Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Who Is Really Running the Federal Government? Hint, It’s Not Donald Trump

Opinion

Who Is Really Running the Federal Government? Hint, It’s Not Donald Trump

US Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

For a president who likes command and control, Donald Trump certainly says “I don’t know” a lot when asked questions about what is going on in the federal government he supposedly leads. His latest “I don’t know” came on July 22 in response to a reporter’s question about whether he “support(ed) the DOJ seeking an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell,” the former girlfriend of the notorious Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don’t know anything about it. They’re gonna what? Meet her?” said Trump. Trying to help out, the befuddled president, the reporter explained, “The deputy attorney general has reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney, asking for an interview.”


Trump repeated, “Yeah, I don’t know about it, but I think it would be something—sounds appropriate to do, yeah.” Asked whether Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche should conduct the interview, the president again confessed his ignorance. “He’s a very talented person, he’s very smart. I didn’t know he was going to do it, I don’t follow it too much, it’s sort of a witch hunt.”

Before examining some of Trump’s other “I don’t knows,” and what they tell us about whether the president is really running the government, let’s recall the many occasions on which he accused former President Joe Biden of not being in charge.

For example, in June, Trump said of Biden, "He didn't have much of an idea what was going on. He shouldn't be ... I mean, essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president. And that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad, and then it's so disrespectful to our country," Trump said.

As ABC News reports, “Shortly after Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office."

In June 2024, at the time Biden dropped out of the presidential race, Trump said, “All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t.”

And in March of that year, Trump offered this assessment of his predecessor. “He has no clue, like with the documents hoax. How about that? He’s not competent to stand trial, but he’s allowed to be the president.”

No clue? For a president who so frequently says he doesn’t know about things the government is doing, no clue might be an apt description.

Recall that during the 2024 campaign, “I don’t know anything about it” was his standard answer when he was asked about Project 2025. On one occasion, he explained, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying, and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

"I don't know anything about it. I don't want to know anything about it," could have been his campaign slogan.

But the “I don’t knows” did not end when the campaign ended and Trump began his second term.

In May, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked the president whether people subject to deportation had a constitutionally protected right to due process of law. Trump’s reply had a familiar ring to it. “I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” he said.

Welker pressed the question, “Do you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” “I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

The president simply doesn’t understand his legal obligations. That was made clear in May as well.

During an Oval Office press availability, he was asked, “Is the administration sending migrants to Libya?” Given the importance of immigration and deportation policy to his administration, one might have thought this would be an easy question.

Not for the president. “I don’t know,” he responded. “You’ll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.”

On May 7, Trump was asked about Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s discussion of possible tariff exemptions for certain consumer goods. Tariffs are another key area of administration policy.

But no change.

“I don’t know, I’ll think about it,” the president said. “I don’t know. I really don’t.”

And recently, when asked, “Why do you think your supporters in particular have been so interested in the Epstein story?” The president again professed ignorance.

“I don't understand…. I don't understand it.”

As MSNBC’s Steve Benen has rightly observed, “Most objective observers would probably agree that if Joe Biden repeatedly said, ‘I don’t know’ in response to simple questions about his own administration, it would be front-page news.”

Since the president returned to the White House, it has not been.

Nor has the press paid much attention to how little time President Trump spends at work. A website that tracks his golfing habits reports that as of July 25, he “has golfed 43 days out of 187 days since returning to office (23.0% of the presidency spent golfing).”

He spent eight of April’s 30 days on the golf course and eight of May’s 31 days there as well.

Even when he is in the White House, the president devotes enormous amounts of time to what is politely referred to as “executive time.” During that time, he is not in the Oval Office or doing official business.

In his first term, such executive time meant that he spent “his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials, and informal advisers.”

In 2019, Newsweek explained that “Trump Spends Two-Thirds of his Time as President Doing Nothing in Particular.” With this schedule, it is no wonder that the president appears to be unfamiliar with his policies, constitutional duties, and the actions of his subordinates on his behalf.

Delegation is one thing; indifference is another.

What the columnist Steve Chapman wrote early in the president’s first term remains true today. “Much of Trump's cluelessness about issues,” Chapman argued, “stems from his refusal to make more than a minimal effort at his job…. “

Trump, Chapman continued, “is not merely too lazy to learn; he's too lazy to notice there is anything others know that he might need to. His is indolence on an epic scale.”

Democratic governments can work well when power is delegated by political leaders who remain attentive and accountable. But a leader’s laziness, indifference, and ignorance are a toxic brew in any government, but especially in one as powerful as our own, and where the people entrust much of that power to the president.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less