Commentary: In his quest for cultural dominance, Trump threatens what makes America great
Before members of Congress vote on the budget package that President Trump is about to send them, they might consider watching the adaptation of Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light," which recently concluded on PBS' Masterpiece.
In the final episodes, Henry VIII (Damian Lewis), pissed (per usual) that things are not going his way, orders the execution of his right-hand man, Thomas Cromwell (Mark Rylance). Henry will come to regret it, of course, but he is an impetuous and paranoid narcissist, with little sense of history and even less vision.
Cromwell's journey to Tower Hill is, in its way, poetic justice. After all, he helped Henry grow the powers of the monarchy, making him head of the Church of England as well as the kingdom, and did not object to using the chopping block to do it.
Now PBS, famous for reminding us, through documentaries and series like "Wolf Hall," of the historic pitfalls of power, is facing the axe. Trump has ordered that the Corp. for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies stop public financing for PBS and NPR.
Trump has put many things on his chopping block of late, including our system of checks and balances, civil rights, the economy and far too many cultural touchstones. Like Henry VIII and many emperors, he wants not just political power but cultural dominance.
Read more: Trump fires Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet
Just as the increasingly Rococo White House reflects Trump's Versailles-knockoff style, his ghastly "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" executive order is a disingenuous and authoritarian mandate to remake not just American history but also our arts and letters, sports and media into an endless reflection of his ideological image.
In addition to cutting funds for PBS and NPR, Trump has, via executive order, threatened to defund elite universities, including Harvard, that refuse to take government dictation over curriculum and hiring policies. In his rampage to root out 'wokeness,' he has dismantled Voice of America (the country's largest and oldest international broadcaster), personally taken over programming at the Kennedy Center and obliterated the curatorial autonomy of the Smithsonian (on Friday, he fired the director of the National Portrait Gallery, which he may or may not be legally able to do, claiming that she was too "partisan").
In order to ensure that a single trans athlete was unable to compete unimpeded in a high school track event, he threatened to withhold federal funds from California (which contributes more than 12% of those funds, making it the largest donor state in the country).
Under Elon Musk, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (a name George Orwell could have coined), has defunded, among other things, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institutes of Health and the National Park Service.
Trump recently suggested that Alcatraz be turned back to a working prison, which, given his draconian immigration policies, forces one to wonder how soon before he decides to replace the Statue of Liberty's torch with a 'do not enter' sign or destroy Lady Liberty altogether as the Nazis did during their fictional takeover of the U.S. in "The Man in the High Castle"?
Many of the institutions that Trump now threatens to curtail or destroy have made this country a democratic haven and cultural center for decades. They have looked on the tempests of war, economic turmoil, civil unrest and seesawing politics and remained, as Shakespeare said, an ever-fixed mark, adapting to atmospheric shifts but essentially unchanged.
Read more: PBS sues Trump White House over executive order to cut funding
Not surprisingly, some of the proposed cuts are being challenged in court by PBS, NPR, Harvard and other besieged institutions. ABC reported in March that the Trump administration had been sued three times for every business day of his presidency.
As many have pointed out, his plan to Make America Great Again involves destroying many of the things that made it great in the first place.
Which may explain, in part, his consistently poor showing in popularity polls.
To be fair, Trump has never been explicit about the antecedent Again. But over the years, he has pointed to the economic boom at the turn of the 20th century and again in the years following World War II as times when the United States was, by his lights, truly great.
Many believe that Trump actually hopes to return to the relatively brief Gilded Age, the years between 1870 and 1890 during which captains of industry/robber barons flourished, aided in large part by the expansion of the railroads (at the hands, it must be noted, of Chinese and Irish immigrants).
But the actual turn of the century saw the rise of the Progressive Era during which the robber barons turned to philanthropy, funding medical research, libraries, museums and universities; unions and the women's suffrage movement triumphed; and President Theodore Roosevelt enacted his Square Deal, breaking up trusts, avoiding tariffs, protecting consumers and establishing the national parks.
In the early 1900s, journalism, the muckrakers, became highly influential, raising awareness about many social ills, including child labor, unsafe working conditions and unsanitary food processing.
Read more: NPR and public radio stations sue Trump White House over funding cuts
Likewise, during the economic expansion post-WWII, American politics were dominated by liberal Democrats still operating within the ethos of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, including the GI Bill by which a generation of Americans attended college. At Harvard, where enrollment nearly doubled, almost half of the class of 1949 was WWII veterans.
So it's odd, to say the least, that Trump would choose to trumpet these particular eras as the benchmarks to which he hopes our country will return even as he attempts to destroy many of the institutions that have their roots in those times.
Voice of America was founded during WWII to counter Axis propaganda and continued to bring cultural and political democracy to countries under authoritarian rule. It was so effective that Putin tried to block it. Trump is now shutting it down and plans to advance the pro-Trump One America News Network.
The Smithsonian has engaged with many presidents since its establishment in 1846 (the vice president always serves on the Board of Regents), especially both of the Roosevelts. But no one but Trump ever attempted to strip the museum of its independent curatorial process by dictating what should and should not be featured in its many museums.
Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain
PBS, NPR and the Kennedy Center are more recent additions, but their aims and presence grow naturally from the kind of federal funding for arts and media prevalent during the Progressive Era and following WWII, when presidential administrations, of both parties, agreed with the founding fathers' belief that democracy requires an informed electorate and Americans are entitled to free expression.
Like the Constitution, our iconic cultural institutions can grow to reflect the country they serve, but also like the Constitution, they cannot be threatened or eviscerated at the whim of the president.
As they prepare to receive Trump's budget cuts, some Republican members of Congress have already expressed uneasiness over the proposed gutting of PBS. That queasiness should be taken as the symptom of a larger problem — a president should certainly be able to influence American culture, but he cannot be allowed to dismantle it.
As they consider their vote, our elected officials might want to reacquaint themselves with the actual history of American greatness. And then they should have a look at 'Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light.'
Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
EDMONTON — Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally says the move signals a "renewed commitment to open and fair trade" with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Nally says the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines "sets the stage for more constructive negotiations" ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The minister says Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. Nally said in April that the province was pausing its policy around procurement from U.S. companies "in the spirit of diplomacy." He said since the province's retaliatory measures were first announced in early March, the Trump administration had put a hold on further tariffs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs , deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations , Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act , to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort , forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .