Trump's outrageous conduct must not be normalized by partisanship
During an interview on May 4, President Trump offered a startling response to a question from NBC's Kristen Welker. She asked whether he believes he needs to uphold the Constitution in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, and the Supreme Court has ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return.
Trump responded to Welker: 'I don't know.'
'I don't know' from the person who, on Jan. 20, took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' is not acceptable. It hardly seems believable.
The interview came at the end of the president's first 100 days in office. Expanded executive power, global chaos, a weakened dollar, and impending shortages in the stores add up to the worst first 100 days for any president in American history.
But the bitter taste of living under Trump has barely made a dent in the support and loyalty of his base. In his supporters' eyes, Trump, like the pope, is infallible, an association he reinforced deliberately when he reposted on Truth Social an AI-generated of himself in papal attire.
While the president has disregarded constitutional values like freedom of speech and due process of law, his supporters contrast what they see as the president's commitment to freedom with repressive, left-wing regimes; they resent it when they hear commentators call the president a dictator.
We have long known that people take in new information selectively and seek to avoid what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance,' the discomfort people experience when they hold beliefs, values or attitudes that are inconsistent with one another. To avoid that discomfort, people seek out information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, or they minimize the importance of dissonant messages.
The reaction of Trump's supporters to his first 100 days shows the power of such processes.
While 42 percent of Americans give Trump an F for his first 100 days, only 5 percent of self-identified Republicans agree with that grade. Eighty-four percent of them give him either an A or a B. Things are almost exactly reversed among Democrats, with 5 percent giving the president an A or a B and 80 percent of them giving him an F.
Other polls reflect similar sentiments. A Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 5,000 American adults found that 52 percent of those respondents called Trump a 'dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.' Eighty-seven percent of Democrats agreed with that statement compared to only 17 percent of Republicans.
The survey shows that 19 percent of Republicans believe the president should be able to postpone the 2026 midterm elections if it is necessary to get the country out of a crisis. And 27 percent thought the Constitution should be amended to 'allow presidents to serve more than two terms in office.'
Also, 29 percent of Republicans agree that 'we need a president who is willing to break some laws if that's what it takes to set things straight.'
While far from a majority, 29 percent of Republicans translates into millions of people who condone presidential lawlessness. That's a steep hill to climb for people wanting to save democracy and the rule of law in this country.
Ben Rhodes, former President Obama's deputy national security adviser, got it right when he warned that the 'Democratic Party, in its current form, cannot lead the opposition that is required. ' And he reminds us that we can't save democracy by 'defending the status quo.'
People wanting to save democracy have to link its survival to the lives that Americans live every day. They have to show that if we lose democracy, our lives will be worse. Just ask people in Hungary or Turkey, where the rise of authoritarian leaders has done nothing to cure the social or economic problems that beset those nations.
Saving democracy will require building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition. That means sacrificing ideological purity and tolerating views that we might otherwise condemn.
It requires us to change our habits and focus on building alliances, not enclaves. As the polls now show, that will not be easy.
But we have no choice. We can't succeed in saving democracy if it is a strictly partisan project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House?
Elon Musk's time in the Trump administration is coming to an end after a tempestuous 129 days in which the world's richest man took an axe to government spending - stirring ample controversy along the way. Earlier this week, the South African-born billionaire, on his social media platform, X, thanked President Trump for his time at the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge. Trump announced he will host a news conference in the Oval Office on Friday with Musk, writing: "This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way." While Musk's time in government lasted little more than four months, his work with Doge upended the federal government and had an impact not just in the halls of power in Washington - but around the world. Let's take a look at some of the ways Musk has left a mark. Musk took a job with the Trump White House with one mission: to cut spending from the government as much as possible. He began with an initial target of "at least $2 trillion", which then shifted to $1tn and ultimately $150bn. To date, Doge claims to have saved $175bn through a combination of asset sales, lease and grant cancellations, "fraud and improper payment deletion", regulatory savings and a 260,000-person reduction from the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce. A BBC analysis of those figures, however, found that evidence is sometimes lacking. This mission has at times caused both chaos and controversy, including some instances in which federal judges halted mass firings and ordered employees reinstated. In other instances, the administration has been forced to backtrack on firings. In one notable instance in February, the administration stopped the firing of hundreds of federal employees working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including some with sensitive jobs related to the US nuclear arsenal. Musk himself repeatedly acknowledged that mass firings would inevitably include mistakes. "We will make mistakes," he said in February, after his department mistook a region of Mozambique for Hamas-controlled Gaza while cutting an aid programme. "But we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes." Doge's efforts to access data also garnered controversy, particularly the department's push for access to sensitive treasury department systems that control the private information of millions of Americans. Polls show that cuts to government spending remain popular with many Americans - even if Musk's personal popularity has waned. The presence of Musk - an unelected "special government employee" with companies that count the US government as customers - in Trump's White House has also raised eyebrows, prompting questions about potential conflicts of interest. His corporate empire includes large companies that do business with US and foreign governments. SpaceX has $22 billion in US government contracts, according to the company's chief executive. Some Democrats also accused Musk of taking advantage of his position to drum up business abroad for his satellite internet services firm, Starlink. The White House was accused of helping Musk's businesses by showcasing vehicles made by Tesla - his embattled car company - on the White House lawn in March. Musk and Trump have both shrugged off any suggestion that his work with the government is conflicted or ethically problematic. Around the world, Musk's work with Doge was most felt after the vast majority - over 80% - of the US Agency for International Development's (USAID's) programmes were eliminated following a six-week review by Doge. The rest were absorbed by the State Department. The Musk and Doge-led cuts formed part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to bring overseas spending closer in line with its "America First" approach. The cuts to the agency - tasked with work such as famine detection, vaccinations and food aid in conflict areas - quickly had an impact on projects including communal kitchens in war-torn Sudan, scholarships for young Afghan women who fled the Taliban and clinics for transgender people in India. USAID also was a crucial instrument of US "soft power" around the world, leading some detractors pointing to its elimination as a sign of waning American influence on the global stage. While Musk - and Trump - have for years been accused by detractors of spreading baseless conspiracy theories, Musk's presence in the White House starkly highlighted how misinformation has crept into discourse at the highest levels of the US government. For example, Musk spread an unfounded internet theory that US gold reserves had quietly been stolen from Fort Knox in Kentucky. At one point, he floated the idea of livestreaming a visit there to ensure the gold was secured. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa More recently, Musk spread widely discredited rumours that the white Afrikaner population of South Africa is facing "genocide" in their home country. Those rumours found their way into the Oval Office earlier in May, when a meeting aimed at soothing tensions between the US and South Africa took a drastic twist after Trump presented South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with videos and articles he said were evidence of crimes against Afrikaners. Musk's work in government also showed that, despite public pledges of unity, there are tensions within the "Trump 2.0" administration. While Trump publicly - and repeatedly - backed the work of Musk and Doge, Musk's tenure was marked by reports of tension between him and members of the cabinet who felt Doge cuts were impacting their agencies. "They have a lot of respect for Elon and that he's doing this, and some disagree a little bit," Trump acknowledged in a February cabinet meeting. "If they aren't, I want them to speak up." At one point, he was asked whether any cabinet members had expressed dissatisfaction with Musk and turned to the room to ask them. No one spoke. The announcement of Musk's departure also came the same day CBS - BBC's US partner - publicised part of an interview during which Musk said he was "disappointed" by Trump's "big, beautiful" budget bill. The bill includes multi-trillion dollar tax breaks and a pledge to increase defence spending. Musk said the bill "undermines" the work of Doge to cut spending - reflecting larger tensions within the Republican Party over the path forward. Elon Musk leaves White House but says Doge will continue What is Doge and why is Musk leaving? Musk 'disappointed' by Trump's tax and spending bill How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending?
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key Fed Inflation Rate May Hit 4-Year Low; S&P 500 Futures Flat (Live Coverage)
The Federal Reserve's primary inflation rate, the core PCE price index, out at 8:30 a.m. ET, is seen dipping to its lowest level since March 2021. S&P 500 futures fell modestly ahead of the report, as President Donald Trump said China has "violated" the preliminary trade deal. The inflation outlook, however, just became more hazy after a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling on Wednesday threw out the bulk of President Trump's second-term tariffs, saying he overstepped his authority.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff Ruling Threatens a $2 Trillion Fiscal Hole in Trump Plan
(Bloomberg) — The court ruling that blocked much of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs threatens to blow what some economists estimate as a $2 trillion hole into the US fiscal outlook over the coming decade, should the judgment stay in place. NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NY Wins Order Against US Funding Freeze in Congestion Fight Why Arid Cities Should Stick Together The ruling could also present a new obstacle for Republicans who are relying on the revenue to help offset the cost of a roughly $4 trillion tax cut moving through Congress. 'At face value, this ruling will take away billions of dollars of prospective tariff revenue' annually, said Douglas Elmendorf a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former director of the Congressional Budget Office — a nonpartisan arm of the US legislature. A federal appeals court Thursday paused the Court of International Trade's Wednesday ruling striking down a swath of Trump's levies, and the White House is pushing to overturn the judgment entirely, aiming to appeal to the Supreme Court as soon as Friday. If the CIT ruling survives appeal, it would remove duties that would have raised nearly $200 billion on an annual basis, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. Trump and his aides had been relying on that increased revenue to get Republican lawmakers united behind the president's 'big beautiful bill' tax-cut package. The $2 trillion in added revenue over a decade would have gone some way towards offsetting the cost of the tax cuts, as measured by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, as the legislation's spending reductions aren't expected to cover even half the tab. Failing judicial success, Trump's trade team would have to stitch together duties using executive authority other than the one struck down. But the process would take months, and decisions could still end up facing legal challenges, economists say. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Fox News Thursday that 'anything that the courts do to get in the way both harms the American people in terms of trade and in terms of tariff revenue.' Even a short-term hit to revenue would pose problems: the government is currently barred from raising net new debt, and the Treasury has been using special accounting maneuvers to make good on payments. Monthly customs revenue just hit a record of over $16 billion, helping the department's cash flows. Barclays Plc warned that the court ruling will bring forward the date by when the Treasury will have exhausted its cash and extraordinary measures. That in turn builds pressure on Republicans to get the tax bill done, as it includes an increase in the debt limit. 'The fiscal outlook just got a lot worse as a result of this court ruling,' said Ernie Tedeschi, who is director of economics at Yale University's Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'Very high tariffs just got less likely.' The Budget Lab also estimated revenues would be about $2 trillion lower over 10 years — roughly $700 billion compared with $2.7 trillion — if the court ruling stands, and current tariff levels remain in place. Wednesday's court ruling involved Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to threaten the highest tariff rates in more than a century. The April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs involved a universal baseline levy of 10% plus much bigger rates for various trading partners — though Trump had put those on pause prior to the ruling. Bloomberg Economics estimated that the average US tariff rate got as high as nearly 27% at one point. The court ruling takes it below 6%. Other channels Trump has to impose tariffs include Section 232 authority to impose sectoral levies. The administration has already invoked it to set the stage for import taxes on items including smartphones and jet engines. Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and other products are also being eyed for tariffs. Existing duties are in place on steel and autos, among others. 'There are other avenues to do the tariffs,' said Stephanie Roth, chief economist at Wolfe Research, who sees a $180 billion annual revenue hit from the court ruling. Economists at Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley expect the administration will ultimately raise the tariff revenue it needs. White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran on May 27 told Bloomberg Television the tariffs would take in hundreds of billions of dollars a year, helping alleviate concerns about the fiscal deficit. Those estimates have bolstered the Trump administration against charges that its tax bill blows a hole in the budget. 'The blatantly wrong claim that the one, big beautiful bill increases the deficit is based on the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers who use shoddy assumptions,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. They have 'historically been terrible at forecasting,' she said. After the House passed a version of the tax bill earlier this month, it's now in the Senate's hands. It's possible that Senate Republicans could propose adding tariffs in the multi-trillion dollar spending bill to help offset costs, though it's unclear it would garner enough support to pass. 'They might include trying to get some tariffs,' said Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation. 'But I really don't see the appetite for something as broad as what the president has done.' Trump in a Truth Social post Thursday evening blasted the option, saying, 'In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around DC for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other countries that are treating us unfairly.' YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Inside the First Stargate AI Data Center How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
