Trump shows that loyalty is all that matters to him
Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump's global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on 'Liberation Day' as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there's a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.
Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump's response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:
'How is it possible for [the CIT judges] to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own 'thing.' I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!'
Let's begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word 'tariff' or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the 'Penguin Islands' included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.)
Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a 'sleazebag' and 'bad person.' Note: Leo is neither of those things.
But Trump's broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it's fallen to the courts to restrain Trump's multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That's why the White House is cynically denouncing 'unelected' and 'rogue' judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump's political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a 'judicial coup.'
The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different?
Trump has a history of suggesting 'my judges' — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That's why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship.
The significance of Trump's attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwah that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind.
Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him.
In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump's image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that's why the Federalist Society is in Trump's crosshairs.
@JonahDispatch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
5 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘No One Can Offer Any Hope'
Every month or so I get a desperate message from a 25-year-old Afghan refugee in Pakistan. Another came just last week. I've written about Saman in the past. Because my intent today is to write about her place in the moral universe of Elon Musk and Vice President J. D. Vance, I'll compress her story to its basic details: During the Afghan War, Saman and her husband, Farhad (they requested pseudonyms for their own safety), served in the Afghan special forces alongside American troops. When Kabul fell in 2021, they were left behind and had to go into hiding from the Taliban before fleeing to Pakistan. There the couple and their two small children have languished for three years, burning through their limited cash, avoiding the Pakistani police and Taliban agents, seldom leaving their rented rooms—doomed if they're forced to return to Afghanistan—and all the while waiting for their applications to be processed by the United States' refugee program. No other country will provide a harbor to these loyal allies of America, who risked everything for the war effort. Our country has a unique obligation to do so. They had reached the last stage of a very long road and were on the verge of receiving U.S. visas when Donald Trump came back into office and made ending the refugee program one of his first orders of business. Now Saman and her family have no prospect of escaping the trap they're in. 'The stress and anxiety have become overwhelming,' Saman wrote to me last week. 'Every day I worry about the future of my children—what will become of them? Recently, I've developed a new health issue as well. At times, my fingers suddenly become tight and stiff—almost paralyzed—and I can't move them at all. My husband massages them with great effort until they gradually return to normal. This is a frightening and painful experience … Please, in this difficult time, I humbly ask for your help and guidance. What can I do to find a way out of these hardships?' I've brought the plight of Saman and her family to members of Congress, American activist groups, foreign diplomats, and readers of this magazine. No one can offer any hope. The family's fate is in the hands of Trump and his administration. George Packer: 'What about six years of friendship and fighting together?' And, after all, their story is just one small part of the suffering caused by this regime. A full accounting would be impossible to compile, but it already includes an estimated several hundred thousand people dead or dying of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria because of the elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the starvation of refugee children in Sudan, migrants deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, and victims of domestic violence who have lost their shelter in Maine. In the wide world of the regime's staggering and gratuitous cruelty, the pain in Saman's fingers might seem too trivial to mention. But hers is the suffering that keeps arriving in my phone, the ongoing story that seems to be my unavoidable job to hear and tell. And sometimes one small drama can illuminate a large evil. Since reading Saman's latest text, I can't stop thinking about the people who are doing this to her and her family—especially about Musk and Vance. As for Trump, I find it difficult to hold him morally responsible for anything. He's a creature of appetite and instinct who hunts and feeds in a dark sub-ethical realm. You don't hold a shark morally responsible for mauling a swimmer. You just try to keep the shark at bay—which the American people failed to do. Musk and Vance function at a higher evolutionary level than Trump. They have ideas to justify the human suffering they cause. They even have moral ideas. Musk's moral idea goes by the name longtermism, which he has called 'a close match to my philosophy.' This reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism seeks to do the greatest good for the greatest number of human beings who will ever live. By this reasoning, the fate of the hundreds of billions of as-yet-unborn people who will inhabit the planet before the sun burns it up several billion years from now is more urgent than whether a few million people die of preventable diseases this year. If killing the American aid programs that helped keep those people alive allows the U.S. government to become lean and efficient enough to fund Musk's grand project of interplanetary travel, thereby enabling human beings to live on Mars when Earth becomes uninhabitable in some distant era, then the good of humanity requires feeding those aid programs, including ones that support refugee resettlement, into the woodchipper. Refugees—except for white South Africans —aren't important enough to matter to longtermism. Its view of humanity is far too large to notice Saman, Farhad, and their children, or to understand why America might have a moral obligation to give this family a safe home. Longtermism is a philosophy with a special appeal for smart and extremely rich sociopaths. It can justify almost any amount of hubris, spending, and suffering. Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency mogul who is serving a 25-year sentence for fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering, was a longtermist. It isn't clear that Musk, during his manic and possibly drug-addled months of power in the Trump administration, applied moral reasoning when hacking at the federal government. His erratic behavior and that of his troops in the Department of Government Efficiency seemed driven more by destructive euphoria than by philosophy. But in February, on Joe Rogan's show, Musk used the loftiest terms to explain why the cries of pain caused by his cuts should be ignored: 'We've got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it's like, I believe in empathy. Like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for civilization as a whole and not commit to a civilizational suicide. The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.' Here is another category of the long view, with an entire civilization in place of the planet's future inhabitants. Musk's sphere of empathy is galactic. In its cold immensity, the ordinary human impulse to want to relieve the pain of a living person with a name and a face disappears. Vance once called himself 'a proud member of both tribes' of the MAGA coalition—techno-futurists like Musk and right-wing populists like Steve Bannon. But when Vance invokes a moral code, it's the opposite of Musk's. The scope of its commitment is as narrow and specific as an Appalachian graveyard—the cemetery in eastern Kentucky where five generations of Vances are buried and where, he told the Republican National Convention last summer, he hopes that he, his wife, and their children will eventually lie. Such a place is 'the source of America's greatness,' Vance said, because 'people will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.' Politically, this is called blood-and-soil nationalism. Religiously, Vance traces his moral code to the Catholic doctrine of ordo amoris, the proper order of love: first your family, he told Sean Hannity of Fox News, then your neighbor, your community, your nation, and finally—a distant last—the rest of humanity. But Vance's theology is as bad as his political theory. Generations of Americans fought and died for the idea of freedom in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II, and other conflicts. And Christian doctrine does not say to keep out refugees because they're not your kin. Jesus said the opposite: To refuse the stranger was to refuse him. Vance likes to cite Augustine and Aquinas, but the latter was clear about what ordo amoris does not mean: 'In certain cases, one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one's own father, if he is not in such urgent need.' From the March 2022 issue: The betrayal It's a monstrous perversion of both patriotism and faith to justify hurting a young family who, after all they've suffered, still show courage and loyalty to Vance's country. Starting from opposite moral positions, Musk and Vance are equally indifferent to the ordeal of Saman and her family. When empathy is stretched to the cosmic vanishing point or else compressed to the width of a grave, it ceases to be empathy. Perhaps these two elites even take pleasure in the squeals of bleeding-heart humanitarians on behalf of refugees, starving children, international students, poor Americans in ill health, and other unfortunates. And that may be a core value of these philosophies: They require so much inventing of perverse principles to reach a cruel end that the pain of others begins to seem like the first priority rather than the inadvertent result. Think of the range of people who have been drawn to MAGA. It's hard to see what political ideology Elon Musk, J. D. Vance, Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Loury, Nick Fuentes, Bari Weiss, Lil Wayne, Joe Rogan, Bill Ackman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Kanye West have in common. The magnetic pull is essentially negative. They all fear and loathe something more than Trump—whether it's wokeness, Palestinians, Jews, Harvard, trans people, The New York Times, or the Democratic Party—and manage to overlook everything else, including the fate of American democracy, and Saman and her family. But overlooking everything else is nihilism. Even if most Americans haven't abandoned their private sense of empathy, many don't seem terribly bothered by the rancidness of their leaders. I confess that this indifference astonishes me. It might be the ugliest effect of Trump's return—the rapid normalization of spectacular corruption, the desensitization to lawless power, the acceptance of moral collapse. Eventually it will coarsen us all.
8 minutes ago
Cuomo, Mamdani vie for top spot in NYC Democratic mayoral primary
With just three weeks to go until New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is on track for a political comeback nearly four years after having resigned his governorship amid allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct -- but a Democratic socialist candidate continues to gain momentum among the crowded slate of contenders. All the while, incumbent mayor Eric Adams is staying off the primary ballot, and is running, instead, as an independent. Whoever comes out of the June 24 Democratic primary victorious is more than likely New York City's next mayor -- nearly every borough in the overwhelmingly Democratic city voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, per election returns. Cuomo attempts a comeback Cuomo announced his entrance into the race in March, saying in an announcement video that he was the best leader for New York City, which he said was "in crisis." Cuomo's governorship was derailed after several women accused him of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. He resigned as governor in 2021, saying that the controversy would cause undue turmoil for the state, but has consistently denied the allegations and recently told the New York Times he regrets resigning. A New York state prosecutor dropped criminal forcible touching charges against Cuomo in 2022. Cuomo also faced scrutiny for the state's tracking of deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes during his tenure after reports that Cuomo and his team withheld from state legislators the true number of COVID-19 deaths at New York nursing homes. Cuomo has defended his performance and the count, and an independent investigation in 2024 found that Cuomo's nursing home response policy was based on "the best available data at the time." The Justice Department has begun an inquiry based off of a referral from Congress about Cuomo's handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic, according to congressional documents and a source familiar with the matter. In a statement, Cuomo's spokesperson says the inquiry is "election interference." "Governor Cuomo testified truthfully to the best of his recollection about events from four years earlier, and he offered to address any follow-up questions from the Subcommittee — but from the beginning this was all transparently political," Cuomo's spokesperson, Rich Azzopardi said in a statement in response to the inquiry. His campaign has not been without roadblocks. The New York City Campaign Finance Board has withheld some matching funds from his campaign, saying that his campaign may have improperly coordinated with an independent group. Cuomo's campaign and the group separately maintain they did not break any rules or do anything wrong, and the campaign expects to eventually receive the full funds. And even still, at the end of May, Cuomo's team announced the campaign raised $3.9 million since Feb. 28. And while other candidates have brought up the allegations and hit at Cuomo's record, no one attack seems to be sticking, and polling shows that Cuomo remains the front-runner. Near ubiquitous name recognition and a gubernatorial record that resonates contribute to Cuomo's favorable polling, said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University. Some of that record, Moss said, includes Cuomo's actions as governor such as rebuilding the beleaguered LaGuardia Airport and passing a law legalizing same-sex marriage in 2011, before it was legalized nationally. Cuomo also already had a deep bench of support among Black voters and unions, Moss said, and many New Yorkers see him as aligning with their own values. "People want a mayor they can connect to emotionally. And it's not just a set of policies you're picking. You're picking a person that you feel represents your values," Moss said. For some people, the misconduct allegations against Cuomo are an issue, but many New Yorkers may be willing to look past it, Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic political strategist, told ABC News. "They want somebody who appears nonchaotic, and they're prepared to forgive all his trespasses if he can make the city run," Sheinkopf said. A Democratic Socialist gains momentum Among the other 10 candidates on the Democratic primary ballot, Zohran Mamdani, a state assemblymember and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is steadily inching upward in the polls and fundraising. Mamdani is running on a progressive platform that includes a rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments, eliminating fares for New York City buses and opening city-owned grocery stores. He has gained major traction in recent weeks -- raising more than $8 million through donations and matching funds, Mamdani's campaign announced on March 24, and gaining buzz across social media with snappy TikTok videos and social media soundbites about his plans. "Mamdani is the one to watch... He is fresh; the others are tired," Sheinkopf said. "The things he's saying have a populist appeal, whether they are realistic to achieve or not." Sheinkopf also said Mamdani's ads are "very smart … he's captured the generational argument," and that the Democratic Socialists of America have effectively organized their support and outreach for Mamdani. Yet Mamdani is nowhere near the household name that Cuomo is. And with early voting starting on June 14, the window for candidates to make their case for the job is closing fast. Mamdani has also faced some scrutiny over the feasibility of some of his plans, as well as his views on Israel, given New York's large Jewish population. He has said that he supports boycotts and pressure on Israel over its conduct in the Israel-Hamas war, but frames that within his general "support for universal human rights", as he told The Forward in April, and he has emphasized policies to combat antisemitism. In May, Mamdani told a reporter that he supports Israel's "right to exist as a state." At a forum held by the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council in May, he did not answer directly when asked if Israel has the right to exist specifically as a Jewish state. Other candidates have struggled to break through including New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, city councilmember Adrienne Adams, former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson and state Senator Zellnor Myrie.
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Sen. Ron Johnson rips into 'immoral' GOP spending bill: 'I can't accept it'
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" as "immoral" and "grotesque," and reiterated that he will vote against it unless his GOP colleagues make major changes. "This is immoral, what us old farts doing to our young people," Johnson said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" after sounding alarms that the massive tax-and-spending-cut bill would add trillions of dollars to national deficits. "This is grotesque, what we're doing," Johnson said. "We need to own up to that. This is our moment." "I can't accept the scenario, I can't accept it, so I won't vote for it, unless we are serious about fixing it," he continued. Johnson has been among the Senate's loudest GOP critics of the budget bill that narrowly passed the House last month. Johnson and other fiscal hawks have taken aim over its impact on the nation's debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated later Wednesday that the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Johnson has proposed splitting the bill into two parts, though Trump insists on passing his agenda in a single package. "The president and Senate leadership has to understand that we're serious now," Johnson said of himself and the handful of other GOP senators whose opposition to the bill could imperil its chances. "They all say, 'Oh, we can pressure these guys.' No, you can't." Republicans hold a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate, so they can only afford to lose a handful of votes to get the bill passed in a party-line vote. "Let's discuss the numbers, and let's focus on our children and grandchildren, whose futures are being mortgaged, their prospects are being diminished by what we are doing to them," Johnson said. Johnson's comments came one day after Elon Musk ripped into the spending bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination" that will lead to exploding deficits. The White House brushed aside Musk's comments. Johnson said that Musk's criticisms bolster the case against the bill. "He's in the inside, he showed ... President Trump how to do this, you know, contract by contract, line by line," Johnson said of Musk. "We have to do that." Johnson said that his campaign against the bill in its current form is not a "long shot," because he thinks there are "enough" Republican senators will will vote against the bill. "We want to see [Trump] succeed, but again, my loyalty is to our kids and grandkids," he said. "So there's enough of us who have that attitude that very respectfully we just have say, 'Mr. President, I'm sorry, 'one, big, beautiful bill' was not the best idea," he added.
