Charles Lipson

Donald Trump this weekend floated the idea of running for a third term. Unless he’s doing it in 1940 when Franklin D. Roosevelt did, it’s unconstitutional. I don’t mean unconstitutional for Judge Boasberg or Judge Chutkin or some zealot in robes in San Francisco or Seattle. I mean unconstitutional in capital letters for any judge, including a 9-0 vote on the Supreme Court. The legal background here is straightforward. When FDR ran for a third term in 1940 and for a fourth in 1944, there was no legal or constitutional prohibition against doing so. There was simply a well-established norm, begun when George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after two terms. That norm was respected by every subsequent president. Until FDR.

Congress has been mulling the future of publicly-funded television and radio. Here’s a spoiler alert: that funding is toast. There is no way a Republican-controlled House and Senate will keep pouring money into networks they believe hate them. They know that hatred is warmly reciprocated. The debate about partisan bias at PBS and NPR is important – the bias itself is obvious – but that’s not the most important point. What matters most is that democratic governments have no business funding or controlling news channels directed at their own citizens. Those channels should be privately owned and operated. Every single one.

Why are Democrats mounting such a ferocious assault on Elon Musk? Why are mainstream media outlets so eager to go along? The simplest answers are the best. Musk is the most prominent member of the new administration aside from the president himself. He is Donald Trump’s point man for exposing malfeasance in federal bureaucracies, determining where the money is going and cutting the engorged payroll. The more Musk and Trump succeed, the worse for Democrats. They created those agencies; their supporters staff them; and those supporters funnel lots of public money to specially favored institutions and projects. When Musk attacks this partisan nexus, he is attacking a major source of Democratic power and influence. That is what’s really at stake here, beyond cutting the budget.

Americans are being given a national ink-blot test. Their answers tell us how a divided country sees the political landscape and what they think of President Trump’s bold efforts to reshape it. The scope for differing interpretations is illustrated by a story about one such Rorschach test. The psychiatrist shows his new patient ink blot after ink blot. No response. Finally, the exasperated doctor pleads with him to say something, anything. “Look, doc,” he says, “I didn’t come here for you to show me dirty pictures.” That’s exactly how Democrats see Donald Trump’s presidency. It’s one dirty picture after another. A few moderate Republicans share that perspective, but they are outliers in a party Trump has reshaped in his own image.

With Donald Trump moving so rapidly on so many fronts, it is hard to grasp the big picture. What are his overriding goals, politically and electorally? What has he already accomplished?  Here is a summary in case you are keeping score. Trump has done more in a few weeks than any president in history. He took office with a coherent, detailed program and control of Congress (though a very narrow majority in the House). He is acting swiftly before his political capital dissipates.  Trump hopes to sustain his winning electoral coalition beyond his time in office. That’s why he chose a young populist, J.D. Vance, as his vice president and presumptive successor.

When US officials and former officials face lethal dangers for the work they did in office, they deserve protection from the country they served. That’s true whether they served the country well or poorly, whether they can pay for that protection themselves — most cannot — and whether they are loathed by the next administration.  Those are pitiful reasons for denying them protection. If today’s officials, or yesterday’s, are threatened because of what they did in office, they deserve protection. They may not deserve our gratitude. They may not deserve our thanks and appreciation. That depends on our assessment of their performance. But they deserve our protection from domestic terrorists and foreign actors such as Iran.

Joe Biden is not going gently into that dark night, politically or cognitively. He is going down with large, bold actions. The latest is a mass commutation for some 2,500 “nonviolent drug offenders.” Biden’s justification is that they were sentenced under laws that have now been overturned as the country has moved to more lenient treatment of all drug offenses and eliminated differences between laws penalizing crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. Those are reasonable justifications, but they are far from the whole story and far from the way the White House is selling the action to voters and friendly journalists. The vast majority of the prison terms were actually given to dealers or violent offenders, mostly members of criminal gangs.

The fire now engulfing whole neighborhoods in Los Angeles will soon engulf the politicians who failed to protect them. The first casualties will be Mayor Karen Bass and California governor Gavin Newsom. They are already “dead politicians walking.” It is important to recognize that Newsom and Bass are not being held responsible for a “natural disaster,” even one of horrific scale. Nor should they be. They should be held responsible for failed leadership, for misplaced priorities, for the misuse of high tax revenues (no one can say Californians are undertaxed), and for policy choices that failed to meet the first responsibility of any government: protecting citizens’ lives and property. Responsibility for those failures is bound to spread well beyond Bass and Newsom.

The nasty fight between Elon Musk and Steve Bannon over H-1B visas, meant for high-skilled workers, is the Ghost of Christmas Future. That’s not because the visas themselves will be a perennial problem. It’s because of three larger implications, foreshadowed by the visa dispute. One is the battle between populist nationalists (represented, in this case, by Steve Bannon) and growth-oriented American companies with extensive foreign markets. Those are led by hi-tech industries, represented here by Elon Musk, which benefit from bringing in foreign engineers, programmers and others. The second implication is that, in a country with only two major parties, there are bound to be major cleavages within each party on a wide range of issues.

Jimmy Carter will be remembered as a decent, honorable man of faith, who lived a productive life according to those high standards, both publicly and privately.  He was an outlier in his forging of a productive life after leaving office. Instead of grifting and selling access to policymakers, like so many former politicians do today, he had a distinguished second career promoting and monitoring democratic elections around the world. That legacy will live on in the work of the Carter Center in Atlanta. So will his work with Habitats for Humanity, building homes for the poor.  He will be remembered, too, for his long, loving marriage to Rosalynn, whom he married in 1946, when he was a young naval officer. She died only a year ago.  It was a remarkable life.

As the clock ticked down late Friday night, the US House and Senate finally passed a stopgap funding bill to keep the government operating for another two months. The passage came after two failed attempts by Republican House speaker Mike Johnson to push through earlier versions of the bill. Any additional delays would have led to a temporary shutdown of some non-essential government functions. Essential functions, like the military, would have continued to operate. What can we learn from this shambolic, last-minute process? First, the good news. The first two bills failed because they contained a trainload of pork, a steaming pile of non-essential provisions that rank-and-file Republicans refused to support.

The nightly news is replicating Orson Welles’s 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds, which scared Americans by describing an invasion of space aliens. Listeners who tuned into the broadcast a little late didn’t hear the disclaimer that it was fiction. Now, they are tuning in on time and hearing real broadcasts about mysterious objects flying over our skies. And people are asking the same questions they asked long ago, “What are those things?” They have heard the government’s disclaimers, but they are not sure whether to believe them.  The public is frightened, and bland reassurances from Washington aren’t helping.

Donald Trump may have a four-year term, but he has far less time to make a real difference. In practice, he may have a year or perhaps eighteen months before the midterm election looms and Congress slows to a crawl. If Trump wants to be a transformational president — and he clearly does — then he will have to move fast. That’s exactly what he’s doing. He’s beginning with a series of rapid-fire appointments, most of which require approval from the new, Republican-majority Senate. (His White House aides, such as national security advisor, do not require Senate approval.) What message is Trump sending with his appointments so far? First, he demands loyalty — to him and to the agenda he articulated clearly on the campaign trail.

On issue after issue, conservatives — and Republicans — have lost the “culture wars.” Not just lost but lost decisively and permanently. The victories are so secure on most issues that conservatives have abandoned the fight. At times, the result has been a more tolerant public consensus, for example regarding gay rights and marriage. There are two notable exceptions, however, where the cultural battles remain white-hot: abortion and transgender rights. Both issues motivated voters in 2024. On abortion, voters have been mobilized by controversial Supreme Court decisions. The fight began in earnest in 1973, when Roe v. Wade effectively legalized abortion throughout the country and throughout the nine months of pregnancy.