Was the war in Ukraine inevitable? What is Vladimir Putin trying to achieve? What does the conflict say about Ukraine as a democracy? Those are just a few of the questions Michael Berkman explores this week with Donna Bahry, professor emerita of political science at Penn State and an expert in Soviet and post-Soviet politics and democratization.
CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 20, 2025 in Oxon Hill, Maryland.
Colorful billionaire and presidential adviser Elon Musk sparked quite a reaction at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington last week when he leaped around the stage waving a chainsaw.
“This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy. CHAINSAAAW!” he exclaimed. "Uwaaauwaargh!"
That’s Elon. Always ready to light up an adoring crowd.
As the CPAC audience settled down, Newsmax talking head Rob Schmitt asked Musk what it feels like to "absolutely shred … the government — the swamp — whatever you want to call it."
It’s cool, Musk said (according to a transcript published by The Verge). It’s awesome. "We’re … trying to get good things done, but also, like, you know, have a good time doing it and, uh, you know, and have, like, a sense of humor."
The "good things" Musk and his minions at DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, are doing consist of cutting government payrolls, canceling contracts and apparently aiming to "delete" (Musk’s word) whole federal agencies.
The most visible fruits of their efforts have been large reductions in force, or RIF in government-speak: layoffs, furloughs and terminations of thousands of Americans who work in the public sector.
What’s less apparent so far is the effect these RIFs will have on potentially millions of Americans who count on services from the targeted government offices and agencies. For example, the Internal Revenue Service began laying off some 7,000 employees Thursday, according to the AP. While tax cheats across the nation will no doubt take comfort, tax filers who need customer service in the upcoming tax season are possibly in for some major frustration.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
DOGE’s purported goal is to rid the government of waste, fraud and abuse. And who wouldn’t want to do that? It’s been a standard political mantra of both parties for a long time. The worry is that it’s a cover for other ulterior motives.
The problem I have with the Trump administration’s RIFs is the manner in which they have been carried out, which is too fast, too indiscriminate and utterly lacking accountability or oversight, not to mention the question of legal authority.
DOGE is acting so fast and sowing so much chaos that it’s difficult to grasp the nature and scope of its operations. It’s also difficult to find out who besides Musk is calling the shots.
Musk and Trump claim to have found thousands of cases of rampant waste and fraud, yet DOGE has been suspiciously light on details about its accomplishments or effectiveness.
DOGE has claimed to have cut $55 billion in government spending already, but an analysis by Yahoo Finance finds the figure is closer to $8.5 billion.
And some of the claims Trump and Musk have made about DOGE’s work don’t hold up to scrutiny. They claimed repeatedly last week that DOGE found Social Security beneficiaries who were hundreds of years old. The claim is based on a misunderstanding, perhaps willful, of how COBOL, the programming language used by the Social Security Administration, deals with files lacking birth dates. SSA’s new acting commissioner explained Wednesday that dead centenarians were "not necessarily receiving benefits," according to AP.
Yes, I still cite the AP, which remains one of the most reliable news organizations on the planet, even though Trump bars the agency from presidential events for refusing to use “Gulf of America,” his new made-up name for the Gulf of Mexico. So much for freedom of the press.
Another embarrassing development boiled up last week when DOGE actions resulted in more than 300 staffers fired at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as part of Department of Energy layoffs.
Apparently somebody later realized that retaining those hundreds of experts, with the required security clearances, would be more than a little useful — critical, actually — to managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile, CNN reported.
Fortunately, some members of Congress petitioned Energy Secretary Chris Wright to rehire the workers, and most were reinstated once they could be found, despite having had their telephones cut off.
It’s almost as if haste makes waste.
Anyhow, the chaos sown by DOGE has done little if any damage to the president’s approval ratings so far. According to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll last week, 45 percent of Americans say they support what the president has done during his first month in office, while 53 percent say they disapprove.
On the question of whether the president has exceeded his authority since taking office, 57 percent said he had. Yet Trump has so conditioned us to be shocked, or at least surprised, by his excesses (pardoning all of the Jan. 6 offenders, including those who confessed to beating police, is a prize-winning excess in my view) that it may take more than the usual affronts to turn the electorate against him.
Still, only 35% of respondents in the Washington Post-Ipsos poll deemed Trump "honest and trustworthy." And they’re even less sure about Musk. Only one in four (26%) approve of him shutting down government programs.
At this point, Musk and Trump are rolling out a fast and furious agenda, and most Americans can only look on in awe.
Good luck with that, Mr. President, but be careful. At some point the dust will settle, and American voters will be able to check your work. And they might just hold you accountable.
Clarence Page: Voter’s remorse? Not much, but give it time was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission. Clarence Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist, and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump arrive for the inauguration ceremony in the U.S. Capitol rotunda in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.
With all the attention deservedly on President Trump and what he intends to do with his defiant return to the White House, there’s a more than good chance we’ll spend the next four years consumed once again by all things Trump.
There’s already been a dizzying amount: a giant raft of executive orders; attacks on a constitutional amendment; his threats to invade sovereign nations; a seeming Nazi salute from one of his biggest surrogates; his sweeping Jan. 6 pardons; his beef with a bishop; his TikTok flip-flop; his billion-dollar meme coin controversy; scathing new allegations against one of his Cabinet picks; unilaterally renaming a body of water; a federal crackdown on DEI; promises of immigration raids across major cities. All this in just the first three days of Trump’s second term.
And this may be his greatest trick — getting not only his own fans and supporters to obsess over him, but his critics and opponents, too.
He does that by flooding the zone — he is never not talking, posting, pointing fingers, ranting, raving, and keeping us all in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
The problem with that is that so much gets missed. For Republicans, that often inures to their advantage, as they get to slip significant policy changes past an unsuspecting public, or bury bad news under the pile of Trump’s ever-mounting detritus.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But for Democrats, four more years of Trump distractions could mean they miss yet another opportunity to fix their own house, and mount a serious and convincing challenger to end what could be 12 more years of Republican rule in Washington.
They need to find their Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s first term was marked by unprecedented chaos, and Dems admittedly got lured into Trump’s expanding web of distractions. While they busied themselves with investigations and hearings in order to make Trump as weak a president and candidate in 2020 as possible, they weren’t as focused on identifying and cultivating a Democratic candidate, a Democratic message, and Democratic policies that could deliver a fatal blow to the Trump era once and for all.
Over the course of Trump’s first term, his approval rating was never above water, fluctuating between a low of 35% and a high of 49%. After a term marked by civil unrest, incompetence, moral and ethical failures, conspiracy theories, extremism, mismanaging COVID-19, and overseeing Republican losses in the House and the Senate, America was decidedly tired of Trump’s ineptitude and self-destructiveness.
Joe Biden emerged from a crowded 2020 Democratic primary and a general election not with a political mandate but with a collective sigh of relief — he was elected to turn the page on Trump, and then (hopefully) pass on the torch to a younger, fresher, forward-looking Dem.
That, as we know, did not happen. Not only didn’t Biden want to pass the torch, but Democrats didn’t seem to want to architect a winning platform of dynamic messages and successful policies to keep their existing coalition and attract new voters.
Instead, they stuck with old messages that largely centered around Trump: he’s anti-democratic, he’s a convicted felon, and he’s going to end access to abortion.
They also boasted of demonstrably failing policies, insisting the economy was strong as hell, the border wasn’t a crisis, and crime was down.
Without a candidate, messages, or policies that transcended Trump, Democrats were once again playing Trump’s whack-a-mole game.
Instead of finding their own Ronald Reagan, an enormously popular president who not only transformed the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but America and in fact the world, Dems found a Jimmy Carter — a well-intentioned man whose messages and policies nevertheless inspired little confidence in the party.
Instead of setting off 12 years of party control like Reagan did, Dems eked out just four, and now risk finding themselves in the political wilderness.
Democrats must find their Reagan now — a candidate whose utility isn’t just to temporarily sideline Trump but vanquish him and his would-be successors for good.
Who that might be is both an open question and a problem. Democrats’ abject failures in places like California, New York and Chicago shine an ugly spotlight on some of the party’s biggest faces and worst policies. Other boldface names are either too old or too extreme. Identity politics, egos, and intraparty disagreements could easily get in the way.
Democrats must rebuild their party with new faces and new ideas, winning policies and inspiring messages.
For many of us, the next four years under Trump feel like an eternity. But for Democrats, they’ll come and go in the blink of an eye. What they do with that time will change history — possibly forever.
S.E. Cupp: Where is the Democratic Party’s Ronald Reagan? was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission.S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
There were 14 Missourians, me among them, who were negatively impacted recently by President Donald Trump’s pardons to the approximately 1,500 individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. We all saw a demonstration in real time about just what kind of people are part of that group that has now been set free to continue spreading fear on behalf of this president.
Trump granted “full, complete and unconditional” clemency to the Jan. 6 rioters. Among them was Henry "Enrique" Tarrio. From 2018 to 2021, Tarrio was the head of the Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist organization which promotes political violence.
Tarrio had been convicted and sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to Jan. 6. That was until this past Jan. 20, when Trump, on his first day back in office, pardoned him.
This past weekend, I joined more than 1,150 patriots who traveled to Washington, D.C., for the all-volunteer, fifth annual Principles First Summit to listen, debate and learn how to communicate the Principles First’s set of 15 principles.
Principles First founder Heath Mayo describes the grassroots movement like this: “Principles define who we are, what we believe in, and the type of country we’ll become. That’s why we choose to put them first — before politicians and before party.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many call Principles First an “Anti-Trump” group. While many are “Never Trump” conservatives, many others have recently joined because they worry about the state of our democracy and the direction that the country is moving in. Principles First offers a positive way forward promoting principles that include honesty, integrity and respect for the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our meeting was interrupted twice — once on Saturday, and once, and more dangerously, on Sunday.
On Saturday, Tarrio turned up at the conference site and confronted former Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia officer Michael Fanone and former U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn, both of whom defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.
Tarrio called Fanone and Dunn “cowards” and told them to “keep walking,” as he and a group of his supporters filmed and followed them through the hotel.
Shortly after noon on Sunday, organizers of the Principles First Summit received an email from someone claiming to have planted two pipe bombs at the JW Marriott Hotel in D.C., as well as at the home of former national security adviser John Bolton and at Fanone’s mother’s house.
The email also threatened many of the summit’s speakers, saying they “all deserved to die.”
The threat was sent from an untraceable address with the signature “Enrique T.” It was presented as a way “To honor the J6 hostages recently released by Emperor Trump.”
Tarrio denies any involvement. There is an active and ongoing investigation by law enforcement into the bomb threat.
Yes, the terrorists succeeded in instilling fear, at least in me. As the brave men, women and dogs of the Metropolitan Police Department swept the hotel for the pipe bombs, all I could think of was wanting to see my family again.
But they did not win. Once we got the “All clear,” it was my honor and pleasure to welcome and introduce our next set of speakers.
For the record, I am a member of Principles First Board of Directors. As noted above, this is an all-volunteer organization. I do not receive any compensation for my involvement.
While you may or may not agree with the positions shared, it was our right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to gather and share freely. Every American has this privilege, and they should not be terrorized for exercising this right to free speech. There were attendees who traveled on their own dime to attend from 44 states across the country.
I am not naive enough to believe that the FBI, under the direction of Kash Patel and newly appointed Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino, will adequately investigate the events that occurred.
Nor am I under any illusion that the Trump supporters among Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation will stand up for the 14 of us from their state and condemn the behavior aimed at their constituents.
I am deeply saddened to say that this is where and how we live now in America. Only when voters stand up and say, No, this is not who we are, will things change for the better.
From Trump’s pardoned fans, intimidation, and bomb threats was first published in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and was republished with permission.
Lynn Schmidt is a Post-Dispatch columnist and Editorial Board member. SchmidtOpinions@gmail.com.
U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House on February 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Despite a tumultuous set of political activities this past week, an intriguing opportunity was revealed, one that points to what might be a more effective path toward healing our contemporary American Schism.
As has been discussed frequently in recent years, many of Trump’s unorthodox actions and pronouncements serve primarily as political theater. His unconventional and often outrageous statements deliberately deploy emotional triggers, which serve as stimuli to effectively delight his MAGA supporters on the one hand, while simultaneously enraging his opponents. The latter usually adopt one of two response strategies: they either take the bait and indignantly riposte in-kind, or they stay silent, exhausted by the frequency of Trump’s provocation. What has now become abundantly clear is that both of these responses play right into Trump’s hand. Silencing the “resistance” is Trump’s first goal. But should the opposition choose the other path and retort with a sanctimonious counter, the very substance of any substantive policy disagreement therein becomes veiled by the acrimonious tone, resulting in a Trump win here as well.
Neither of these reactions is effective. But what I believe might portend a more effective strategy was employed last week by French President Emmanuel Macron.
To understand this alternative approach, one has to recognize that Trump’s oratorical strategy typically relies on conflating two or more ingredients in one pronouncement, usually a rant. The first is a valid policy idea based on a politically unpopular partial truth that has merit and bears consideration; the second is an inflammatory distortion, a set of lies, or a rewriting of recent events that deflects the policy issue through the reaction it has triggered.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Case in point: Following Trump’s bilateral discussion with Putin last week, Trump’s plum pudding remarks conflated two completely distinct components: One, the idea of Europe needing to shoulder the costs of its defense going forward, which presents a reasonable policy debate. The other, a reprise of Putin’s propaganda—a warped rewriting of the recent history of Russia’s invasion commencing the Ukrainian war—was the lodestone that drew the loudest response.
And unsurprisingly, this week we did observe both foreseeable responses. Senate Republicans, with a few brave exceptions, chose silence. President Zelensky, whom Trump personally attacked, defensively retorted, and most Democrats displayed their disdain for the explosive rhetoric without commenting on the obscured substantive policy ideas.
But President Macro took a different approach.
His very notable speech bifurcated the various ingredients that Trump calculatedly muddled. First and foremost, Macron corrected the history by clearly articulating the truth that Russia was and still is the aggressor in the conflict. Second, he drew a clear line in the sand on policy, asserting that any peace settlement that ‘gives in' to Russia is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the European Union. But third, on policy, he conceded the point to Trump. He explicitly accepted the legitimacy of the debate over burden-sharing within NATO (one of Trump’s consistent refrains), whilst at the same time, demonstrating that distorting historical facts to fit political narratives is unacceptable.
As Steven Jordan eloquently writes, Macron clearly called out the part of Trump’s rhetoric “which aligns with Putin’s revisionist history and shifts blame onto Zelensky. [Trump’s oratory] undermines the moral and strategic clarity needed to counter Russian aggression. Peace cannot be built on falsehoods, nor can Western security be maintained by ignoring reality.”
While Macron is facing tremendous domestic challenges amidst the parallel French schism (which, arguably, he himself has exacerbated), he is nonetheless emerging as the European leader with a veritable defense strategy for the continent. One that demands increased defense spending and less dependence on the U.S. He has embraced the reality that Europe has for too long relied on the U.S. for its defense and that, as Trump has suggested, Europe needs to shoulder the responsibility for its own security going forward.
Further, his maneuvering demonstrated his political savvy. Macron eschewed criticism of Trump and, instead, extricated the validity of Trump’s chosen path from the remainder of Trump’s jumble. He acknowledged the U.S. President’s right to step away from Europe and that European past and present dependence on the U.S. is no longer tenable. Macron, in a bold display of the leadership for which he rarely gets credit, framed this inevitable new direction as a challenge that Europeans must face. Convincing his European peers, such as Scholz and Starmer, to follow his lead will be no easy task, but by leveraging the reality of the pressure Europe faces to chart this new path, Macron’s words mark the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.
And he also teaches a lesson we all need to learn: Namely, if we are to survive Trump 2.0, we need to acquire and practice a new habit of responding to Trump’s logical ideas seriously, while still calling out his lies and not getting triggered by his bombast.
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Advisory Councils at Business for America, RepresentUs, and The Grand Bargain Project.This is the third entry in the American Schism 2025 Series.
