Category: Foreign policy

Atonement

I doubt that many armchair warriors have a clue what the wars they urge are really like. What the cost is to the tens of thousands of men, women and children who’s lives are upended or destroyed. The pain and suffering they endure.

Even without considering what war is really like, the prospects of a war leading to a better world are remote. A better world is one in which we live peacefully (even fruitfully) with our neighbors, whether next door, across town or across the world. Mutually respected rules of interaction are required and an understanding of the importance of abiding by them. Diplomacy is required to develop such rules.  Better to start with diplomacy than with war.

The wrenching and gripping movie “Atonement” dramatically presents the true horrors of war. Neocon war enthusiast would do well to watch it carefully.

Looking for win-win

The essence of trade is that both the seller and buyer benefit (win-win). Without that feature the trade would not take place. The expansion of trade locally and then globally increased the output and thus incomes of the average person dramatically.

In 1820, about 80% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day in today’s terms). By 2019, this figure had fallen to roughly 10%. This decline is especially notable given that the global population increased more than sevenfold during this period.


The pace of poverty reduction accelerated in recent decades. From 1990 to 2019, the global extreme poverty rate dropped from 43% to below 10%, with the fastest declines occurring since the 1990s. This progress was driven largely by rapid economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India.

The increase in win-win gains in income from trade have been promoted by broad agreement on rules and norms for “fair trade” to maximize the increase in incomes that results. These have been developed over time through what is now called the World Trade Organization (WTO). Tragically, rather than further improving its rules, the U.S. has undermined the WTO by refusing to appoint new members to its dispute resolution body.

The benefits of such collaborative cooperation have been sought and gained in other areas as well. To take one, the climate benefits of nuclear energy also carries the risks of destruction from nuclear bombs. Agreements among the countries with such capacity to contain and minimize the associated risks are reflected in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1968 (extended in 1995). The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996), several bilateral agreements with the USSR/Russia and others have further reduced the risks.

The dramatic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs promises incredible increases in our incomes but also carries risks. As with nuclear energy, all would benefit from agreements that limit these risks. Cooperating in developing such guard rails is in everyone interest. The US is making a big mistake in attempting to stifle  China’s AI development rather than a win-win cooperation with them to maximize its promise while minimizing its risk.

The case for such cooperation with China is powerfully made by Alvin Graylin in a recent presentation to the Committee for the Republic (on whose board I serve) the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6brPvFJGw.

Trump’s Chainsaw

I assume that I approve of many of Trump’s cuts or closers. But how can I know? His executive orders do not include or are not preceded by a discussion of the issues involved and the pros and cons of alternatives, as is customary in free societies.  As our government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that “the people” debate the desirability of polices and their adoption. In the end they need to be accepted by us as desirable or at least OK. My goal is a federal government limited to powers granted in our constitution, delivering only those services that are wanted and doing so as well and efficiently as possible.

But Trump takes a different approach.  Lindsey Halligantold Trump that the Smithsonian needs to remove “improper ideology”. He’s ordered her to do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2025/04/21/lindsey-halligan-smithsonian-executive-order/.

Of course we want our museums to reflect our history accurately. But the many controversies about historical facts and their implications have been publicly and transparently debated by historians for decades. It is quite proper to review such representations. Trump’s executive order stated that Halligan “will consult with Vice President JD Vance to ‘remove improper ideology’ from Smithsonian properties.”

The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.? (Washington Post above)

The established process of review, appropriate to a free society, has been replaced by a top-down order typical of autocracies.

The point here is that the manner and process of review and reform appropriate to a free society is discarded in the top-down orders of an autocrat.

Some of Trump’s orders reveal enough to know that I oppose them. Trumps tariff proposals reveal a lack of understanding of trade, quite aside from the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump condemns countries with trade surpluses with the US. These are irrelevant—as it is the US trade deficit with the rest of the world that matters—if anything. My trade deficit with Safeway is irrelevant.

Not only is Trump’s reciprocal tariff calculation laughable for its many errors, but other policies directly counter the presumed purpose of his tariffs (though who really knows what that is). His unlawful deportation attempts and cancelling student visa has produced a sharp fall in foreign visits to the US (foreign students studying here has many other benefits for the US as well). These are US exports, generating the money needed to pay for our imports. Why would he do this? This was later reversed, and the student visa reestablished. Or doesn’t he even understand what he is doing? His targeting for deportation those critical of him or Israel is a frightening attack on our First Amendment rights.

His tariff threats, on again, off again, actually seem unrelated to trade objectives. They seem to be bargaining chips for other objectives, whatever those might be. Their unpredictability itself is inflecting damage to our trade and investments. It is a very different (autocratic) approach to trade agreements than provided by the WTO.

Trump’s bargaining style re tariffs may well produce good results six months or a year down the line. But the cost has been the alienation and isolation from our traditional allies (not in our interest), and economic damage in the interim. More alarming it has strengthened China’s world leadership, driving many into closer alliance with it. The proper question is whether his approach or the traditional working though the WTO would have produced better results.

Education, whether in schools or the public square, is vital in free societies. Closing the Wilson Center was a big mistake in my view. I attended many very informative presentations there, often with Abdul Fitrat, former governor of the central bank of Afghanistan (DAB). But most of our think tanks, also presenting excellent and important seminars, are private. Trump wants to dictate what schools teach and what parents must allow or can opt out of for their children. His demands are being challenged in court. What the state can require, and parents can choose, is a challenging issue. Our traditional and more effective approach to its resolution is via public debate—not executive order.

Our cultural scene (opera, ballet, theater, etc.) is an important aspect of a flourishing society. It is quite proper to debate the extent to which our government should help finance it, but not its importance for a healthy, flourishing society. From the settlement of hunter-gatherers into tribes, such culturally binding activities have flourished. I recently watched a very painful film “A Day in the Life” of a woman (former violin player) working seven days a week to remove the rubble left in Dresden after WWII. Anyone contemplating war should examine what was left after previous wars before starting a new one. After the war, Dresden was occupied by the USSR. Interestingly the Russians set up theaters and concert halls to display the richness of Russian culture.

In the US our cultural events are largely financed by the private sector. The Kennedy Center is a federal building and the only U.S. national cultural center. The federal government covers facility operations, maintenance, security, and capital improvements, as the Center is a federal building and national memorial. About 20% of its annual operating budget is paid by the government. The government is not allowed to fund any of its performance activities and costs. Though he has never set foot in the Kennedy Center, Trump replaced its board with his friends and made himself chairman. ???

I strongly opposed Trump’s shut down of USAID, for example. https://wcoats.blog/?s=usaid. I worked for USAID in Iraq and with it in Afghanistan and other post-conflict counties. Their role was vital. The closing of USAID harms American interest.

Let me add one more example of a USAID activity. Its support of the G-17 in Serbia provides one of many examples. In the late 1990s an IMF collogue from Serbia (former Yugoslavia) pulled me aside to explain the group of center-right, free-market economists from Serbia that he was part of—they called themselves the G-17. He explained that the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID helped organize and fund seminars at which G-17 members could discuss the policies they wanted to support and how to achieve them.

“During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, [Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan] Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes connected to the Bosnian War, Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War. After resigning from the Yugoslav presidency in 2000 amidst demonstrations against the disputed presidential election, Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities in March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.] The initial investigation faltered, and he was extradited to the ICTY to stand trial for war crimes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87.

In the turmoil following Milošević’s replacement, Jimmy Barton (Chief National Bank Examiner of the United States, Retired) and I entered Belgrade on 9/10/2001 (I think—I am no longer sure of the date) to singing and dancing in the streets. As we met with the new government officials, they often gave us their G-17 card with the apology that they had not had time to get new official cards. Thank you EFD and USAID.

Trump also claimed to shut down the Millenium Challenge Corporation, the best foreign aid program we have ever had. He has withdrawn from several international organizations and agreements, and angered our friends and allies, further isolating the US. These are not in American interests.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised no more wars. In his first 100 days in office, he threatened to invade Panama and Greenland and to annex Canada. He has started bombing Yemen without Congressional authorization. He continues to support and help finance Israel’s wars in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. He has withdrawn the US from many international organizations and agreements. We are increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer friends. The US voice in the world no longer carries its earlier weight—all of which has made China stronger and more influential.

To repeat, the longer-run outcome of all this may well be good for us all. There is no knowing that at this point. But the real question is whether good results achieved in this way are better than if achieved via public debate and normal diplomacy?

The courts are increasingly challenging Trump’s disregard for law and due process. What I want to emphasis is that Trump’s autocratic actions via executive orders is very different from our usual public debate over policy seeking as much public understanding and common ground as possible. Such public debate is important for what a policy (or goal of an agency) should be. The internal efficiency with which that policy is implemented is a separate issue and something that a DOGE might well help achieve.

In a letter to U of Chicago alumni, its President Paul Alivisatos stated “As the broader higher education compact is reordered, we should not fear change for its own sake. There is reform to be had—and great opportunity to improve and to achieve more. Yet, how a period of reform unfolds can also cause enormous damage; federal and political overreach and intervention without regard to due process produces profound damage…. We have important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”

Trump’s executive order dictates are not an appropriate approach to reforming the scope of government.

Ukraine Russian Peace Treaty

I am a monetary, not a foreign policy, expert. But after spending good bits of the last two decades in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, South Sudan and Israel/WBGS I have some questions:

  1. Why did we expand NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
  2. Why didn’t we discuss Putin’s Dec 2021demands to avoid Russia invading Ukraine? https://wcoats.blog/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-nato/
  3. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022, why didn’t we give Ukraine all the military equipment they wanted?
  4. When Russia and Ukraine were ready to sign a peace agreement negotiated in Turkey in March 2022, why did UK PM Boris Johnson tell Ukraine President Zelenskyy not to sign?
  5. Why do Americans, and especially Congressmen, tolerate President Trump’s threats to invade Panama, Greenland, Mexico and expel all Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and break so many American laws?

USAID

“When Marco Rubio testified during his confirmation to become Secretary of State, he said that one of the things that frustrated him the most about the U.S. Agency for International Development was that it didn’t ‘brag’ enough to show other countries ‘what the United States is doing to help their societies.’

“The comment followed years of praise from Rubio for the billions of dollars in lifesaving aid that USAID distributed overseas to boost America’s image and counter the influence of rivals such as China.”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”

From my own experience, I agree with Rubio. After retiring from the International Monetary Fund in 2003, I had a contract from USAID from May 2004  – Sept 2005 to help the Central Bank of Iraq establish financial markets important for monetary policy as well as its capacity to formulate and implement monetary policy. Under this contract I reported to and was supervised by the US Treasury. I have also worked closely with USAID banking supervision contractors (BearingPoint and Deloitte) in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and South Sudan, all post conflict countries. They did an outstanding job, and I am sure that I was well worth the money I earned as well.

Quite aside from the insanity of suspending payments and projects in midair, wasting millions of dollars (and lives) in the process, the proper question of our government is whether these projects (or which of these projects) serve American interests and do so more effectively than would alternative uses of the same money. “As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, ‘Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?’” “State Department: Implementing the president’s executive order on reevaluating and realigning United States foreign aid”

A proper answer to those three objectives should take a long run perspective. America is safer and more prosperous when the rest of the world (our trading partners) is also more prosperous. We are stronger when we have earned the rest of the world’s respect and cooperation. USAID, by providing humanitarian and development assistance to other countries, gains their respect and gratitude, which promotes their cooperation. When President John F Kennedy established the USAID in 1961 he made this case calling it American soft power. Following Congress’s adoption of the Foreign Assistance Act in September1961, Kennedy consolidated several foreign aid agencies into the USAID in order to improve coordination and efficiency.  It is fair to ask whether this is the most efficient way of packaging these activities and coordinating them with other departments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzwsc3XGNA

USAID has missions in over 100 countries. Congress authorizes USAID’s programs in the Foreign Assistance Act, which Congress supplements through directions in annual funding appropriation acts and other legislation. As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council.

Of USAID’s total budget of almost $8 billion in 2001 and $34 billion in fiscal 2024 (less than 1% of total federal budget), one third goes to public health and the rest to disaster relief, and economic and government capacity building. Its programs to treat HIV and malaria have saved millions of lives, largely in Africa, over the last two decades. It played a major role in implementing George W Bush’s “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) which saved over 25M lives globally. “State Department: About US PETFAR” It played an important role in ending smallpox and increasing global literacy.

When I asked several USAID staff what they considered the agency’s greatest successes they sighted South Korea which is now a major US trading partner, and Columbia which has risen from a failed state to a secure middle-income country and a major US trading partner. But we can no longer access the details of these programs as USAID’s website was taken down February 1.   

Those lives saved, plus the technical assistance in governance, infrastructure, and building stronger economies has raised incomes in these countries and their sales to and purchases from the US and other countries abroad (trade). As the U.S. benefits economically from these stronger economics, American citizens are also kept safer.  With stronger economies comes stability for citizens to live peaceful, prosperous lives, turning away from the perils of extremism and increasing security on the ground. Thus, American aid has not only gained respect, good will, and cooperation from the aid recipients but increased trade, income, and security in the US as a result. In a statement made by then U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, he highlighted that six of the United States’ ten largest trading partners had graduated from assistance provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2015 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, for instance, Rubio said USAID “not only is doing what is right, but we are also furthering our national interests.” “Washington Post: Marco Rubio USAID”

The mean average managed foreign assistance disbursed in the fiscal years 2001 to 2024 by USAID was $22.9 billion in inflation adjusted to 2023 dollars; 2023 was an exceptional year because of an extra $16 billion of funds for Ukraine. America’s military budget over this period was almost $850 billion dollars per year. Since 9/11, the United States has spent an estimated $8 trillion on wars and counterterrorism efforts globally. This figure includes direct military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, as well as related costs like veteran care and interest on borrowed funds to finance the wars. Over 7,000 American servicemen died in these wars and deaths many multiples of that were suffered by our allies and our enemies over that period. Total Defense Department expenditures over this period were $14 trillion compare with USAID’s expenditures of 0.6 trillion with many lives saved and almost none lost. The State Department’s annual budget ranged from $50 to $60 billion over the same period. Soft power is clearly a bargain for the American taxpayers seeking a safer, stronger, more prosperous America. Why does President Trump want to shut it down?

Not all projects have been successful in achieving their objectives. But many claims of waste and corruption are not supported by facts:

“In 2025, the Trump administration accused USAID of ‘wasting massive sums of taxpayer money’ over several decades, including during Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021. The administration highlighted a list of twelve projects, totaling approximately $400 million—less than 1% of USAID’s annual budget—dating back to 2005. Among the examples cited were $1.5 million for LGBT workplace inclusion in Serbia, $2.5 million to build electric vehicle chargers in Vietnam, $6 million for tourism promotion in Egypt, and ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ (the largest item) purportedly allocated to discourage Afghanistan farmers from growing poppies for opium, which allegedly ended up supporting poppy cultivation and benefiting the Taliban. Fact checkers found that these claims were largely false, ‘highly misleading,’ or wrong.” “Wikipedia: United States Agency for International Development” 

For another example, claims that USAID funded major media organizations like Politico or BBC News were false. Payments were for subscriptions or grants to independent media projects, not direct funding of news operations. 

But neither USAID nor any other government agency is perfect. Some functions should be eliminated and others automated or streamlined and oversight strengthened. But in order to properly review its programs and operations most operations should continue until a broad consensus is achieved on what reforms are desirable how they can must efficiently be executed. For functions that survive: “’The end goal is replacing much of the human workforce with machines,’ said a U.S. official closely watching DOGE activity. ‘Everything that can be machine-automated will be. And the technocrats will replace the bureaucrats.’”  “Washington Post: DOGE Musk goals” These are worthy goals.

This “convinced Democratic lawmakers and financial columnists, who have long promoted the analogy between citizens and consumers, that DOGE could be a good idea. ‘Streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue,’ announced Congressman Jared Moskovitz (D-FL) when he joined the DOGE caucus in December. ‘If Doge can actually unleash digital reform in the US government, and in a non-corrupt manner, that would be an unambiguously good thing,’ Gillian Tett wrote last month in the Financial Times.”   “Speed-up-the-breakdown”

But suddenly suspending programs and payment while undertaking a review is the wrong approach. To take but one example, Trump’s foreign aid freeze is having unintended effects in Latin America, including halting programs aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl. Trump has vowed to impose tariffs unless Mexico stops the trafficking of fentanyl, a major killer of young adults in the US, but the aid freeze has halted funding that Mexican authorities rely on to destroy clandestine labs, Reuters reported. Countries across Latin America are scrambling to respond to the cuts, which have dealt a blow to humanitarian programs designed to slow migration to the US — which Trump has also promised to crack down on — as well as conservation efforts in Brazil and coca eradication in Peru.

USAID’s budget and the projects it finances generally arise from the recommendations of USAID Missions in the countries it operates in accordance with the development objectives captured by the respective Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) created in concert with the host government and civil society. Almost two-thirds of its employees are locally employed staff, many from the upper echelons of the political and social classes of that country, which means stronger ties and partnerships for USAID and the host country government political figures. Some of these local staff go on to join the host country government as Members of Parliament, establishing connections between the USG and the host country government that are unmatched in terms of influence. USAID operates with an understanding of the local institutions and culture that is deep and strongly influences the projects it recommends. These recommendations are reviewed and vetted by multiple entities, including USAID regional bureaus, the State Department Office of Foreign Assistance, the Office of Management and Budget, and by the House and Senate Foreign Affairs and Operations Committees.  These oversight tools include USAID answering inquiries sent directly to regional USAID Bureaus by individual members of Congress  and through the Congressional Notification process, where every USAID project and dollar is reviewed through Hill briefings and questioning of USAID officials by Congress for its approval, which has full oversight of their execution, and gives Congress the ability to place “holds” on funding preventing obligations of funds to take place before answering their inquiries.

As with other government agencies USAID’s operations are reviewed by an independent Inspector General. USAID Inspector General Paul Martin was officially fired on February 11, one day after his office issued a critical report warning that nearly $500 million in food was about to go bad due to President Donald Trump’s freeze on the agency. Rather than the announcement coming from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the current acting director of the USAID, it was announced by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. Martin’s office published a six-page report the day before that argued that the recent pause on foreign assistance programs and the slashing of USAID staff has prompted ‘risks and challenges’ to the safeguarding and distribution of the $8.2 billion in humanitarian assistance. Among other things confidence in America health aid in many cases was shattered by its sudden suspension thus undermining its benefit to the US.

“One U.S. official credited Rubio with pushing for the 10,000-person agency to keep on the job roughly 600 staffers as essential workers instead of the 290 suggested by some Trump officials.” .”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”  Whether that is the right number or not (i.e. the staff needed to perform the functions that best serve American interests) the sledgehammer being swung by DOGE is not the right, and certainly not the cheapest, approach to determining it.

Conclusion

The government does more than is best for the country and many programs should be ended or reformed. Freezing them in order to undertake a review is the wrong approach. Lasting positive reforms must be a careful consultative process. The debate over a big bang vs a more gradual approach following the collapse of the Soviet Union is illuminating. Anyone who thinks they can work with a “blank slate” is a fool. Such an approach has never been successful.

The USAID has generally been very successful and should not be “shut down.” To date the DOGE approach has done harm to American standing, safety and prosperity and reduced taxpayer safeguards of who their money is spent rather than strengthened them. The USAID website has been removed thus eliminating the transparency of its operation to public scrutiny. The USAID’s Inspector General has been fired thus eliminating independent oversight, though the Supreme Court may overturn this executive action. The overall approach of DOGE to reform with worries about conflicts of interest is doing more harm than good.

Checks and Balances

Americans have flourished under the freedoms and rules of community life provided by a government with limited enumerated powers that are divided between legislative, executive, and judicial branches to provide checks and balances against abuse of power and a civic culture of mutual respect. As a result, America itself has flourished. In 1900 median American income, valued in 2024 dollars was approximately $18,000 and 40% of the population lived in poverty. In 2024 median American income was $80,020 and 11.1% lived in poverty.  

The share of government spending (Federal, state and local) in the US was approximately 5.5% in 1900 and 37.5% in 2024. Following WWII GDP growth rate declined as government spending rose as a share of GDP. During the 34 years from 1950 – 1984 GDP growth averaged 3.5% per annum while over the next 34 years from 1984-2019 average annual growth rate fell to 2.5%. But the lower growth rate also reflects the burden of increased regulation.

The incoming Trump administration is claiming, with good justification, that the slowing of economic growth reflects excessive government spending and regulation. It has assigned Elan Musk and his new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reduce Federal government spending and counterproductive regulations.

Some government programs violate or at least stretch its powers as enumerated in the Constitution.  Some regulations fail to pass the cost/benefit test and thus reduce incomes. To identify waste and fraud, DOGE employees have been given access to confidential employee and or beneficiary data bases. “Late Friday, a federal judge in Washington declined to block DOGE access to Labor Department data but expressed concern about young DOGE staffers who ‘never had any training with respect to the handling of confidential information’ accessing ‘the medical and financial records of millions of Americans.’ And on Saturday, a federal judge in New York temporarily blocked DOGE staff from accessing sensitive payment systems at the Treasury Department, citing the risk of ‘irreparable harm.’

“After the New York ruling, Musk defended DOGE methods, tweeting that his team had sought to add routine information to outgoing Treasury payments to help spot fraud — “super obvious and necessary changes” that “are being implemented by existing longtime career government employees, not anyone from @DOGE.”   “Washington Post – DOGE and Musk goals”

 I support modernizing administrative systems to improve government employee’s productivity (i.e. reduce the number of employees needed for a task) and I support eliminating functions that exceed government’s enumerated powers or do not serve a clear need that can only be met by government, and I support eliminating regulations that fail cost/benefit criteria. Examining these functions and systems and associated databases are surely part of such a careful determination.  But what if Musk and Trump have other objectives such as driving out or punishing their enemies?

“The Trump administration is giving hints it may ignore a federal judge’s ruling restricting Elon Musk and his associates in DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, from accessing the Treasury Department’s critical payment systems. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer warned about the ‘disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.’ Vice President JD Vance responded to the ruling by writing on social media that ‘judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’ Elon Musk also called for the judge to be impeached.”   “Democracy Now – constitutional crisis Trump admin hints it will ignore judge’s ruling to block Musk from Treasury records”

Trump has been issuing executive orders that ignore Congress’s authority (such as the adoption of tariffs, and impounding congressionally authorized expenditure). A federal judge in Rhode Island, John J. McConnell Jr., has ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore federal funds that were frozen under a controversial directive. This followed evidence that the administration failed to comply with a prior temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in January, which prohibited freezing federal grants and assistance programs. The funding freeze, initiated by a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), affected programs tied to the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law, as well as initiatives like Head Start and health research grants.

While the legality of Trump’s executive actions in these areas is doubtful, its wisdom is totally lacking. Collective (i.e. government) action requires broad consensus which is obtained by public discussion in which all views are aired. Cutting off programs and expenditure in the middle of existing contracts bound to be harmful to those involved and to generate public outrage quite unnecessarily. It’s probably illegal as well as just bad policy.

Each administration has the right to put managers in place who support its programs. But the pure execution of administrative functions is not, or should not be, a partisan matter. In the earlier years of our republic working for the government was often a way of rewording family or party members. The resulting quality of the services performed was often poor.

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur on January 16, 1883, marked a turning point in U.S. federal employment practices. It was enacted to dismantle the corrupt “spoils system,” which awarded government jobs based on political loyalty rather than merit.

  • The act required certain federal positions to be filled through competitive examinations, ensuring that candidates were selected based on their qualifications rather than political connections.
  • It prohibited the firing or demotion of employees for political reasons and banned mandatory political contributions (known as “assessments”) from federal workers.
  • The act established the Civil Service Commission to oversee the implementation of merit-based hiring and enforce its provisions.

Initially, only about 10% of federal jobs were covered, but presidents were allowed to expand its reach. By 1980, over 90% of federal positions fell under its protections. President Trump intends to roll back such protection to make more political appointment. Is this to insure that he can appoint managers committed to the faithful execution of his policies? Why then have many of his cabinet appointments been so unqualified to care out their responsibilities? An even bigger question is why the Republican controlled Congress has silently approved their appointments and why have they remained silent in the face of Trump’s many violation of law?

Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, has publicly outlined plans to go after individuals he perceives as part of the “deep state,” including journalists, Democrats, and former Trump allies. Trump has asked for the names of all FBI agents who work on the investigation of his violations of the law and he threatens to fire them. This sound more like an administrative coup than putting a strong team in place to “make America Great again.”

To take one example of executive actions that undermine rather than serve America interests, consider his strong support of Israel’s war against Palestinians, which even goes beyond Biden’s “blank check” support for Israel. After his threats to Mexico, Canada, Greenland, and Panama, he now plans to take control of Gaza, displace its two million Palestinian residents, and transform the area into a U.S. owned resort-like destination. In interviews, Trump described Gaza as having the potential to become “the Riviera of the Middle East” and suggested relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt, citing safety and redevelopment needs. He emphasized that Palestinians would not have a right to return under this plan, claiming they would be resettled in “better housing” elsewhere. Thus, Trump would join Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians directly.

On February 11, when meeting with Trump at the White House, Jordanian King Abdullah II was told that Jordan risked billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid that Amman receives every year if he did not back Trump’s Gaza displacement plan and admit millions of displaced Palestinians. Later Trump softened but did not withdraw his threat.

Trump has taken a number of other measures that signal his supporters will be exempt from the law. He pardoned approximately 1,500 people connected with the Jan 6 attack on the capital. “Rod Blagojevich and Eric Adams got off because they played the Trump card. Is that how justice now works in America?  “Trump-Rod Blagojevich-Eric Adams lawfare corruption pardon”

“In a further jaw-dropping move…, Trump issued an Executive Order that suspends the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for 180 days, giving a greenlight to megabanks on Wall Street and other U.S. corporations to bribe officials in foreign countries to get business deals approved.”  “Trump gives the greenlight to Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase to return to bribing foreign officials”

To express his anger at what he considered disloyalty by former Trump administration officials such as Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, John Bolton, and Mark Esper, Trump terminated their security protection.

All of these reflect Trump’s willingness to punish those who cross him. This provides a possible explanation for why Republicans have remained silent in the face of Trump’s violations of Congress’s laws and quietly approved unqualified cabinet appointments. They are afraid of his retribution.

So what do we do about DOGE’s freezing projects and payments and accessing confidential data bases. Is it for good or evil?

Checks and balances should be supplemented by independent inspectors and auditors. But Trump recently fired 17 Inspectors General from various federal agencies. All members of DOGE given access to confidential data should receive security clearances. Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old member of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched an image-sharing website called tesla.sexy in 2021. The site featured custom “shitposting” web addresses that redirected to content hosted on his platform. Some of these URLs referenced inappropriate and illegal content, including child sexual abuse material and racist themes.  He was recently appointed as a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Technology without a security clearance!!!

I am perplexed. I would like DOGE to identify waste and fraud and help reduce the scope of government and make what remains more efficient and effective. Understaffing air traffic control under Biden didn’t work out so well for the 67 people who died when a helicopter crashed into a passenger plane at Reagan National. Proper government functions should be properly performed.  But I do not want it to become a weapon of a thin-skinned bully punishing those who oppose him. Among other things the president should not be able to remove oversight inspectors or otherwise weaken independent scrutiny.

Trump

President Reagan pointed to our beacon on the hill as the foundation of our relationship and leadership with the rest of the world. Soon to be President Trump’s approach is to threaten and bully the rest of the world.

“US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.”  “How Trump threatens the world trading system”

But he hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory:

“Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to “take back” the Panama Canal “in full, quickly and without question” and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland.

“While Trump has written that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom around the world, the United States feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he would at least appear to be willing to pay Denmark for Greenland, as the U.S. paid Denmark for the Danish West Indies, renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1917.” “A thought on the Panama Canal and Greenland”

A bully, who forces rules on others that he disregards himself, will not serve America’s nor the worlds interests. We all want America to be safe, prosperous, and free. Thus, we must hope for and where possible promote a successful term for this and any other President. An important role can be, and hopefully will be played by the Republicans in Congress, starting with careful vetting of Trumps cabinet nominations. “Trump-bully-world-America-foreign-policy”

War movies

The Holocaust was such a shocking atrocity—effecting far more Jews than the 6 million murdered in Nazi ovens—that it is almost impossible to communicate it meaningfully to new generations. Many outstanding movies have done their best to do so. The pictures of thousands of rotting bodies do not have the same impact as the personal stories of individuals and holocaust films have done an outstanding job of telling them. The Diary of Ann Frank introduced most of us to the Holocaust’s horrors in 1959. But “Europa Europa,” “Schindler’s List,”  “Life is Beautiful,” “The Pianist,” “Son of Saul,” among others each present poignant and original examinations of the ugliness and heart wrenching harm of antisemitism. Just this last week I was moved again by yet another approach to the story in the recent film “White Bird.”

It is important to confront such ugliness in the hopes of reducing the prospect of repeating them. Hitler convinced his countrymen (to the extent that they even knew what he was doing) that the best way to get rid of the “Jewish problem” was to get rid of the Jews. Sadly, Israel itself is propagating yet another genocide this time in Gaza, and West Bank and possible beyond, by convincing many Israelis that the only way to get rid of the “Palestinian problem” (and to have a “democratic Jewish state”) is to get rid of the Palestinians.

War presents a tougher challenge because many believe they might find glory in war. But the reality of war is ugly and tragic. Every country must defend itself against attack, but the United State has not fought a war on its own territory for over one hundred and sixty years. None the less we have been at war somewhere most of the time. Most movies about war have faithfully reflected its ugliness—not only for those killed by them but for their surviving loved ones and the wounded survivors who live on without limbs or with other impairments. But we continue to wage them most of the time.

Movies like “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (the film site of which I visited in Sri Lanka), “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Dunkirk”, and “1917”, depict the heroism in war that might seem attractive but also its ugliness. “All Quiet on the Western Front,” Paths of Glory,” “The Deer Hunter,” and “Grave of the Fireflies,” explore in greater depth the horror of war. Last night I watched the heart wrenching story of a WWII Irish solder’s return to Dunkirk many years later, which wonderfully depicts the absurdity of most wars.

So why do we fight so many of them and in far away places? Much of my work has been in war zones such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Kosovo. While I have never been in the tranches, I have certainly heard gun fire. But more importantly, I have witnessed the aftermath of war and embarrassingly the bumbling incompetence of attempted American rule of conquered territories. “Warren’s travels to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo and beyond”

But why do we so readily go to war? Perhaps because they are “over there” it is too easy to send our youth off wherever and “thank them for their service.” Unfortunately, there are also too many people who think we must flatten our enemies, ala Adolf Hitler, rather than diplomatically cultivate peaceful, get along relations with them. If American’s understood more clearly the ugliness of war, and the futility of taming neighbors via suppression or even eradication, we could have a more peaceful and prosperous world.  

FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

“Free Speech Makes Free People

“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty…. FIRE defends and promotes the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.”   “F.I.R.E.”

The above words headline FIRE’s website and purpose. Free speech is so fundamental and essential to the vibrancy and health of American society that I have blogged in its defense on many occasions and will not repeat those argues here: “Freedom of speech-final thoughts for a while at least”   “Do we really need free speech”  It should not surprise you that I was on the Free Speech Council at the U of Cal Berkeley in 1964  “Joan Baez”

Attacks have come from both sides of the political spectrum, but the current risks are from the MAGA right and the Jewish lobby. 

In commenting on the Palestinian-Israeli wars, criticism of Israel’s vicious attacks on Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and now Syria have too often led to University repression of speech if it is critical of Israel and even firing of staff. “The alternative to war”   “Palestine”  Pro Palestinian demonstrators have too often been suppressed.

The US government has increasingly flexed its muscle to silence criticism as well. A Free Press headline claimed: “A Mom Asked for Public School Board Records. They Charged Her $33 Million.”  Free Press: “Mom asks for public school records”

But serious concerns are being raised by President elect Donald Trump’s actions to punish or silence opponents. Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, stated last year that:

 “’We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,’ Patel said. The same applies for supposed ‘conspirators’ inside the federal government, he said.”  AP “FBI Trump Patel”

In an equally, if not more, disturbing attack on the press “Trump filed the suit in March, days after Stephanopoulos said multiple times in an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R., S.C.) on ABC’s Sunday morning news show “This Week” that Trump had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury determined he was liable for sexual abuse, but not rape.”  Rather than correct its minor misstatement, Disney, the owner of ABC News, settled out of court and agree to pay $15 million to Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum, and $1 million in legal fees to Trump’s lawyer. WSJ: “Disney Trump lawsuit with ABC News” The dampening impact on press reporting is huge.

The following is not from the Onion:

 “The MAGA cult leader took time out of his very busy presidential transition schedule to sue a pollster and newspaper in Des Moines, Iowa, for a poll he didn’t like prior to the election. Seriously. Trump’s vindictiveness has very little to due with polling in Iowa, of course. These actions are designed to scare the mainstream media into obsequence when his wrecking ball of second term actually gets under way”  USA Today: “Trump sues Des Moines Register over election poll”

While this may look like a joke, its dampening impact on free speech is serious and we must fight it.

The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

America’s tradition of free speech extends far beyond these legal protections from government. It embodies a tradition of open (and hopefully civil) public debate and expression of our view. We must defend it.

Econ 101: Our standard of living

In 1900, US income (GDP) was $4,096 per capita in 2023 dollars, while in 2023 it was $81,695. The US poverty rate fell from 56% to 11.1% over the same period. How was such a dramatic increase in our widely shared standard of living possible? The answer (without explaining how it came about) is increased labor productivity. Each worker has been able to produce more and more and hence earned a higher income.

Putting this differently, more and more people were automated out of their old jobs allowing them to find new ones and produce new things increasing overall output/incomes. Such dynamism does carry the temporary cost of finding new jobs and developing new skills. At any point over the last century that cost could have been prevented by freezing productivity improvements, but that would also have ended the growth in our incomes. Thank heavens such crazies did not win out. But it seems they never stop trying.

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the union that represents some 47,000 dockworkers, is threatening to strike if the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which oversees port operations, goes forward with plans to automate more of these port activities.

“’There has been a lot of discussion having to do with ‘automation’ on United States docks,’ Trump wrote in his post Thursday. ‘I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it. The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen. Foreign companies have made a fortune in the U.S. by giving them access to our markets.’

“’For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries,” Trump wrote.” “WP: Trump – port-strike-automation”

Whether out of ignorance or deliberate obfuscation, Trump again misstates who gains and who pays. When foreign ships are unloaded in American ports it is the American consumers who benefit from any cost savings at the ports.  Trump also claims (though he surely knows better) that China would pay for his high tariffs on imports from China.

A tariff, of course, is a tax the US levies at our borders on goods we import from abroad. It’s paid in the first instance by the American importers. Like any other tax, it is added to the price of selling these imports to the American public. It’s very purpose is to reduce domestic demand for such imports in order to encourage (more expensive and less efficient) domestic production of such goods. Please, let’s not stop technical progress and the higher income it enables.