How low must Donald Trump sink before adoring Tories call him out?
Almost a decade ago, when his first campaign for the presidency was a mere publicity stunt, Donald Trump amused his audience at a meeting at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa with a rather prescient quip: 'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
Well, despite the Supreme Court's foolhardy decision to grant him blanket presidential immunity, things haven't yet quite deteriorated that far. But recent, ever-more dictatorial behaviour on the part of Trump brings his 'joke' to mind again.
It illuminates a question that becomes more pressing, more puzzling and more depressing with every passing day of the second Trump presidency. Exactly what does this despot have to do for some people to call him out? Hopefully, not a homicide in cold blood in New York City – but still…
Some prominent commentators sympathetic to the Trump project have had the integrity and self-pride to re-examine their previous conditional support for him. Andrew Neil, for example, declares that the president is an 'unprincipled, narcissistic charlatan who doesn't give a damn about democracy'. Never a Trump fanboy, Neil admits he gave him the benefit of the doubt over the 'vacuous' Kamala Harris, but his worst fears have now been exceeded.
Neil's apostasy was greeted online with plenty of comments along the lines of 'what took you so long, Andrew?' Fair comment, especially after a whole four years of the previous Trump presidency, the Project 2025 unofficial manifesto and, most graphically, the attempted insurrection on 6 January 2021 should all have left no doubt about Trump's malevolent intentions.
And yet Neil has the self-pride to admit his misjudgment. Others, however, are clinging to an increasingly absurd belief that Trump is a force for good, a peacemaker and a man who can be relied upon.
In Britain, the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Nigel Farage are high-profile victims of what we may term 'Trump Delusion Syndrome' – a reluctance to accept the reality of the man and a cause they've invested so much political capital in. Perhaps, Liz and Boris see in Trump's Lazarus-like resurrection a model for their own return to front-line politics, his Maga movement a vehicle for their own careers. Or maybe they just want to grift around the lucrative Maga speaking circuit.
In any case, they have gone a bit quiet about the man they claimed, despite all evidence to the contrary, was the saviour of the free world.
Truss and Johnson, unwisely as it turned out, enthusiastically endorsed Trump for the presidency, and now that he is smashing up the Atlantic Alliance and toying with the idea of withdrawing America from Nato, they find it difficult to unleash themselves from their ties of loyalty to the monster. Disgracefully, they have signally failed to support their 'friend' Volodymyr Zelensky, even as he was publicly humiliated in the Oval Office. The silence of Johnson and Truss on social media has been deafening.
Although it feels a bygone age, it is not so very long ago, we may recall, that Johnson was prime minister and Truss his foreign secretary, and neither was preaching appeasement of Putin. Quite the opposite: they wanted the West to help Ukraine take back all the lands occupied by Russia since 2014 – not just since the 2022 invasion. Yet, only a few weeks ago, Johnson maintained: 'No – I see no sign whatever that he [Trump] will betray the Ukrainians.'
Yet even now, when Trump realigns America towards Russia, idolises Putin, betrays Ukraine, demeans America's allies, starts a global trade war and openly advocates territorial aggression towards Canada, Panama and Greenland, Johnson cannot find the gumption to give up his delusions about Trump.
Others are in an even trickier position. When Trump won the election last November, the current leader of opposition, Kemi Badenoch, teased Keir Starmer for past remarks by the foreign secretary, David Lammy, who once called Trump a 'neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath". Right first time, David, we may think now. It would probably be just as well if Badenoch adopted a more critical approach to Trump, and dropped some of her equivocations about his foreign policy and despotic ways.
Of course, the real resistance to Trump can only be in America itself, and, crucially, in the Republican Party that Trump has parasitically preyed upon. Like one of those insects that eats its host from within, Maga has turned the party of Reagan into the party of Putin, and too many have supinely gone along with it.
Vice-president JD Vance once called Trump 'Hitler', but now he is mimicking Rudolf Hess. When he was a senator, Marco Rubio ran against Trump and called Putin a gangster, thug and war criminal. Now he is secretary of state, he sits there in the Oval Office while his once-hero Zelensky gets abused, impassively, gradually sinking deeper into the sofa like Homer Simpson retreats into a hedge in a popular social media meme, paralysed by embarrassment. Elon Musk once judged Trump – the president he now serves with wanting abandon – a 'f***ing moron'.
We can already hear the clattering of scales falling from some people's eyes as they process exactly what Trump is doing. The resistance to him is stirring. The worry is that Trump has got such a grip on the Republican Party, and thus on Congress, the Supreme Court and the independent agencies and leadership of the armed forces (recently purged), as well as vast sections of the media, that he will soon be in a similar position to, say, Viktor Orban in Hungary.
This is what the academics call 'competitive authoritarianism' – a regime that retains some of the usual features of a free, democratic society, such as media critics and periodic elections, but which is tightly controlled and strictly authoritarian in nature, continually pressing against and breaching conventions, constitutional guardrails and international obligations.
Trump isn't another Hitler, complete with death camps and a Gestapo; but he is the nearest thing America has ever come to such a fate – and that's bad for the whole world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
Daily Mirror
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk and Donald Trump 'back together' as Tesla CEO extends olive branch
Elon Musk and Donald Trump had a spectacular falling out which had been building as the tech billionaire attacked the US president's "big beautiful bill" for several days Elon Musk appeared to extend an olive branch to Donald Trump in a social media post over the LA protests fuelling speculation that they could be soon 'back together'. The tech billionaire's 'bromance' with Donald Trump came to a fiery end last week in an ugly online spat between the pair on Thursday after several days where Musk had been criticising the US government over the president's "big beautiful bill". Trump threatened to cut Musk's government contracts and the tech billionaire claimed that US government hasn't released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. There is no suggestion Trump knew of any crimes or participated in any criminal behaviour. But several days later it seems as though tempers have cooled and Trump shared on X a photo of Trump's Truth Social post calling out California Governor Gavin Newsom over his handling of the current trouble in Los Angeles. The post by Trump demands that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass should "apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots." He added: "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists. Remember, NO MASKS!" In addition to Trump, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency also shared a post by Vice President JD Vance, who said: "This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk added with his post two American flags. It has left many wondering whether this could mean an end to the war between the pair. "So are y'all besties again or...," one person wrote on social media. "You're doing the Seinfeld episode where George pretends he didn't rage quit his job. I'm for it," a second person stated. "Elon and Trump will be back together by the end of the week," a third person said. "Aren't you guys still fighting? " a fourth person laughed. The messy blow-up between the president of the United States and the world 's richest man played out on their respective social media platforms after Trump was asked during a White House meeting with Germany's new leader about Musk's criticism of his spending bill. Trump had largely remained silent as Musk stewed over the last few days on his social media platform X, condemning the president's so-called 'big beautiful bill.' But Trump clapped back Thursday in the Oval Office, saying he was 'very disappointed in Musk.' Musk responded on social media in real time. Trump, who was supposed to be spending Thursday discussing an end to the Russia-Ukraine war with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, ratcheted up the stakes when he turned to his own social media network, Truth Social, and threatened to use the US government to hurt Musk's bottom line by going after contracts held by his internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX. '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 his social media network. 'Go ahead, make my day,' Musk quickly replied on X. Hours later, Musk announced SpaceX would begin decommissioning the spacecraft it used to carry astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station for NASA. He later stepped back from making this call and his apparent move to make up with Trump comes as Tesla stocks have crashed.
Leader Live
34 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Trump deploys National Guard troops
They blocked off a major road and set self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who do not leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. Sunday's protests in Los Angeles, a sprawling city of four million people, were centred in downtown several blocks. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Mr Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were 'overwhelmed' by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who appear at demonstrations to cause trouble. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained on Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. Let's get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn't need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded. 4) Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump's mess. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 Mr Trump responded to Mr McDonnell on Truth Social, telling him to arrest protesters in face masks. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote. Starting in the morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home'. After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom requested that Mr Trump remove the guard members in a letter on Sunday afternoon, calling their deployment a 'serious breach of state sovereignty'. He was in Los Angeles meeting local law enforcement and officials. The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's national guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration's mass deportation efforts. Mr Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the increasingly aggressive protests on Mr Trump's decision to deploy the Guard, calling it a move designed to inflame tensions. They have both urged protesters to remain peaceful. 'What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,' she said in an afternoon press conference. 'This is about another agenda, this isn't about public safety.' But Mr McDonnell, the LAPD chief, said the protests were following a similar pattern for episodes of civil unrest, with things ramping up in the second and third days. He pushed back against claims by the Trump administration that the LAPD had failed to help federal authorities when protests broke out on Friday after a series of immigration raids. His department responded as quickly as it could, and had not been notified in advance of the raids and therefore was not pre-positioned for protests, he said. Mr Newsom, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that California authorities had the situation under control. He mocked Mr Trump for posting a congratulatory message to the Guard on social media before troops had even arrived in Los Angeles, and said on MSNBC that Mr Trump never floated deploying the Guard during a Friday phone call. He called Mr Trump a 'stone cold liar'. The admonishments did not deter the administration. 'It's a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighbouring Compton. Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA's fashion district, in a Home Depot parking lot and at several other locations on Friday. The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot. The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement. The protests did not reach the size of past demonstrations that brought the National Guard to Los Angeles, including the Watts and Rodney King riots, and the 2020 protests against police violence, in which Mr Newsom requested the assistance of federal troops. The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice. In a directive on Saturday, Mr Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States'. He said he had authorised the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard. Mr Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, Sunday that there were 'violent people' in Los Angeles 'and they're not going to get away with it'. Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Mr Trump replied: 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country.' He did not elaborate. About 500 marines stationed at Twentynine Palms, about 125 miles (200 kilometres) east of Los Angeles were in a 'prepared to deploy status' on Sunday afternoon, according to the US Northern Command.
