logo
Judge Trump's Motives, Not Just His Methods

Judge Trump's Motives, Not Just His Methods

Yahoo26-02-2025

From the G-File on The Dispatch
Hey,
I'm going to try to make a single point in response to what is shaping up to be the standard, smart, defense of a lot of Donald Trump's doings.
That defense usually starts with a series of correct observations about the left's attacks on Trump's actions and/or some correct complaints about Joe Biden's or the Democrats actions.
Let's take the recent firings in the Pentagon, which critics call, not indefensibly, a 'purge.' I won't use that word—even though I think it's defensible—because the people who use it want to make Trump's actions sound as sinister as possible. And that tendency is often the first thing Trump's defenders seize on. The dirty bathwater of exaggerated complaints often offer an opportunity to toss the baby of the core complaint out with it.
The leftwing outrage holds that the military should somehow be independent of civilian control. Sometimes this argument is made with a lot of nuance. Sometimes not. The nuanced position is that Trump's firings are pretextual, unusual, and in violation of all manner of norms. The less nuanced ones cover a broad spectrum, from accusations of excessive politicization to banana republic autocratic shenanigans to 'literally Hitler.'
But what unites these critiques is the insinuation or declaration that somehow the military is out of the purview of the commander-in-chief. The smart defenders of Trump are absolutely correct that this is an unsupportable claim. One of the most important bedrock mechanisms of our constitutional design is that the military answers to civilian leadership. As National Review's Dominic Pino put it on the Editors podcast, 'I think it's completely wrong, the Democrats' argument that somehow the military is this independent thing that politicians don't get any say over, that's not right. As a constitutional matter, the president is the commander-in-chief. So he gets to do this.' Or as Charlie Cooke puts it, 'You know, civil control of the military is one of the important defining features of, separating, normal, healthy democracies from authoritarian countries. And so, I don't have any issue with it, on its face.'
I have no objection to the core of this argument. I do, contra Charlie, have 'issues.' Because looking at this 'on its face' is definitionally superficial.
Charlie goes on to say, 'The case that I keep reading, including in major serious newspapers, seems to imply that the risk of Trump's having switched out staff is that the people he has chosen instead will be unwilling to defy him, will be unwilling to push back, will be unwilling to tell him no. But they shouldn't be telling him no.'
Well, I want generals willing to say 'No.' And I don't think Charlie really disagrees with me. It depends on the what, why and how they tell him no. Military officers don't just take an oath to follow the president's orders, they also take an oath to defend the Constitution and abide by the chain of command as laid out in regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I don't want any generals who will put obedience to the president above obedience to the Constitution. And, again, I am quite positive Charlie doesn't either. So if President Trump orders a general to shoot protesters, an idea he allegedly floated during protests outside the White House during his first term, I want generals who will refuse that order. They should be honest about it and resign rather than carry out an unlawful order.
But even beyond that, I want generals who will say no, or at least forcefully push back, against stupid or immoral orders. Again, it shouldn't take the form of sabotage or secret conspiracies. No one should say 'yes' to the commander-in-chief, then refuse to follow through. But if Trump ordered the Navy to surround Greenland in a show of force to intimidate a NATO ally, I would like it if the generals went to considerable lengths to explain to the president why the order was a bad idea and, ultimately, one they would refuse to carry out. Then face the consequences as a result.
The president both practically and as a matter of law and statecraft is entitled to loyal officers. He's not entitled to unquestioning yes-men.
Here, too, I suspect Charlie agrees.
But my point isn't to argue about civil-military relations, or pick a fight with Charlie, a good friend and someone I admire greatly. Rather, my point is that I think focusing on civil-military relations illustrates my problem with what I've been calling the smart conservative approach generally.
This approach of taking each controversy as a single, isolated argument amounts to debating single trees while ignoring the forest.
To be blunt: This approach's fundamental problem is it treats Trump as a kind of academic abstraction. What can the president do? rather than the more pressing question: Why is this president doing this?
Treating Trump as a depersonalized Constitutional officer can be very clarifying on specific controversies. But it ends up erasing the broader context. The theme of the pudding gets lost in arguments about the ingredients.
Consider the scandal—and it is a scandal—with the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. When Trump's Justice Department told them to drop the corruption charges against Adams because he was getting in line with Trump's preferred immigration policy, prosecutors who put professional ethics ahead of the whims of the president quit—and that's exactly the way Trump wants it. He doesn't want DOJ officials who are loyal to any other commitments.
Or consider the walking scandal that is Ed Martin, a MAGA lawyer who has defended January 6, 2021, defendants and who attended Trump's speech before the riot at the Capitol building that day. He is the new U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Responding to the flap between the Associated Press and the use of Trump's preferred term of the 'Gulf of America,' he posted on X, 'As President Trumps' [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first.' The lawyers in that office are the 'president's lawyers' only in the narrow, trees-over-forest, analysis I referenced above. But in the broader context, they are not Trump's lawyers. They are the presidency's lawyers, not this president's personal henchmen. But Trump does not recognize a distinction there.
Just last night, Trump ordered that Covington and Burling, a law firm representing Jack Smith, the prosecutor overseeing the federal cases against Trump before Trump's election made them a dead letter, be punished for lending aid and comfort to Smith. The message is not subtle. The federal government is Trump's personal machinery of retribution. Can he do that? Yes. But should he do it is the far more important question.
Paul Ingrassia, Trump's new White House liaison with the Department of Homeland Security, is a social media troll and goon who supported the imposition of martial law to keep Trump in office in 2021. The head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is a red-pilled zealot who wrote children's books about a King Trump and a helpful wizard named 'Kash.' Patel's new deputy director is Dan Bongino. Though he is a former Secret Service officer, he has zero significant or relevant management experience in law enforcement, and no experience within the FBI whatsoever. But he is a loyalist.
Indeed, across a vast swath of government—pretty much all of it—the overriding criteria for appointment aren't professional qualifications, experience, or commitment to the Constitution or even good government, but personal loyalty to the president. The sine qua non of staffing the administration is whether you can be counted upon to follow Trump's orders and ape Trump's obsessions. Candidates for top intelligence jobs, for example, were asked whether January 6 was an 'inside job,' who were 'the real patriots' on that day, and who won the 2020 election.
Oh, and let's not forget his blanket pardons for January 6 rioters, including those found guilty of brutalizing police.
From law enforcement, to national security, to the administration of justice, it's hard to refute the claim that Donald Trump wants enablers, yes-men, and loyalists, who make their top priority Trump's aggrandizement.
Even his foreign policy requires a daily display of loyalty to his lies about simple, but very important, moral truths.
It also seems increasingly clear that he wants a press corps that sees nothing wrong with that, which is why this supposedly 'pro-free speech' administration is going after the AP for refusing to recognize the 'Gulf of America' name change and playing other petty games with the White House press pool.
Now, it's fine to beat up on the press for its stunningly high self-regard, or to point out its excesses. I've been doing that for 30 years. It's also fine to point out that the president can do all of these things (or most of them, pending court approval).
It's also fine to argue, as Rich Lowry does here, that the Biden administration politicized the Pentagon or, as many have argued, that it politicized the Department of Justice.
But not all politicizations are equal. By which I mean, Trump's politicizations are utterly self-serving. They are not connected to a larger ideological or intellectual framework. I've struggled to articulate why this is different from previous presidential projects. One term I've found helpful is personalism. Another, with regard to Trump's foreign policy, is 'sovereigntism.' But those are unsatisfying to me because they lend an air of intellectual rigor to a man who rejects intellectual rigor as a challenge to his will-to-power. So, I went with Trump's mobster worldview.
Jonathan Rauch, borrowing from Max Weber, offers another fancy word that fits quite well: Patrimonialism:
Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.
Whatever framework you apply, I think the underlying truth, the actual fact patterns, are all the same. And that's my problem with the smart defenses of a lot of Trump's actions. They depend on imposing a constitutional vision—a vision I share—on a political actor who, to the extent he thinks about it at all, sees the Constitution as a relic and impediment to his desires and little more. He may adhere to its bright lines, but not out of fidelity to it or out of a commitment to an alternative theory of how it works. He stays within the constitutional guardrails—to the extent he does—solely out of political necessity. And his appointments and actions signal that he will leap over those guardrails whenever he finds it in his interest to do so. He surrounds himself not just in his administration, but in the political and journalistic industrial complex built up around him, with people—including foreign populists and nationalists—who are willing to pretend, or eager to believe, that Trump is, in the words of conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, 'the living embodiment of the Constitution.' This provides a kind of permission structure that rationalizes each step toward some later violence to the Constitution, which will, like Hemingway's definition of bankruptcy, progress slowly until it's sudden.
Again, I am happy to point out (again) that he's not the first president to hold views along these lines. Woodrow Wilson certainly believed the Constitution was a relic holding him back. But pointing out such things should not be a defense of what Trump is so obviously doing—it should be part of the conservative indictment.
I do not think the smart conservatives I have in mind necessarily disagree with me in whole or in part. But the tendency to fall back on those academic—and correct!—arguments about the president's power often hinge on a false assumption about Trump's motives. The motives of a president matter a great deal. His politicization of government institutions is not simply a needed corrective to past politicizations, as sorely deserving those politicizations were in need of correction.
This is not normal. Trump's program isn't really ideological and certainly not 'conservative' in any traditional sense. If Trump were overseeing the imposition of Reaganism, or even some ideological agenda I disagreed with, those arguments would have greater purchase with me. But MAGA at its best is a pretext, and more often it's not even that. This is the faux-ideology of one person, one person's vanity, grievances and personal glory.
That's why I think the 'why' of it all is much more important than debates about 'can.' Sure, he can do a lot of things, because the Founders really didn't envision someone like Trump as president. They envisioned the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. At CPAC last week, Trump noted that Bill O'Reilly said that Trump was a better president than George Washington. To which Trump responded, 'I love beating George Washington.' The audience swooned.
Exactly.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment
LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment

CNN

time14 minutes ago

  • CNN

LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment

Update: Date: 18 min ago Title: Protesters outside US Embassy in Mexico City call for end to immigration raids across the border Content: Protesters in Mexico City staged a demonstration outside the US Embassy on Monday, calling for an end to sweeping immigration raids across the border. Video captured by Reuters showed people waving Mexican and US flags and burning an effigy resembling US President Donald Trump. 'We cannot remain silent as the Trump administration escalates its war on our communities in the United States,' said activist Alejandro Marinero from Migrant Organization Aztlan. 'Immigration policy is not a party issue, but a class issue. It is the tool of a system that seeks to divide us, exploit us and keep us in the shadows to ensure its profits at the expense of our humanity,' he told Reuters. Update: Date: 42 min ago Title: Thousands rally in San Francisco against ICE raids Content: Thousands of people marched through San Francisco's Civic Center and Mission neighborhoods on Monday night in protests that were 'overwhelmingly peaceful,' police said. Demonstrators rallied against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the country and expressed solidarity with immigrant communities, CNN affiliate KGO reported. 'At the very end of the night, two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts,' the San Francisco Police Department said. Police said they detained multiple people who refused to comply with orders, made arrests, and are currently addressing one unresolved situation. 'I'm deeply concerned about what's going on in Los Angeles and all around the country. California, we are better because of our diversity, and for people to be torn away from school graduations, torn away from their children, that's not right. We have to come out here and tell people that's not right,' Holly Minch, who marched with a sign that read 'MELT ICE,' told KGO. The police said they coordinated with public safety agencies under the leadership of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie to 'protect numerous First Amendment actions' in the affected neighborhoods. On Sunday, about 150 people, including some under the age of 18, were arrested near the Immigration Services building. Police said the arrests were made after protesters ignored dispersal orders and engaged in acts of violence and vandalism. Anti-ICE protests have popped up around the country, including in New York, Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas and Louisville. Update: Date: 57 min ago Title: Law enforcement helicopters have been circling above protests, flight tracker shows Content: Helicopters from the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department circled the areas of Boyle Heights and Little Tokyo throughout the day on Monday, according to data from Flightradar24. Earlier in the night, several police helicopters and a plane deployed by the California Highway Patrol were flying over the downtown area. By midnight, only two police helicopters remained airborne. Since protests erupted over the weekend, authorities have maintained a consistent presence in the air, with multiple helicopters sighted above protest zones all day yesterday. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: In pictures: Protesters clash with police in Downtown Los Angeles on Monday Content: Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Who is protesting in LA? Content: The protests appear divided into separate groups: progressive citizens who felt called to defend the rights of the undocumented, and protesters who appeared determined to drag the city into violent chaos. A senior law enforcement source told CNN that intelligence analysts have been conducting assessments on the crowds that gathered Sunday night. They found the many of the protesters were motivated by the recent immigration raids and disdain for the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. But some protesters, the intelligence source said, fit law enforcement profiles of so-called 'professional rioters,' who continually seek out confrontation with law enforcement. Defending 'La Raza': Unión del Barrio, an organization whose members are dedicated to defending the rights of 'la raza' — or Mexican and indigenous people — within the US, praised the efforts to fight back against ICE and other agencies. The Los Angeles community has 'the moral authority and universal right to defend our people from kidnappings and family separation,' a spokesman said. Toll on vulnerable communities: After being informed ICE agents were questioning workers at a Pasadena hotel, Pablo Alvarado, the co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, began calling for protests to protect vulnerable immigrant communities throughout the city. 'The Pasadena community showed up in large numbers and the message was loud and clear, we don't want to see your armored vehicles, men in masks coming to our communities to pick people up to rip families apart.' But, Alvarado added, he felt the violence that spread throughout the city in response to the raids was tainting their cause. Read the full story. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Analysis: LA's crisis rests on what Trump does next Content: Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. On Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump said. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. Read the full analysis. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Newsom hasn't done anything to warrant arrest, Trump's border czar says Content: White House border czar Tom Homan joined CNN's Kaitlan Collins to discuss comments President Donald Trump made suggesting Homan arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing
Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing

Always looking to provoke a crisis, Donald Trump has federalized 2,000 soldiers of the California National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor to put down a rebellion in Los Angeles that doesn't exist. And Trump is acting counter to federal law in doing so, which is no surprise for him. After demonstrators gathered in L.A. to protest ICE raids, some idiots in the crowd threw rocks at the immigration law enforcement officers. That's a crime and is not free speech. But the president used the sporadic violence, which was quickly quelled, to overstep his legal authority. On Saturday, he issued a directive claiming: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Then, latching on to his own word 'rebellion,' he invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 12406, covering the National Guard. The law is brief. It says that 'Whenever 1) the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' There's no invasion, there's no rebellion and ICE is able to carry out its functions. And there is no lawlessness in the streets of L.A. that can't be contained by the local L.A. County sheriff's department, which has almost 10,000 sworn and armed deputies and the LAPD, which has almost 9,000 sworn and armed cops. If those law enforcement professionals need help, California Gov. Gavin Newsom could activate the National Guard. But Newsom didn't call up the Guard for backup because the soldiers weren't needed. That Trump went around Newsom, who he 'cleverly' calls 'Newscum,' is something that hasn't been done in 60 years, when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 because segregationist Gov. George Wallace wouldn't protect civil rights demonstrators. There, Wallace was trying to defy the federal courts and the federal government. This is nothing like that. Trump says 'It's about law and order,' but he's the one who is going against the law and against regular order. And he's also talking about bringing in active duty Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton. That is also against the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1385. This statue is just a single sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 'Posse comitatus,' or 'posse' for short, are non-law enforcement persons acting as such. The military cannot be so used on the word of even the president. Trump should relent and demobilize the Guardsmen he wrongly brought into L.A. and let local and state officials secure the streets. _____

Uncle Elon's final report card
Uncle Elon's final report card

Business Insider

time25 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Uncle Elon's final report card

All good buddy comedies come to an end. For President Donald Trump and first friend "Uncle Elon" Musk, theirs wrapped up with the same explosive fanfare upon which it started. But now their shared enthusiasm for cutting government waste has morphed into animosity for each other so deep and personal that it's become a textbook case study in management gone wrong. In November, just after Trump's reelection, I asked management experts if Musk could mimic his track record of juicing everything he could out of his lean companies to make the government run more efficiently. They were reluctant to doubt Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, but just as reluctant to think his efficiency tactics at Tesla and X meant he could single-handedly transform the government. I checked back in with some of them in March, six weeks into DOGE's chaotic tenure, after it dismantled USAID and axed tens of thousands of federal workers. They described his management as "clumsy," "wrongheaded," and full of "political recklessness." Now, the breakup of the bromance between two of the world's biggest, boldest personalities is surprising only in that it took so long to unfold and, once it did, moved with the speed that only two social media savvy, chronically online posters could propel. (Musk posted on X more than a dozen times lambasting Trump and his " Big Beautiful Bill" late last week, since deleting some of the most disparaging claims, and Trump suggested Musk might be suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome.") If DOGE is a cautionary tale in how not to manage, it's one from the furthest extreme, marked by a clash between the egos of two of the world's most powerful men that made politics extremely personal. Still there are business lessons to be gleaned even for those of us who run fewer than six companies and have fewer than 220 million social media followers. DOGE has proved "unsuccessful" up to this point, and is so far a "failed venture" for Musk and for the government, says Subodha Kumar, a professor at Temple University's Fox School of Business. It brought "disruption, a lot of delays, a lot of mistrust, and a lot of good people have left the organization," he says. "This kind of damage takes a long time to repair." To date, DOGE has claimed it found $180 billion in savings (Musk in May called DOGE "effective," but "not as effective as I'd like," as the original goal was to save $2 trillion). An analysis in April from nonpartisan research group Partnership for Public Service found that the department's actions could cost as much as $135 billion, an estimate of the costs of the firings, re-hirings, and lost productivity. Meanwhile, the four months Musk spent working taking a chainsaw to the federal government are wrapping up doused in drama that has spilled over to his other companies. After his 130-day post as a special government employee ends, Musk is pointing the blame for government waste back on Trump, skewering the spending bill for being too big and ugly, and endorsing a call to impeach Trump and replace him with Vice President JD Vance (that post has since been deleted). The lesson here is akin to that of two mob bosses of the gangster world who both crave the superior distinction of being the number one boss. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management leadership professor The escalating tension is just the beginning of a fight that could get worse for Musk, and likely has little benefit for Trump, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management leadership professor who has studied Trump for decades and advised presidents, tells me in an email. DOGE, he notes, overpromised savings and may actually cost US taxpayers more when it comes to rehiring costs, repairing systems, and weakened cybersecurity. As WIRED reported last week, DOGE is hiring, and even has reached out to technologists who formerly worked for the government. Musk's involvement with the DOGE proved tumultuous for his businesses from the start. His personal wealth ballooned by some $200 billion in 2024, surpassing $400 billion after Election Day. Once he got to work in the White House, his absenteeism from his companies — paired with a growing distaste for DOGE's actions among the electorate and protests targeting Tesla — led his net worth to drop alongside Tesla's market cap. Last Thursday, Musk's open beef with Trump further hampered his wealth, leading the Tesla CEO to lose $34 billion personally in a single day. Tesla stock, which has taken a beating as people turn on the company to protest Musk's government work, took its biggest tumble since March, closing 14% lower and wiping out $152 billion from the company's market cap. Musk is still the richest person in the world. For Musk, there's damage to the Tesla brand in need of repair. His next step could be "to portray himself as a purist who came in to offer his technical help and didn't realize how deep the corruption runs," says Michael Morris, a professor at Columbia Business School. "Musk could potentially portray himself as a wayward son of the tech industry." This might only work if the Trump administration continues to stumble, and if Musk also sees more success, like winning big with his robotaxi push. As Taylor Lorenz reported in User Mag Friday, some high-profile Democrats are already signaling that they would welcome Musk back into the fold. Trump over the weekend told NBC News Musk would face "serious consequences" if he donated to Democratic candidates (he did not specify what they would be). It's yet to be seen where Musk will find his next political alliances: On Friday, he ran a poll on X asking if a third political party should emerge to include the 80% of Americans in the middle of Republicans and Democrats, as he sees it. The president has threatened to go after Musk's government contracts — which total in tens of billions of dollars for SpaceX and Tesla. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump himself bought a Tesla just three months ago, and is now considering selling it. (Best of luck to him, the cars' resale values have tanked). As Trump and Musk part ways, it's clear that Musk's brazen, fully autonomous leadership style didn't work in the government world, as it eschewed transparency and collaboration in favor of a top-down approach. "The one-size-fits-all policy does not work everywhere," says Kumar. "You have to understand the culture of the organization and you have to work from inside rather than from outside." Back in November, experts told me it wasn't clear what authority Musk would actually wield in the newly-created position to implement massive spending cuts. Trying to employ tech-world leadership tactics from the White House created a rivalry between Musk and Trump for power and control, undercutting the alliance between the two and leaving DOGE far short of its savings goals. "The lesson here is akin to that of two mob bosses of the gangster world who both crave the superior distinction of being the number one boss — with surging parallel drives for grandiosity," Sonnenfeld says. "Musk's tragic mistake was that he forgot his role — as a staffer and advisor to Trump, not the primary character he foolishly believed himself to be, and even now, continues to overestimate his own importance and indispensability."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store