Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The true Trump threat

From left: Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron, Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron on Dec. 7. No one will be able to restrain Trump's foreign policy efforts.

Many Americans fear what Donald Trump will do after assuming the presidency in January — and understandably so. Trump's pathological self-absorption has no place in American government, let alone at its very top.

But the specific type of threat Trump poses is often misunderstood. Like all presidents, his domestic powers are limited. He will face stiff resistance at the federal, state and local levels of government.


For instance, as we've already seen with Trump’s first choice for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, the Senate can and will reject some of his Cabinet nominees. The Republicans’ very slim House majority, moreover, means Democrats can stymie Trump's legislation with support from just a few Republicans. Federal and state courts, for their part, have ruled against Trump consistently — and will continue to do so. Even Trump's own executive branch departments, like the Department of Justice, will again resist his most brazen initiatives.

That's not to say Trump won’t score some wins. He will appoint conservative judges, roll back important regulations, knock the tax rate down a few percentage points, accelerate deportations (though not at the level he's promising) and so on. Elon Musk might even get some federal employees canned. And for those on the wrong side of these policies the consequences will matter.

But the limits on what Trump can achieve domestically are significant. And much that he does accomplish can be rolled back or neutralized by Democrats in the future.

Foreign policy, however, is a different story. This is where the potential consequences are biggest and where the bells often can't be unrung. This is where Trump, like all presidents, has the fewest checks on his power. This is where the true Trump threat resides.

Trump will soon be commander in chief of the military and America's head of state. In the foreign policy arena, he won't need Congress to pass legislation to make a major impact. Nor will he need thousands of federal bureaucrats to implement his biggest policies. With few exceptions, the courts won't be able to reverse a thing he does.

Even express constitutional restraints on the president in foreign policy no longer apply. The president has usurped the role of Congress in declaring war against other nations. While Article I of the Constitution says that Congress (not the president) has the power “to declare war,” presidents since Harry Truman have repeatedly waged war without congressional declaration.

Trump will, indeed, be largely unrestrained in the international sphere. Yet the world he inherits is as complicated as ever. The Middle East is fractured with war, blood is spilling in Russia and Ukraine, North Korea's weapons cast a shadow across the globe, populist unrest throbs globally and China's military gets stronger every day.

Having Trump's volatile hand stirring this pot — with few checks to restrain his impulses — is exponentially more dangerous than whatever legislation a razor-thin Republican majority can muster in Congress. As president, Trump can call Vladimir Putin any time. He can confront Xi Jinping on social media before breakfast. He can belittle Kim Jong Un publicly on a whim.

Trump's supporters like to highlight that there were fewer wars when he was president than there are today. This may be true. But it's quite a stretch to credit Trump for this outcome. His diplomatic unpredictability increases the likelihood of international conflict. That his first presidency avoided war bears little on what comes next.

Many Americans myopically follow the daily political drama in Washington. That's where the cameras focus and where retweets propel partisan spats into viral frenzies. This is a mistake. Trump's MAGA tentacles will reach far beyond our national borders. His stage will be the world.

America's domestic checks and balances neutralized Trump the first time he was president. They will again. With foreign policy, on the other hand, the Republicans’ volatile champion will once again be unrestrained.

Cooper is the author of “ How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less