The supreme court is giving a lawless president the green light
Many legal experts, along with the court's three liberal justices, protested that the court was letting Trump abolish a congressionally created federal agency without Congress's approval. In their dissent, the liberal justices warned that the court was undermining Congress's authority and the constitution's separation of powers. Not only that, we should all be concerned that the court was giving dangerous new powers to the most authoritarian-minded president in US history.
In the Department of Education case, the court issued a one-paragraph, unsigned order that lifted a lower court's injunction that blocked the Trump administration from making wholesale layoffs that went far toward dismantling the department. Recognizing that Article I of the constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund federal agencies and define their responsibilities, prior supreme court decisions have held that presidents don't have the power to defy what Congress has legislated and gut an agency without Congress's approval.
In a stinging dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: 'Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive's task, by contrast, is to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Sotomayor added that the court's order 'permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department' was 'indefensible'.
Making the court's move even more maddening was its failure to include any reasoning to explain its action – it was the most recent in a string of brief 'emergency docket' orders which, without giving any rationale, ruled on Trump's behalf. The rightwing justices might argue that this was a harmless, minor order, merely lifting a lower court's injunction until the case is fully adjudicated. But by vacating the injunction, the court let Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, speed ahead with her plan to slash the department's workforce by over 50%, a move that will gut the agency and prevent it from carrying out many functions that Congress authorized it to do. The supreme court's order is likely to leave the department an empty shell by the time the judiciary issues a final ruling on whether Trump broke the law in gutting the department – and there's a good chance the judiciary will conclude that Trump acted illegally.
The Trump administration insisted that it wasn't dismantling the education department, that it had merely ordered massive layoffs there to boost efficiency. But the district court judge didn't buy the administrations' arguments, especially because Trump had spoken so frequently about killing the department.
Sotomayor wrote that the constitution requires all presidents, including Trump, to faithfully execute the law. But in this case, Trump seemed eager to execute the Department of Education, while showing scant concern for executing the law. Noting Trump's repeated vows to abolish the department, Sotomayor chided the supermajority, writing: 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.'
With that language, the three dissenting justices were in essence accusing the supermajority of aiding and abetting Trump's defiance of the law. In the court's 236-year history, rarely have dissenting justices been so emphatic in criticizing the majority for 'expediting' a president's lawlessness.
Sotomayor hammered that point home, writing: 'The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution's separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle.'
If the US constitution means anything, it means that the supreme court should stand up to a president who seeks to maximize his power by defying the law. But far too often today's rightwing supermajority seems to lean in to back Trump. The court leaned in for Trump last year in Chief Justice John Roberts' much-criticized ruling that gave Trump and other presidents vast immunity from prosecution. The supermajority leaned in for Trump last month when it gave Elon Musk and his Doge twentysomethings access to sensitive personal information for over 70 million Americans on Social Security.
One would think the nine justices would be eager to strengthen the pillars that uphold our democracy: the separation of powers, fair elections, respect for the law, limits on the power of the executive. But the Roberts court has too often weakened those pillars: by giving Trump huge immunity from prosecution, by turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering that prevents fair elections and by letting Trump fire top officials from independent agencies long before their terms end. In late June, the supermajority curbed district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions to put a brake on Trump's rampant lawlessness – by that time, lower court judges had issued over 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they deemed unlawful.
In the Department of Education case, the court again weakened a pillar upholding our democracy; it gave Trump a green light to ignore Congress's wishes and take a wrecking ball to the department. It's hugely dismaying that the court undercut Congress's power at a time when Trump has transformed the nation's senators and representatives into an assemblage of compliant kittens by intimidating them with a social media bullhorn that bludgeons anyone who dares to defy his wishes. Instead of shoring up Congress's power in the face of such intimidation, the Roberts court has seemed happy to undermine Congress and hand over more power to Trump.
On top of all that, it is galling to see the court issue so many pro-Trump orders without giving any rationale. When the US is so polarized and the court so widely criticized for its many pro-Trump rulings, it would seem incumbent upon the court, when issuing orders, to explain why it's doing what it's doing. But the court has repeatedly failed to sufficiently explain its decisions, revealing an unfortunate arrogance and obtuseness.
Justice Samuel Alito has complained about those who criticize the court over the rushed, unexplained decisions on its emergency docket. Critics have faulted the court for issuing too many orders through that docket, which uses abbreviated procedures to issue orders that remain in force while the courts adjudicate whether Trump's actions are legal. Alito maintains that with the crush of cases, the court doesn't have the time to write its usual, carefully wrought decisions.
Alito has suggested, rather outrageously, that many critics of the court are engaged in improper bullying. He said that some critics of the emergency docket suggest it has been 'captured by a dangerous cabal' that uses 'sneaky' methods. Those criticisms, Alito warned, fuel 'unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court'.
When the court issues one order after another that favors Trump, the most lawless president in US history, often without explanation, the court should expect to be criticized for doing too little to defend our democracy and the rule of law. Alito shouldn't be so thin-skinned or paranoid about supposed intimidation; he does have life tenure.
The court's critics aren't seeking to intimidate the justices. Rather they're pleading with the rightwing supermajority to stop bowing to Trump and become more resolute in enforcing the law against the most authoritarian president in history, a president who said he could 'terminate' parts of the constitution and who claims sweeping powers to singlehandedly nullify laws.
The court's supermajority should remember: we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of strongmen.
Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘He has trouble completing a thought': bizarre public appearances again cast doubt on Trump's mental acuity
Donald Trump's frequently bizarre public appearances, which this month have seen the president claim, wrongly, that his uncle knew the Unabomber and rant unprompted about windmills on his recent trip to the UK, have once again raised questions about his mental acuity, experts say. For more than a year Trump, 79, has exhibited odd behavior at campaign events, in interviews, in his spontaneous remarks and at press conferences. The president repeatedly drifts off topic, including during a cabinet meeting this month when he spent 15 minutes talking about decorating, and appears to misremember simple facts about his government and his life. During his presidency, Joe Biden was subjected to intense speculation over his mental acuity – including from Trump. After Biden's disastrous debate performance in June 2024, when he repeatedly struggled to maintain his train of thought, scrutiny over Biden's fitness eventually led to him not running for re-election. Trump, however, has largely been saved the same examination, despite examples of confusion and unusual behavior that have continued throughout his second term and were on full display on his recent trip to the UK. Over the weekend Trump, during a meeting with the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, abruptly switched from discussing immigration to saying this: 'The other thing I say to Europe: we've – we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They're killing us. They're killing the beauty of our scenery.' Trump proceeded to speak, non-stop and unprompted, for two minutes about windmills, claiming without evidence that they drive whales 'loco' and that wind energy 'kills the birds' (the proportion of birds killed by turbines is tiny compared with the amount killed by domestic cats and from flying into power lines). The abrupt changes in conversation are an example of Trump 'digressing without thinking – he'll just switch topics without self-regulation, without having a coherent narrative', said Harry Segal, a senior lecturer in the psychology department at Cornell University and in the psychiatry department at Weill Cornell Medicine. For years, Trump has batted away questions about his mental acuity, describing himself as a 'stable genius' and bragging about 'acing' exams – later revealed to be very simple tests – which check for early signs of dementia. But Democrats have begun to more aggressively question the president's fitness, including Jasmine Crockett, the representative from Texas, and California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and this week alone offered multiple examples of Trump exhibiting odd conduct. Asked about the famine in Gaza on Sunday, Trump seemed unable to remember the aid the US has given to Gaza, and forget that others had also contributed. Trump claimed the US gave $60m 'two weeks ago'. He added: 'You really at least want to have somebody say thank you. No other country gave anything. 'Nobody acknowledged it, nobody talks about it and it makes you feel a little bad when you do that and you know you have other countries not giving anything, none of the European countries by the way gave – I mean nobody gave but us.' Trump seemed to not realize or remember that other countries have given money to Gaza – the UK announced a £60m ($80m) package in July, and the European Union has allocated €170m ($195m) in aid. And the Guardian could not find any record of the US giving $60m to Gaza two weeks ago. In June, the US state department approved a $30m grant to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a group backed by Israeli and US interests which has been criticized by Democrats as 'connected to deadly violence against starving people seeking food in Gaza'. The White House did not respond to questions about Trump's claimed $60m donation. Segal said another characteristic of Trump's questionable mental acuity is confabulation. 'It's where he takes an idea or something that's happened and he adds to it things that have not happened.' A high-profile example came in mid-July, when Trump claimed his uncle, the late professor John Trump, had taught Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, at MIT. Trump recalled: 'I said: 'What kind of a student was he, Uncle John? Dr John Trump.' I said: 'What kind of a student?' And then he said: 'Seriously, good.' He said: 'He'd correct – he'd go around correcting everybody.' But it didn't work out too well for him.' The problem is: that cannot possibly be true. First, Trump's uncle died in 1985, and Kaczynski was only publicly identified as the Unabomber in 1996. Second, Kaczynski did not study at MIT. 'The story makes no sense whatsoever, but it's told in a very warm, reflective way, as if he's remembering it,' Segal said. 'This level of thinking really has been deteriorating.' Aside from the confabulation, there have been times when Trump seems unable to focus. During the 2024 campaign there was the bizarre sight of Trump spending 40 minutes swaying to music onstage after a medical emergency at one of his campaign rallies. Trump's rambling speeches during his campaign – he would frequently drift between topics in a technique he described as 'the weave' – also drew scrutiny. The White House removed official transcripts of Trump's remarks from its website in May, claiming it was part of an effort to 'maintain consistency'. It is worth reading Trump's remarks in full, however, to get a sense of how the president speaks on a day-to-day basis. At the beginning of July, Trump was asked, 'What is the next campaign promise that you plan to fulfill to the American people?' He then rambled about meeting foreign leaders and removing regulations, adding: Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion I got rid of – just one I got rid of the other night, you buy a house, they have a faucet in the house, Joe, and the faucet the water doesn't come out. They have a restrictor. You can't – in areas where you have so much water they don't know what to do with it. Uh, you have a shower head the shower doesn't uh, the shower doesn't, you think it's not working. It is working. The water's dripping out and that's no good for me. I like this hair lace and [sic] – I like that hair nice and wet. Takes you – you have to stand in the shower for 20 minutes before you get the soap out of your hair. And I put a, a thing – and it sounds funny but it's really not. It's horrible. And uh, when you wash your hands, you turn on the faucet, no water comes out. You're washing whole – water barely comes out it's ridi – this was done by crazy people. And I wor – wrote it all off and got it approved in Congress so that they can't just change it.' 'Any fair-minded mental-health expert would be very worried about Donald Trump's performance,' Richard A Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College, wrote in the Atlantic, after a stumbling performance from Trump in his debate against Kamala Harris last September. He added: 'If a patient presented to me with the verbal incoherence, tangential thinking, and repetitive speech that Trump now regularly demonstrates, I would almost certainly refer them for a rigorous neuropsychiatric evaluation to rule out a cognitive illness.' At a recent cabinet meeting called to discuss the flooding tragedy in Texas, the war in Ukraine and Gaza, the bombing of Iran, and global tariffs, Trump went on a 13-minute monologue about how he had decorated the cabinet meeting room. After talking about paintings which he said he had personally selected from 'the vaults', Trump said. 'Look at those frames, you know, I'm a frame person, sometimes I like frames more than I like the pictures,' and added he had overseen the cleaning of some china. As department heads, including the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, waited to be dismissed so they could go and do their jobs, Trump continued: Here we put out – you know these, these lamps have been very important actually, whether people love them or not but they're if you see pictures like Pearl Harbor or Tora! Tora! Tora!, you see movies about the White House where wars are being discussed, oftentimes they'll show those lamps or something like those lamps, something that looks like them. Probably not the reals, because I don't think they're allowed to – this is a very important room, this is a sacred room, and I don't think they made movies from here. You never know what they do. But they were missing, er, medallions. See the medallions on top? They had a chain going into the ceiling. And I said: 'You can't do that. You have to have a medallion.' They said, 'What's a medallion?' I said: 'I'll show you.' And then we got some beautiful medallions, and you see them, they were put up there, makes the lamps look [inaudible] so we did these changes. And when you think of it, the cost was almost nothing. We also painted the room a nice color, beige color, and it's been really something. The only question is, will I gold-leaf the corners? You could maybe tell me. My cabinet could take a vote. You see the top-line moldings, and the only question is do you go and leaf it? Because you can't paint it, if you paint it it won't look good because they've never found a paint that looks like gold. You see that in the Oval Office. Er, they've tried for years and years. Somebody could become very wealthy, but they've never found a paint that looks like gold. So painting is easy but it won't look right.' The White House pushes back aggressively on the issue of Trump's mental fitness. 'The Guardian is a left-wing mouthpiece that should be embarrassed to pass off deranged resistance leftists as 'experts'. Anyone pathetic enough to defend Biden's mental state – while being labeled as unethical by their peers – has zero credibility. President Trump's mental sharpness is second to none and he is working around the clock to secure amazing deals for the American people,' said White House spokesperson Liz Huston. So do his political allies. 'As President Trump's former personal physician, former physician to the president, and White House physician for 14 years across three administrations, I can tell you unequivocally: President Donald J Trump is the healthiest president this nation has ever seen. I continue to consult with his current physician and medical team at the White House and still spend significant time with the president. He is mentally and physically sharper than ever before,' said congressman Ronny Jackson. In April, Trump's White House physician, Dr Sean Barbabella, wrote that the president 'exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the commander-in-chief and head of state'. He said Trump was assessed for cognitive function, which was normal. That report hasn't stopped people from questioning Trump's mental acuity. 'What we see are the classic signs of dementia, which is gross deterioration from someone's baseline and function,' John Gartner, a psychologist and author who spent 28 years as an assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said in June. 'If you go back and look at film from the 1980s, [Trump] actually was extremely articulate. He was still a jerk, but he was able to express himself in polished paragraphs, and now he really has trouble completing a thought and that is a huge deterioration.' Gartner, who during Trump's first term co-founded Duty to Warn, a group of mental health professionals who believed Trump had the personality disorder malignant narcissism, warned: 'I predicted before the election that he would probably fall off the cliff before the end of his term. And at the rate he is deteriorating, you know … we'll see. 'But the point is that it's going to get worse. That's my prediction.'
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Sydney Sweeney's Republican voter registration revealed amid jeans ad controversy
Sydney Sweeney registered as a Republican voter in Florida a few months before Donald Trump won a second US presidency, it has been revealed, as the public continues fixating on a new jeans ad campaign featuring the actor and a pun about her genes. The Euphoria and White Lotus star registered to vote in Florida on 14 June 2024 – shortly after buying a mansion in the Keys – and listed her party affiliation as Republican, according to publicly available records reviewed by the Guardian on Sunday. That was about two weeks after Trump, another registered Republican Florida voter, was convicted in New York City of criminal falsification of business records and before he secured a return to the White House in November's presidential election. It was also about two years after Sweeney, 27, faced criticism from some US media consumers after she was photographed at her mother's birthday party where several of the guests were seen wearing hats that called to mind those which bear Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) slogan. The native of Spokane, Washington, subsequently issued a statement on social media pleading with the public to 'stop making assumptions'. 'An innocent celebration … has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention,' Sweeney's statement added at the time. Sweeney has not addressed her Florida Republican voter registration, the existence of which went viral on social media on Saturday and was later reported on by traditional news outlets. The actor by then had generated considerable media coverage after the outfitter American Eagle released several videos showing her modeling the company's denim jeans and jackets. American Eagle's campaign generally revolves around the punny use of the phrase, 'Sydney Sweeney has great genes.' In one video, 'genes' is crossed out and replaced with 'jeans'. Another clip showed the blue-eyed blond suggestively looking at the camera and discussing how her body's composition 'is determined by … genes'. 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue,' Sweeney continues in the advertisements, which include a joke about the cameraperson becoming distracted by her breasts. Some social media users dismissed the campaign as tone deaf, arguing that it echoed rhetoric associated with eugenics and white supremacy at a time when the Trump administration was seeking to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as well as aggressively pushing to detain and deport immigrants en masse. One TikTok reaction video that received hundreds of thousands of likes accused Sweeney of ignoring the political climate of the moment, saying 'it's literally giving … Nazi propaganda'. US conservatives have seized on the indignation over the campaign on the liberal fringes, rushing to praise Sweeney for landing a blow on 'woke' advertising, invoking a term some use to criticize DEI measures. Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung wrote on social media that criticizing Sweeney's collaboration with American Eagle was 'cancel culture run amok'. Nonetheless, many have judged backlash to Sweeney and American Eagle's collaboration as exaggerated and overblown. American Eagle's stock has reportedly risen in the wake of its Sweeney-centered campaign. A statement from the company on Friday defended the campaign, saying: ''Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story.' That outcome cut a stark contrast with the 2023 Bud Light advertisement involving trans activist Dylan Mulvaney. A conservative-organized boycott against Bud Light substantially drove sales down. The brand lost its place as the US beer market's top seller. And Bud Light's owner, Anheuser-Busch, sought to distance itself from Mulvaney in a statement which blamed the promotion on an 'outside agency without … management awareness or approval'. 'No one was trying to cancel Sydney Sweeney,' said a post on the X account Wu Tang is for the Children, which counts on more than 270,000 followers. 'And no one cares if she's Republican or not.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Inside Ukraine's effort to produce more of its own weapons to fight Putin as Trump's support flip-flops
On Tuesday, Donald Trump gave Vladimir Putin a new deadline – agree to a ceasefire in the Ukraine war or face fresh sanctions. It appeared the US president had finally run out of patience with the Russian leader, declaring he was 'no longer interested in talks' and cutting a previous deadline of 50 days dramatically short. But regardless of how encouraging this apparent renewed sense of urgency might be to Ukraine, Mr Trump's views on the war and support for Kyiv are anything but consistent. From the infamous Oval Office ambush of Volodymyr Zelensky to fluctuating financial commitments from the US, Kyiv has been wise to look elsewhere for reliable supplies – preferably Ukraine's own burgeoning weapons industry. Ukraine has made no secret that a key priority is to build its own missiles that match the destructive power and long reach of the Shahed killer drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles that Moscow has been launching in recent weeks. Russia has launched huge mass aerial attacks against the capital and cities across Ukraine including Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Ivano-Frankivsk and Pavlohrad. Pavlohrad, in Ukraine's southeastern region of Dnipropetrovsk, recently suffered its biggest aerial attack since the start of the full-scale invasion. When The Independent drove into the city two days later, a huge plume of smoke, visible from miles away, hung over it as fires continued to rage. It is common knowledge that Pavlohrad has been home to missile production facilities since Soviet times, and Russia's defence ministry claimed, after the attack, it had struck facilities producing components for missiles and drones. Dima, who works in the local coal miners' union communications department, lives in the industrial area of the city that took the brunt of the attack. 'We experience explosions from Russian rockets and drones frequently,' he said. 'But this attack was the biggest and seemed to go on forever. The Russians have increased their aerial attacks and the targets are civilian more often than military to try to cause terror.' With Russia ramping up attacks regardless of any deadline Mr Trump attempts to impose, Kyiv has been looking at new ways to hit back. Ukraine has shown its advanced drones can destroy targets deep inside Russian territory, more than 1,000km from the Ukrainian border. And it is already producing and using a family of missile systems named 'Neptune', 'Palyanytsia,' 'Peklo,' and 'Ruta'. According to Kyiv, production multiplied eight times between 2023 and 2024 with even more growth planned for this year. Mr Zelensky has said Ukraine intends to produce 3,000 cruise and drone missiles in 2025. The homegrown R-360 Neptune cruise missile, with a 150kg warhead has been modified, according to Mr Zelensky, to give it an improved range. However, Neptunes and Ukraine's other missiles have explosive payloads that are only a fraction – sometimes a tenth – of those carried by Russian rockets. Ukrainian engineers are focused on long-range missiles able to inflict on Russia the sort of pain it is daily inflicting on Ukrainians. One of those is called 'Bars' (Leopard), first publicly mentioned at a Ukrainian weapons exhibition last April by the minister for strategic industries, Herman Smetanin. The scant information that has emerged about it suggests it is a hybrid between long-range drones and cruise missiles powered by a turbojet engine, giving it great speed and with a range of 700-800km with a warhead of 50-100kg of explosives. But it is not certain that Bars are the game-changing missiles on which Ukraine is pinning its hopes. A payload of only 100kg gives it a far weaker punch than that of Russian rockets, which often pack one-ton warheads. Mr Zelensky alluded last year to the successful test of an engine for a homemade ballistic missile. Military experts have speculated it is an offspring of the Sapsan Operational-Tactical Missile System – also known as Hrim and Hrim2 – that was conceived in the early 2000s but was dogged by funding problems and lack of political will. It was revived after Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula and eastern Donbas region. One person, who did not want to be named and works with his country's defence industry, told The Independent information about missile development is probably Ukraine's most closely guarded secret. He said: 'Everyone, even senior officials, are forbidden to talk about this subject. If you do, you'll probably be arrested. The only person allowed to reveal anything is President Zelensky.' Strategic Industries minister Mr Smetanin, spearheads the efforts to grow the country's weapons production capacity. Adviser to the ministry, Yuri Sak, said that Ukraine heard the warning bells after the US first cut off support for Ukraine over the autumn and winter of 2023 to 2024. 'We realised that we had to start moving towards becoming self-sufficient and as a result our ministry was tasked with pretty much resuscitating Ukraine's defence industry. We began to make contingency plans, which we have in place now. 'Despite the war, despite the missile attacks, despite the hundreds of Shahed drones that are launched against Ukraine pretty much every night, we were able to increase our defence industry output by 35 times during the last three years.' Russia's stocks of arms and ammunition and her high capacity to manufacture weapons of all kinds meant it massively outgunned Ukraine initially, but Western-supplied weapons helped dramatically even up the odds. Mr Sak said that, since Russia's initial invasion in 2014, the number of weapons-related companies in Ukraine has mushroomed to about 100 state-owned defence industry enterprises and almost 700 private companies. From producing one howitzer per month in 2022, Mr Sak said Ukraine is now delivering 15 each month. The conflict in Ukraine has changed the nature of warfare and seen a profound shift toward drones, with Ukraine planning to produce five million this year. 'We are also producing domestically the full spectrum of unmanned and robotic systems, land drones, naval drones, aerial drones, which include both reconnaissance drones and bombers, and drones with ranges of up to 2,000km,' Mr Sak said. 'These very successfully target Russian war machinery and their oil refineries and depots because all the profits from their oil trade go to finance their war and to prosecute war crimes.' But the Russians know Ukraine is ploughing huge resources into producing its own missiles and other weapons and are trying to destroy any locations they identify where those are being developed or manufactured. Mr Sak said: 'We try to be as quiet as possible about the locations of our defence industry. Where possible, we have relaunched existing facilities that have been idle for the last 20-plus years and, in other cases, we are building new facilities. All this is kept confidential because the Russians are targeting our defence industry enterprises.' Much of Ukraine's defence production has been split up, so that three or four smaller, concealed sites replicate the same weapons system and, if one is hit, overall production continues. The Independent visited one such facility in western Ukraine on condition that no details were published that would allow its location to be identified. Concealed within a sprawling, somewhat dilapidated, Soviet-era industrial zone, the facility produces BTR-4E 'Bucephalus' armoured personnel carriers. The eight-wheeled Ukrainian design went into production in 2012. Until 2022, it was produced at a large plant in the east Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, targeted by Russia early in the full-scale war. The owner of the plant, calling himself Andriy for this article, is a former soldier who has himself seen action against the invading Russian forces. His factory previously produced heavy precision machinery and engine parts and converted to weapons manufacture in early 2024 to become one of three concealed facilities scattered across Ukraine producing Bucephalus APCs. Speaking with the glow of the plant's foundry behind him, Andriy said: 'We cast and produce almost everything for the construction of the APC, hull, turret, wheels, axles. The engines are brought in from Germany and the weapons are fitted elsewhere. We produce four per month and plan to increase that number.' In addition to the 300 plant employees, inspectors working for the Ukrainian defence ministry, minutely scrutinise each component produced there. The concealed sites are protected by air defences to counter Russian missiles and drones. Such secret weapons production sites are keenly sought out by Russian spies and informers on the ground and by satellite surveillance, and Andriy has security guards and equipment watching the perimeter of the plant. 'But mostly we rely on trust,' he explained. 'That people who live in the same community and know each other will not betray each other or their country.'
