. Trump has strained, if not quite ruptured, relations.

The king's visit can thus be interpreted as one more effort by the spurned Europeans to keep Trump on their side. Starmer, aware of Trump's imperial pretensions, played the "King Charles" card. The pomp, the state visit, the photo ops, and the speech to a joint session of Congress are all in service of both flattering and taming the disordered president.

King Charles, despite his title, is not free to say what he thinks. And yet he managed, subtly, to convey his awareness of the threat Trump poses not just to the relationship with the United Kingdom but to the values on which the Euro-American relationship is based. Referring to the shared legal traditions of the United States and Great Britain, he said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances."

The King also mentioned September 11, and reminded his audience that it was the first and only time that NATO invoked Article V. The allies came to our aid, not the reverse — a pointed rebuke to the president who has repeatedly disparaged Europeans' contributions to NATO and to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then added, "Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people."

The king's speech closed with an invocation of Abraham Lincoln (hard to top), and a prayer:

"I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

We all know who is issuing those clarion calls. One of the callers hosted the state dinner, and another was sitting over his right shoulder. The actual king has never looked better than in contrast to the American pretender to a throne.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators

Now It's The Fed Chair's Choice: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the Clash had those numbers right re the trouble ratio if he stays or if he goes. But it did seem to be the relevant hook.

Now that the pathway for replacing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with Trump’s nominee, Kevin Warsh, was cleared yesterday, I expect Warsh’s nomination to quickly get out of committee and over to the Senate floor, where he should have no problem getting a majority (he may not get any D votes, but he doesn’t need them). He could then take over the chair in mid-May, when Powell’s term as chair ends.

Why the bold above? Because even though Powell’s term as chair ends, his term on the Fed board doesn’t end until January ‘28. The norm, however, is for Chairs to leave the building once their Chair term ends, with, as far as I can tell, one exception: when Marriner Eccles stepped down from the Chair in 1948, he rolled over to the Fed board for another few years.

In this case, if Powell stayed on, Miran would have to resign to make room for the newly minted Chair Warsh to take over.

A number of folks, including commenters here, have argued to me that, in the interest of protecting this critically important institution and the economy itself from Trump’s destructive influence, Powell should emulate Eccles. I certainly understand their argument, but I’m not wholly there. I’ll explain my thinking, but only briefly, because this is Powell’s call and there’s nothing anyone can tell him about this that he doesn’t know. (Read Nick Timiraos in the Wall Street Journal this morning for a comprehensive treatment of the stay/go question, with strong stay-vibes from former Fed economist David Wilcox, who knows more about the inner workings and history of the institution than most).

The motivation for stay, Jay, stay! is understandable nervousness about Warsh’s independence from Trump, a concern I share and have written about in recent days. Powell has been a fierce defender of such independence and thus his presence, especially absent Miran, who has consistently voted, often alone, for the rate cuts Trump wants, would be reassuring in that regard.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Powell’s staying on the board would yield better, more balanced, and more independent-from-Trump monetary policy, which would in turn be better for the U.S. and even the global economy. But there are two countervailing factors.

First, Powell has earned the right to do whatever he sees fit. He’s delivered consistently thoughtful, carefully explained, effective monetary policy in 14 years of service, eight of which he was chair. And many of those years were under Trump (who, for the record, reappointed him), wherein he got more presidential harassment than any Fed chair in history, from daily badgering and name-calling, to a phony criminal inquiry.

To be clear, our hearts should not over-bleed for him. He also had one of the coolest jobs in the world, backed by a deeply talented staff and some very smart colleagues on the board. You take the bad with the good. But the point is he served admirably, and has not only pulled rabbits out of monetary-policy hats—the post-pandemic soft landing, which many tony economists said couldn’t happen—but stood up to Trump and preserved the Fed’s independence. He’s earned the right to make whatever next move he desires.

But second, and I know not everyone will share this take, Warsh deserves the chance to establish himself as the new chair without the old chair hanging around. Readers know that I fear where he’s going with his new gig, but under the assumption that he’s legitimately confirmed in coming days, he has the right to takeover and begin to put his imprimatur on the joint.

If Powell should decide otherwise, i.e., that, as Wilcox argued in the Timiraos Wall Street Journal piece, the institution should at least initially be protected from Warsh’s unencumbered leadership, or, for that matter, that he (Powell) is still at risk of prosecution from the bullshit inquiry that Trump cooked up, I’ll of course support his decision.

But the norm of the Chair stepping down is a norm for a good reason: clearing the path for the new Chair is good for the institution. Of course, independent monetary policy is also very good for the institution, so there are good arguments on both sides.

Luckily, there’s only one person who has to make that call. And his call will be the right one.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Lara Trump Blasted For Claiming Presidency Made 'Good-Hearted' Father-In-Law Poorer

Critics on social media were not buying Lara Trump’s pity party for President Donald Trump. They particularly did not care for her claim that Trump would have an easier time of things were he not president.

“Lara Trump was slammed for claiming her father-in-law’s life would be better if he weren't President of the United States,” reported RadarOnline.com. “Lara, 43, who is married to Donald Trump's son Eric, said in a recent interview that the business mogul has been punished financially by getting into politics – even though his net worth has climbed to $6.5billion from $2.6 billion in little over 14 months.”

“I wish people would appreciate how much easier Donald Trump’s life would’ve been if he'd never gotten involved in politics,” Lara Trump claimed on the podcast of Katie Miller, the wife of Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller. “He's the one President to leave the White House with less money than he went into it with. He’s had zeros come off his net worth because he ran for president.”But RadarOnline and other critics fact checked Lara Trump on the spot, with RadarOnline pointing out that “Donald Trump and his family made over $4 billion since he took office.”

“You cannot be serious. Unplug your head from Trump’s a——," said one critic on X, while another called her assertion “Absurd.”"Lara, you are f—— delusional,” wailed another on X, while a third called her claim “a complete lie. Trump is using the presidency to become richer.”

“Our [lives] would be so much better, too,” said another critic on X. “ … [M]aybe he should just quit now.”

“But [Trump is] a genuinely good-hearted person," Lara Trump added, while ignoring the fact that Trump threatened to extinguish the entire civilization of Iran on Easter and destroy their energy infrastructure.Lara Trump's claims stand in stark contradiction to documented financial realities.

Beyond the $4 billion accumulated by Trump and his family since taking office, investigative reporting has revealed specific mechanisms through which the presidency has enriched the Trump organization [including her husband Eric's firm recently winning a $24 million Pentagon deal}.

Foreign leaders and wealthy donors have funneled money into Trump-branded properties, investment funds, and business ventures at unprecedented rates. The World Liberty Financial crypto fund alone secured a half-billion-dollar investment from UAE officials shortly before Trump's inauguration—a transaction that coincided with the White House granting advanced AI chip access to the Emirates.

Meanwhile, Trump has collected hundreds of millions from corporate donors and wealthy individuals for vanity projects including a proposed presidential library, ballroom renovation, and triumphal arch, with tens of millions of those funds remaining unaccounted for. The assertion that Trump sacrificed financially for public service ignores the systematic weaponization of the presidency for personal enrichment.

Additionally, Trump's threats of genocide against Iran, his illegal war that has destabilized global markets and cost American consumers billions in increased energy costs, and his various corruption scandals paint a portrait of a president whose time in office has been characterized by personal gain at the expense of national stability and democratic norms. Lara Trump's narrative of victimhood rings hollow against this documented record.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

World

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

'Critical Deadline': More Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Trump's Unpopular War

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

Now It's The Fed Chair's Choice: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Lara Trump Blasted For Claiming Presidency Made 'Good-Hearted' Father-In-Law Poorer

Shop our Store

Constitution Cork Coaster

Democracy Mug

Make America Think Again Hat

Constitution Rocks Glass

Headlines