Replacing MAGA

The MAGA Republican Party is horrifically bad. Weimer Republic Nazi party bad. Cambodian Communist party bad. Iranian government of 1979 bad. George Wallace bad. Less sane than the John Birch society. More criminal and less moral than Al Capone. Proven to be absolutely incapable of governing competently.

While the Democratic Party in the United States is a big tent party, MAGA has left a Democratic Party which was already straining to find common ground for its immensely ideologically diverse coalition ripping at the seams, which has produced a lot of unproductive infighting.

This is not good for America. A country with only one viable political party capable of governing is not a healthy democracy.

In the British Commonwealth, there is a concept called a "loyal opposition". A loyal opposite disagrees on lots of important policy issues with the party or coalition that it opposes, but in not an existential threat to the government it is seeking office in, and shares fundamental process and normative values with the party it opposes that are ultimately more important that its policy disagreements with the other party or coalition that it opposes.

Our current election laws, as a practical matter, lock the U.S. into a system with two dominant political parties in any one political jurisdiction at one time. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to have a different pair of political parties in one state from another state, and it doesn't mean that it isn't possible for one of those two dominant political parties to be replaced with a different dominant political party.

This has happened several times in U.S. history, most recently when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs, which collapsed around 1860. It has happened in other countries, like Canada, with similar electoral rules, too.

The U.S. is engaged in an experiment along those lines this year in the Nebraska Senate race, in a deep red state that no Democratic Party candidate had any chance of winning, but which is a state that is also not happy with the way MAGA Republicans are running our country. The Democratic Party declined to field a U.S. Senate candidate in that race to clear the way for a center-right independent candidate, Dan Osborn, to run against a GOP nominee who would toe the MAGA line. 

If he is elected in November, he surely won't be a reliable party line vote for the Democratic Party, but he will also be willing to stand up to the insanity of Trump 2.0 when it goes beyond favoring partisan policy preferences to undermining the previously shared foundations of our political system. He won't embrace blatant corruption. He won't support gross incompetence. He won't be a friend of Putin. He won't agree that pedophiles and fraudsters should be protected. He won't try to undermine the rule of law. He won't lie about things that are obvious lies to everyone who hears them. He will understand that there were no air bases in the Revolutionary War. He will understand that the U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with the classical Roman Empire. He will not try to impose tariffs on islands inhabited entirely by penguins. He won't fall asleep in the middle of important meetings. He won't support the violent overthrow of free and fair U.S. election results. He won't completely disregard science. He will provide people with conservative political views who aren't evil or stupid, and don't want the United States to become a failed dictatorship an alternative that they can stomach.

Will he win? 

Who knows? The polls are all over the place in this race (according to the New York Times):

But the vast majority of candidates running for statewide office without being either major party's nominee has no chance of winning at all and would face a complete blow out. But he's been within the statistical margin of error of the Republican or winning in four of the seven general election polls conducted in the race. The only poll conducted since May (about three weeks ago) put him in a tie with the Republican, when the Republican was favored by 16 percentage points in one poll at the end of May. 

Maybe other deep red states can follow suit. Maybe if enough people like him start winning elections, they can band together and form a new political party that is conservative without sharing the worse vices of MAGA Republicans.

Nebraska might be a special case. Its unicameral state legislature is nominally non-partisan, and that might influence the political attitudes that voters have towards independent candidates.

But it is also possible that a lot of red state voters, despite being poisoned by anti-Democratic party rhetoric so deeply that they can't bring themselves to support a Democrat, and holding only moderate views, would support a center-right party not unlike the one that the GOP used to be, over the far-right party that the GOP has become.

Indeed, the mere existence of a credible threat to their re-election from the center instead of the left could be enough to give the GOP in red states like Nebraska to moderate its positions in a way that they didn't need to when it was certain that a Democrat couldn't win in their state, no matter how despicable the candidate running for the GOP.

And, this isn't just about getting the GOP itself to be more moderate (or better yet, replacing the MAGA GOP with a center-right party that is capable of governing sensibly and supports some shared fundamental values that used to be shared across the political spectrum).

It is also about making the Democratic party less of a herd of cats in places where it does have a chance of electing people to public office.

There are lots of pretty conservative people who hold their noses and vote Democratic, and try to influence the Democratic party in their direction, because the MAGA GOP is an existential threat to them personally, or because the MAGA GOP is not a recipe for securing a tolerably functional government.

There are cattle ranchers and food company executives out there who recognize that a healthy food inspection system is good for business, and that high tariffs, sky high diesel and fertilizer prices, and buying tainted meat from Argentina in deals that even the Secretary of Agriculture knows nothing about, are not good for business. So, MAGA may not be right for them. But that doesn't mean that the agree with much of the Democratic Party platform, and trying to make everyone happy just isn't possible.

There are wealthy doctors out there who are economically conservative and socially moderate rather than liberal, who still have no patience for a MAGA regime that is anti-vax, that votes to shut down rural hospitals, that orders the CDC to fake data on measles deaths, and encourages people to eat beef tallow to be more healthy.

There are cold war veterans out there who don't like having a President who cozies up to Russia and North Korea and China. They aren't impressed with a President who runs such a loose ship that destroyers go a week without power in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, that sailors on aircraft carriers don't have adequate food or working toilets, that commissaries on military bases have spoiled food because their freezers don't work, that military family members and people who risked their lives to be translators for U.S. troops are being deported for no fault of their own to places where they face serious risks of harm, that service members are being ordered to commit war crimes, and that sycophants are promoted while seasoned generals and admirals are purged. Those things don't make you proud of your country.

There are probably plenty of god and country conservatives who are absolute disgusted with the way that Trump has held cage fights on the White House lawn, demolished half the White House, put his scowling image on everything like some third-world dictator, told obvious lies to their face, disrespected veterans, shown not a scintilla of understanding of the Bible, blasphemously portrayed himself as Jesus, mocked disabled people, engaged in rampant infidelity with multiple wives and mistresses, corruptly enriched himself and his family, engaged in insider trading, been convicted of crimes, raped children, paved over the White House rose garden, shown utter ignorance of basic facts in his public speeches, encouraged and promoted immoral aides, and been embarrassed by him falling asleep at important meetings and shitting his pants at public functions, even if they agree with him of many economic and social issues.

There are states like New Mexico which by all race neutral economic and social indicators looks like a red state, where a lot of people are very conservative in their political views, but where they won't support Republicans for office, because MAGA Republicans show open contempt and hate for Hispanics and Native Americans who make up a huge share of the state's voters, President Trump demonizes them, and MAGA thinks that Native Americans and partially Native American mestizos should be deported despite having ancestors who have lived there since long before their land was part of the United States.

There are plenty of Muslim voters who are as socially conservative as the average Evangelical Christian and who are economically moderate at most, who can't in good conscience vote for the GOP because Republicans consider them terrorists and want to actively persecute them, so their stuck in the big tent Democratic Party instead. Many Black Evangelical Christian voters are in a similar boat.

The far right extremism and just plain mendacity and incompetence of MAGA Republicans is probably going to get a lot of Democratic candidates who wouldn't have a chance running against a center-right GOP elected to Congress in two months, in what is likely to be a blue wave election (knock on wood). But a country with only one functional major political party isn't a healthy democracy.

If someone launched a center-right party in the U.S. called, for example, the "Conservative party", it could and should have a good shot at replacing the MAGA Republican party in the U.S. And, that may be the only solution, because the MAGA Republican party may at this point, after more than a decade under Donald Trump's thumb as a cult of personality for him, be beyond saving as an institution.

I'd rather live in a country with two viable reasonably functional political parties than one that's a lost cause and the other that's become a tent where it is very hard for everyone to fit comfortably. But until MAGA is replaced, or the election system is reformed to be a proportional representation system, this is the situation we have to live with and try to make work as best we can.

Fossil Fuels And The Bulk Freight Market (And More)

Executive Summary

Fossil fuels account for 40% of ocean freight, 51% of train freight, and 56% of barge freight. 

New technologies in renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric vehicles, batteries, and heat pumps, could dramatically reduce the importance of fossil fuels in the global economy, eliminating the need for this bulk freight. 

This shift away from fossil fuels would also greatly reduce pollution, slow or stop climate change, improve workplace and transportation safety, strengthen democracy in the world's most authoritarian states and far-right domestic politics, and reduce economic vulnerability and military logistics vulnerability to unrest and military activity in countries that produce oil and gas.

How Are Fossil Fuels Used? What Substitutes Are Available?

The predominant use of coal is to generate electricity and its market share of electricity generation is plummeting, mostly to renewables like solar power and wind power, and to a lesser extent to tidal, geothermal, hydropower, and biofuels like corn based ethanol and biodiesel made mostly from restaurant waste fats. Nuclear power provides a significant share of non-fossil fuel electricity and has been pretty stagnant, neither growing nor shrinking in market share much for decades, although new advances are poised to tweak up nuclear power use in some niche applications. A very small share of coal is used for making steel, for purifying water, and in other industrial applications. Coal can also be industrially transformed into a liquid petroleum fuel substitute or a natural gas substitute when oil and gas prices are high enough for this to make economic sense, which is rarely and too briefly to justify building the infrastructure to do it.

The increasing affordability of renewables combined with environmental regulation are making coal obsolete for electrical power generation which is its predominant use.

The predominant use of oil is as a transportation fuel and its market share of vehicle fuel types is also steadily losing ground to electric vehicles (and to a tiny extent, other non-fossil fuel powered transportation modes). 

Oil is used for electricity generation in Alaska, in Hawaii (which has fairly low per capita electricity demand), during disasters and at construction sites, for heating oils (mostly in the Northeast U.S.), for fertilizers, for lubricants, and to make plastics. But all of these non-transportation fuel uses collectively are a much smaller share of oil consumption than as transportation fuels. 

There are good alternatives to oil to generate electricity in Alaska and Hawaii. Better batteries can limit the need to fossil fuel electricity generation in natural  disasters, in remote locations, and at construction sites. Organic farming and eliminate the need for petroleum based fertilizers (and pesticides). Non-plastic materials can be substituted for plastics in many cases. Heating oils can be replaced by natural gas furnaces or heat pumps (which are powered by electricity).

Natural gas (and other gas state hydrocarbons like propane) is predominantly used for space heating and water heating and as a greener alternative for generating electricity on demand at power plants compared to coal or oil. But very small shares of natural gas use are also used for cooking, ornamental lighting, and as a niche transportation fuel (especially for United Parcel Service trucks, and to a lesser extent, other fleet vehicles). Electrically powered heat pumps, electrically powered evaporative coolers, electric cooking appliances, electric water heaters, and electric vehicles are the main alternatives to direct natural gas use, and renewables (paired with utility scale batteries) and nuclear power are the main alternatives to natural gas for electricity generation.

Fossil Fuels And The Bulk Freight Market

 

The 40% breaks down as roughy 7-8% of total global ocean-going deadweight tonnage and vessel count (there are about 770 active LNG carriers in the world, which are specialized ships necessary to carry liquid natural gas) and about 32%-33% of total global ocean-going deadweight tonnage for coal and oil.[1] Natural gas is primarily transported on intra-continental pipelines, however, with some last mile transportation by truck, rather than by ships, trains or barges.

The numbers are similar for freight transported by freight train (51% of train freight is coal and oil) and over rivers and lakes by barges (56% of barge freight is coal and oil).

As of December 2009: "About 49% of rail freight is coal and another 2% is oil. About 10% consists of grain and grain products. Wood and paper account for 4%. About 10% of loads are non-petroleum chemicals. Stones, gravel, sand, clay and glass account for about 10% Most of the rest (13%) consists of other food products, metals and metal products, motor vehicles, waste and scrap materials."

As of September 2024: "In 2007, coal was the primary commodity moved by barge, accounting for 29% of all tonnages. Petroleum was the second largest commodity group in 2007, accounting for 27% of all tonnages. Crude materials, such as forest products, sand, gravel, ores, scrap, and salt, were the third largest commodity group in 2007, accounting for 18% of all tonnages. Food and farm products were the fourth largest commodity group in 2007, accounting for 12% of all tonnages."

Oil and gas firms accounted for 13.3% of U.S. capital expenditures in 2015, but only about 0.13% of U.S. employment (about 180,000 people); while in the same year the coal industry accounted for 0.16% of U.S. capital expenditures and 0.05% of U.S. employment (about 68,000 people) (and the coal industry has significantly contracted by more than 20% since 2015). By comparison, the retail trade industry accounts for 5.2% of U.S. capital expenditures in 2015 but 11.3% of U.S. employment. Wal-Mart alone employs about six times as many people as the entire oil and gas and coal industries combined. The U.S. oil and gas industry is important to Wall Street, but accounts for less than one in 500 U.S. jobs.

Fossil Fuels and Democracy

The share of an economy that comes from oil, gas, and coal is a good indicator of how authoritarian and far-right wing its politics are likely to be. The absence of production of these fuels in an economy, or reduced reliance of fossil fuel production, favors more democratic and more liberal government.

All of the world's remaining absolute monarchies (as opposed to merely symbolic constitutional monarchies) are in economies dominated by oil and gas revenues. Just one of the 36 countries with oil revenues as more than 2% or more of GDP has a healthy democracy (the outlier is Norway at #28 with 4.8% of its GDP from oil revenues is Norway). Norway's relatively healthy non-fossil fuel economy and democracy is in part due to the fact that it developed its oil and gas resources (mostly in the North Sea) fairly late in the history of these industries.

Among U.S. states ranked by fossil fuel production per capita, the only blue state in the top 8, is New Mexico (where it is 21% of GDP and which at #4 has all sorts of demographic and economic characteristics typical of red states, but votes blue because New Mexico has large Hispanic and Native American populations who are not welcome in the Republican party). Purple Pennsylvania at #9 and Colorado at #10 (each at about 5-6% of per capita GDP) are the only other blue states in the top 18 by fossil fuel production per capita. California at #19 has only $323 per capital of fossil fuel production (about 0.5% of per  capita GDP) and 17 states have no appreciable fossil fuel production per capita.

Environmental and Climate Harm

Coal and oil are probably the biggest drivers of air pollution and global climate change. They are also responsible for the workplace and transportation accidents associated with their extraction, delivery, and use. They are a very significant source of water pollution (including ground water pollution) and a major source of toxic and radioactive waste (coal has somewhat more than trace levels of radioactive elements in it). And, the extraction process destroys otherwise pristine open space and agricultural land, with coal being particularly damaging.

National Military and Economic Security

Reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil in the U.S., and both oil and natural gas in Europe, is also a major national security and economic stability risk, that subjecting economies that consume them to supply interruptions and risks caused by global military unrest associated with the authoritarian regimes that oil production based economies are so prone to be (e.g. unrest in the Middle East, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia). 

The Ukraine War has illustrated how vulnerable Russia has been to attacks on its oil and gas industry, which is not easy to defend, how dependent modern militaries are logistically on oil, and how dependent Europe and other world economies are on Russian oil and gas.

Reduced reliance of ocean shipping of fossil fuels also makes naval warfare and military control of seaways at choke points like the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, the Bight of Benin, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Bosporus Strait, the Strait of Gibraltar, and the Baltic Sea much less important and much less tempting for states that want to flex their military power and pirates.

References

[1] According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in an entry about Liquefied natural gas made on June 21, 2024, and a report by Fortune Business Insights, Report ID: FBI103940 updated August 17, 2026 entitled "LNG Bunkering Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By End-User (Tanker Fleet, Bulk and General Cargo, Offshore Support Vessels and Ferries, Other) and regional Forecast, 2026-2034.

The Trump Executive Order Renaming Lake Ontario Is Illegal

Trump has claimed that he can rename Lake Ontario unilaterally with an Executive Order. Google Maps is obeying it. But, of course, like so many of his other Executive Orders, this one is illegal because it contradicts a binding treaty with Canada.

The Executive-Judiciary Interface In Undermining The Rule Of Law

One of the most distinctive features of Trump 2.0 has been the breakdown of the rule of law. The administration has routinely ignored the law and settled interpretation of existing law in a wide variety of domains.

It has enacted illegal tariffs, it has denied due process to immigrants, it has deported immigrants to countries to which they have no connection, it has illegally impounded Congressionally appropriated funds, it has conducted the Iran war without complying with the war powers act, it has illegally and in violation of international law bombed suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and killed survivors of its attacks, it has unlawfully meddled in state election processes, it has fired government officials whom Congressionally enacted statutes don't allow it to fire, it has pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, it has corruptly allowed officials to benefit personally in monetary terms from their offices, it has openly admitted to denying FEMA disaster relief based upon how states have voted in recent elections, it has brought sham criminal prosecutions of political opponents, and so on.

Trump 1.0 was odious, incompetent, dishonest, and violated some political norms and legal rules, but shows much less disregard for the rule of law and for well-established political and legal norms.

What changed? How will that affect future administrations?

A lot of the change can be fairly attributed to the courts, especially lower court judges appointed by Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court, which attained a conservative majority and an ultra-conservative plurality under Trump 1.0, consistently letting Trump circumvent rulings against him personally, and against his administration, made by lower courts and non-Trump appointed judges (including many judges appointed by Republican Presidents in prior administrations).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions to grant Trump expansively Presidential immunity from criminal liability for his official or arguably official acts (even if they are clearly ultra vires), and to interpret the insurrection clause out of the 14th Amendment, were some of the earliest and most damaging of its steps down this path.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't given Trump a complete blank check in Trump 2.0 to be a dictator, largely because the non-ultra conservative justices and the liberal justices on the Court has sometimes formed coalitions to block the ultra-conservative agenda. But this hasn't been consistent enough to discourage mischief in the executive branch.

Of course, the Republican controlled Congress also hasn't pro-actively intervened, but as some justices on the Supreme Court such as Gorsuch are starting to acknowledge, while Congress has significant power to deny funds to the President, Congress has very little capacity to pro-actively contradict or restrain a President inclined to ignore it.

The relative irrelevance of Congress has also been illustrated by Trump 2.0's heavy reliance on executive orders to act, rather than Congressional legislation, despite the fact that Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, and despite the fact that past precedents have pretty well established that the filibuster in the Senate is a voluntary restraint that the Republican Senate majority has afforded to the minority, and not a legally binding barrier to action, and despite the tight hold that Trump has acquired over the Republican party, effectively turning it into a MAGA party.

So, the existence of a GOP trifecta has, in practice, been less important to the disappearance of the rule of law than judicial and especially U.S. Supreme Court, connivance in facilitating unilateral illegal actions by President Trump (in a highly partisan fashion that it did not afford to President Biden).

Indeed, if anything, the Republican majorities in Congress have been more even handed in protecting the limited rights of the minority Democrats in Congress on a non-partisan basis, than SCOTUS has been in its rulings, many of which simply can't be explained by anything but partisan bias.

Another Quote

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.

- Frank Herbert (author of "Dune," 1965).

Another view, which is that "acting" and "deception" are part of the skill set of a politician.

Mad Kings

According to tradition, the Roman Republic was preceded by the Kingdom of Rome from 753 BCE to 509 BCE (244 years spanned by just seven kings).

The Roman Republic had lasted for about 482 years after it began with the establishment of the Roman consulate in 509 BCE. 

The first Roman emperor, Augustus, took office in 27 BCE. Tiberius, the second Roman emperor, who took office in 17 CE was reputedly mentally ill, although less flamboyantly that two of his three successors. Caligula, the third Roman emperor, took office in 37 CE. Nero, the fifth Roman emperor, took office in 54 CE.  Two later emperors before the split and then fall of the Roman empire were also considered mentally ill: Commodus who took office in 177 CE and Elagabalus who took office in 218 CE.

The Roman Empire split between the Western and Eastern (Byzantine) empires in 364 CE (391 years after the Roman Empire was established), and the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE (112 years after the split).

According to Google AI (I'm feeling lazy today):

The most notable and documented "mad kings" include:

• King Charles VI of France (1368–1422): Often called Charles le Fou (Charles the Mad), he suffered from manic episodes and the infamous "glass delusion," where he believed he was made of brittle glass and wore iron rods in his clothing to prevent himself from shattering. [1, 2]
• King George III of Great Britain (1738–1820): Known as the monarch who "lost America," George III suffered from prolonged bouts of mental instability—long thought to be porphyria—which caused him to experience severe logorrhea and depression, eventually necessitating a regency. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• King Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886): Famously dubbed "Mad King Ludwig," he was deeply eccentric, neglecting state affairs to focus entirely on building extravagantly expensive, fairytale-style palaces (such as Neuschwanstein Castle) before being declared insane. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• King Christian VII of Denmark (1749–1808): Suffering from severe mental illness and paranoia, his inability to govern left his kingdom in the hands of various regents and his royal physician. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Tsar Ivan IV of Russia (1530–1584): Better known as Ivan the Terrible, his early, capable rule slowly devolved into legendary paranoia and violent, sadistic outbursts later in his life, particularly following the death of his first wife. [1, 2, 3]
• King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (634–562 BC): Often considered the original "mad king," the granddaddy of Babylonian rulers was struck down by a seven-year descent into animal-like insanity as recounted in the Book of Daniel.

In addition to some other European and Middle Eastern mad kings, there are at least two notable ones from Japan (a list that surely omits notable mad Chinese emperors):

• Emperor Yōzei (陽成天皇, Yōzei-tennō, 869–949, ruled 876–884) was described by the 14th-century historian Kitabatake Chikafusa as affected by madness, killing people and animals without reason. His unstable and violent behavior prompted his advisors to force his abdication in 884.^[29]
• Emperor Taishō (大正天皇, Taishō-tennō, 1879–1926, ruled 1912–1926) of Japan, had a variety of neurological disorders, which though at least partially physical in origin incorporated psychological elements as well. Discussion or criticism of an emperor, including that of health issues, remains a controversial subject in Japan for cultural, political, and religious reasons and is referred to as the Chrysanthemum taboo.^[30][31][32]

The United States of America will have persisted for 250 years from its self-declared birthday of July 4, 1776, in a few weeks. Mad kings were a problem that the Founders were familiar with at the time that they drafted the current U.S. Constitution (which took effect in 1789 and added the Bill of Rights in 1791). Indeed, this clear and present danger is the source of some of the emphatic anti-monarchy provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Probably the most similar historical figures to Trump 2.0 are Nero and Caligula, although there are other somewhat similar examples from European and Asian monarchies.

There is great fear that President Trump signals the end of democracy in America, if not actually on his watch, but showing the way to, and heralding, its end. Then again, while some mad kings were followed by more sane monarchs, others were followed in fairly short order by the demise of the monarchy's power, or its abolition entirely.

Misconceptions

Conventional wisdom can be misleading.

* Courts are not primarily dispute resolution forums. They are primarily legal right enforcement forums.

* Our system is primarily a rule of law system. We are democratic in the sense that we seek democratic involvement in innovation and change in the system, not that it is democratic in how day to day decisions are made.

* Unemployment is not a shortage of jobs. The absolute stock of jobs is not what matters. Unemployment is a failure of entrepreneurs to devise economically worthwhile things for people to do and to locate people who are available to do it. 

Some Quick, Ill Developed, Political Ideas

In defense of the deep state

The "deep state" is valuable and good, not a conspiratorial anti-democratic force. It is the bureaucratic manifestation of the rule of law.

We say we live in a "democracy" but that's an oversimplification. Obeying the law is not a matter up for popular vote. When we say we are a democracy what we really mean is that changes in the law must be made democratically. Not even the President is allowed to deviate from the law, which the President is sworn to faithfully execute. The President, wearing a different hat, can participate in the legislative process. But the bureaucratic organization that is the state can and normatively should push back against a President who tries to deviate from the way that the law mandates that the organization should behave.

Fiscal federalism

Trump 2.0 has illustrated the perils of relying too heavily on the federal budgetary process to spend funds for public purposes. So have many past government shutdowns.

Of course, dysfunction in the federal budgetary process leaves undisturbed public functions funded and operated at the state and local level with state and local funding. Most law enforcement comes from state and local law enforcement, most court cases (criminal and civil) are handled in the state courts, most K-12 and higher education funding is state and local, most roads and bridges are maintained at the state and local level, state and local law and funding keeps the water running, the sewers flowing, clears away trash from homes and businesses, and regulates the construction industry and real estate development for the most part.

We've seen what happens when this falls apart now. Because Medicaid and VA Health Care are federally funded and don't even had dedicated federal tax funding, they can be undermined quickly when the federal budgetary process goes astray and also equalize services between poor states and rich states. A simple federal tax law change can undermine ACA individual health insurance marketplace subsidies. K-12 education relies heavily on federal funding for special education (i.e. educating the disabled) and for schools in low income areas (which also equalizes situations between poor states and rich states). Higher education relies upon federal funding for grants for low income students, higher educational institutions for military officers and the deaf, student loan financing, and research grants. Disaster relief is heavily federally funded and leaves havoc unchecked when that is suspended. Disease control and weather prediction and monitoring are also heavily federally funded and are screwed up when this changes.

While we couldn't fund the military or the national debt at the state and local level, we could have a system where more health care and education spending is state and local. This would reduce federal influence on how those industries run and remove those industries from the whims of the federal budget process to a great extent, but would also lead to weaker subsidies of poor states and disproportionately worse services in poor states and would subject those services to greater state and local political influence.

After 9-11 we federalized airport security creating the TSA. Today, we see the political price of that as a federal budgetary process fight unrelated to the TSA itself disrupts airport service. Early in Trump 2.0 we saw what happened to FAA air traffic control as a result of exposure to the Trump 2.0 administration and the federal budgetary process.

So far, Social Security is only suffering deficiencies in administrative processing of disability claims for the most part, because it has its own dedicated funding source that insulates it from the federal budgetary process as an entitlement.

But national parks and major transportation ad energy infrastructure programs have seen a twirl.

Could we build a more robust system without facing too many costs?

Trump's Many Wars

Trump has declared wars on small boats in international waters in the Caribbean and the Pacific, claiming that they are drug boats, without proof, claiming a right to kill the people on them, contrary to international law.

Trump invaded Venezuela and seized its leader.

Trump has involved U.S. military forces in striking a Mexican cartel chief, leading to a bloodbath there.

Trump has unilaterally made strikes on Iran.

Trump has now deployed the U.S. military in Ecuador.

Trump is trying to impose an oil embargo on Cuba.

Trump deployed the National Guard to peaceful American cities.

Trump has deployed ICE as his private secret police to lawlessly terrorize American cities with scant regard to what they are actually legally authorized to do.

Trump has deployed U.S. forces to interdict Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers trying to evade sanctions arising out of the Ukraine War. The Ukraine war itself is ongoing and Trump and blown hot and cold on it, prolonging the war by giving Putin hope.

Trump has threatened, but not yet struck, Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

And, while only metaphorical, Trump has declared trade wars on the entire world.

In most of these cases, Trump hasn't had even a whisper of Congressional authorization or legal authorization to act. The uses of force (and the tariffs) have violated domestic and international law. 

Disgust and Horror Overload

This is just from this week and only captures about half of the miserable awful things that happened. It is one nightmare after another. Sometimes you just have to hang on and hope that the situation resolves, doing what you can, but recognizing that it is a collective effort.

Brexit Did A Lot Of Economic Harm

I've said it before, but it remains true that while there is not one right answer for the policies that democracies should adopt, there are many objectively wrong decisions that democracies can make.

Brexit harmed the British economy more than anticipated. Trade barriers hurt the countries erecting them.

This paper examines the impact of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) in 2016. Using almost a decade of data since the referendum, we combine simulations based on macro data with estimates derived from micro data collected through our Decision Maker Panel survey. These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process. 

Comparing these with contemporary forecasts – providing a rare macro example to complement the burgeoning micro-literature of social science predictions – shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade.

From this NBER paper.

The Shutdown Continues

The federal government shutdown is on day 26, the second longest of all time, and the record holder for person-days of federal employee furloughs. Trump has accounted for a majority of all days that the government has been shut down for all time.

Trump has literally demolished the East Wing of the White House to put up a ballroom (all contrary to federal law regarding how that is done).

SNAP, a.k.a. food stamps, will be shut off on November 1, 2025, out of Trump's spite because there are contingency funds in place to keep it going longer.

Trump continues to deny everyone federal disaster aid.

Trump continues to illegally murder people in boats in the Caribbean, ostensibly because they are dealing drugs, but that isn't grounds for summary execution, the basis for doing so hasn't been substantiated, and Congress hasn't authorized it.

ICE is ignoring the law and court orders in Chicago. On the bright side, someone stole two National Guard tanks in Memphis.

The No Kings Protest on October 18, 2025 extended to large attendances even in deeply red places. About 8.1 million people nationwide participated.

In a political stunt to celebrate the Marine Corps. birthday, they fired artillery rounds over Interstate Highway I-5, where some rounds exploded prematurely over the highway.

Charlie Kirk's wife appears to be deeply connected to kidnappings of Romanian children for adoptions when she was 17 years old in an activity that Trump apparently played a part in funding.

The National Young Republicans Group's racist, pro-Nazi, pro-rape group chat was exposed. The group also stiffed venues where it held events of tens of thousands of dollars more than once.

More than a third of ICE applicants can't pass basic physical fitness tests. About half of them can't pass a basic, open book test, on the part of immigration law that they need to know and the 4th Amendment.

The Toronto Blue Jays are in the World Series.

Trump increased tariffs on Canadian imports by 10% because he didn't like a truthful TV ad playing recordings of Ronald Reagan explaining how bad tariffs are.

Trump is ramping up dubious criminal prosecutions of his political opponents using illegally appointed attorneys in the Justice Department's U.S. attorneys' office.

Trump appears to have received more than a billion dollars of illegal personal gain from his office already since January 20 when he was sworn in.

Trump illegally tried to conduct layoffs during the government shutdown, which a judge halted.

Republicans are refusing to swear in a newly elected Democrat to the house from Arizona because they don't want to release the Epstein files and don't care about the continuing government shutdown.

All of this just scratches the surface of the horrible news that rains down every day.

Not All Hope Is Lost (Yet)!

Keep fighting!

Every week (there are rare days of respite) there is news so bad that I vacillate between outrage and despair over the future of our country.

On the other hand, while we have plummeted into a less free semi-democracy, and plenty of irrevocable damage has been done, we aren't yet beyond a point of no return.

The government shutdown demonstrates that Congress can do something. And, with the "nuclear option" well-established in the U.S. Senate now, the fact that the filibuster hasn't be abrogated to end the shutdown means that there is at least some tacit dissatisfaction with the administration among some Republicans in Congress, even if they are too cowardly to translate that into a roll call vote against the President.

While SCOTUS has frequently shut down lower court checks on Trump's assault on the rule of law, the lower federal courts and litigation of blue states has slowed the process down and put serious friction in the way of his bid to become a dictator.

Attempted military occupations of L.A., D.C., Chicago, and Portland (OR), have had far less shock and awe that Trump hoped. His birthday parade flopped and his rally of generals and admirals likewise demonstrated that while the military may reluctantly obey their commander in chief, that he does not have firm control of, or the loyal and enthusiastic support of, the military.

Trump's aggressive secret police style ICE tactics have undermined public backing for his immigration policies, which were a key factor in getting him and the Republicans in Congress who only have a razor thin majority as it is in the House and in the Senate, elected.

Now that the rich have gotten their tax breaks, they don't need him nearly so badly any more, and are shifting to worrying about whether his bad economic policies will deny them any profits to evade taxes on at all.

We are thirteen months away from the midterm elections, at a time when Trump's popularity has plummeted to record lows and where Democrats are vastly over performing in special vacancy elections. GOP gerrymanders are getting a response from Blue state counter-gerrymanders. And, the cost the GOP risks when it grasps for more Republican districts is that those districts may become less safe and flip as public opinion turns against Trump (primarily among disappointed Republicans and independents who voted for Trump).

It is dim, but there is still some light at the end of the tunnel.

The Complicated Story Of MAGA Politics

The modern Democratic party operates to a great extent like politics is supposed to work in Civics 101, and follow on political theory says that it is supposed to. It has found policies, that its leaders believe are good ones for the nation, that can unite a diverse big tent coalition. Democrats believe that government can be a force for good and want to use it the implement policies that make the world a better place. They go to great lengths to demonstrate with evidence that their policies do indeed do so. They aren't saints, but they also view stupidity, bad character, and malice in their leaders negatively and are generally happy to cast out leaders who demonstrate those traits.

The Republican party, in living history, was a pretty similar organization and movement that assembled a different bundle of policies to unite a different, smaller tent coalition.

But, that Republican party is almost gone and rapidly dissolving, even though most of its top leaders got their political start in that party.

The MAGA Republican party and movement, in contrast, is something else entirely. It absolutely still has its roots in the pre-FDR solid south Democratic party, in the Dixiecrats, and in the post-Southern strategy anti-civil rights Republican party. But unlike the Republican party that preceded it, it doesn't fit the Civics 101 model.

MAGA Republicans don't accept a lot of the bipartisan consensus about many aspects of policy making and governing that preceded it. It is isolationist. It is anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-NATO, and unconcerned about alliances with foreign dictators. It has no respect for expertise. It doesn't think that government does anything good (and is oblivious to the benefits that its members receive from government), so it isn't troubled by having the government run by incompetent fools. It has strong authoritarian leanings, no commitment to democratic ideals, and little concern for the rule of law. It sees power as a tool to utilize to fight culture wars and its political opponents, rather than as a means to advance the greater good

Republican political leaders know perfectly well that most of President Trump's executive branch appointees, like RFK, Jr., are incompetent idiots whose only redeeming quality is their momentary personal loyalty to Trump. Most of them are also well aware that many of the policies that Trump is pushing for are objectively bad ones.

Then why do these Republican leaders back Trump anyway?

They can read the room. They know that they face mafia style backlash from Trump if they cross him. They also know that their not terribly bright constituents in the MAGA base firmly support Trump (or at least have until very recently within Trump's second term when they've discovered personally, the hard way, how bad his policies really are) seeing any deviation from Trump's agenda as a betray of Trump's MAGA base including them. The MAGA base also sincerely believe in a lot of the misguided elements of Trump's agenda because unlike most Republican leaders, they don't know any better.

Billionaires and the political representatives of many big businesses also know personally well that Trump is a horrible person who supports mostly bad policies who is basically trying to destroy the federal government from the inside. But, for them, the immense tax cuts that Trump has delivered to them, and the dismantling of federal laws and regulations that cost them money have seemed worth it to them so far.

The conservative leaning members of the college educated upper middle class, who used to work in think tanks formulating conservative policies that they thought furthered the national interest on a basis similar to that of their liberal peers, who served as senior civil servants, and served as professionals in roles that either supported conservative economic and religious interests, or were at least apolitical, meanwhile, have abandoned the Grand Old Party in droves, some to be unaffiliated politically, some to be libertarians, and some to become "moderate" and "neo-liberal" Democrats. Fools loyal to MAGA and Trump's cult of personality, and powerful hypocrites, have rushed in to fill the vacuum that they upper middle class conservatives left behind.

The agenda of Trump and his MAGA cult of personality isn't sustainable. But it wasn't really meant to be. The objective of MAGA is to burn it all down, and to entrench far right cultural dominance and political power now, knowing that in the long run, the democratic process and respect for the rule of law and settled political norms, run fairly, will undermine those objectives.

Destruction can be accomplished more quickly than building something that works. So, it doesn't have to last long. And, if the MAGA base comes to realize that the face eating leopard they supported ate their faces once the damage done is irrevocable, that's their tough luck in the eyes of the billionaires and far-right cranks who actually benefit from its agenda. By then, if the MAGA agenda is successful, they will have dug the United States (and even the larger world) into a hole that will be very hard to get out of again.

The system struggles to stop them. Trump has installed enough people loyal to him that share his far from the mainstream agenda in key institutions like the U.S. Supreme Court, the military, and senior government offices that he wasn't supposed to be able to oust and oust, and key policies that he wasn't supposed to have the legal right to control, that the systems and people designed to stop him aren't doing their jobs. The system wasn't designed to to stop a President who had no respect for his oath of office, no commitment to the good of the nation, no respect for the rule of law, and immense political power arising from a base brainwashed by decades of lies from clergy, Republican political leaders, and cynically manipulative conservative mass media outlets that jettisoned their journalist ethics long ago.

Of course, the willingness of the MAGA base to be manipulated and accept these lies didn't come from nowhere. It isn't that information that reveals that these are lies isn't available. It isn't that members of the MAGA base unanimously agree that Trump has good character.

They are motivated to accept a false worldview because the last half century of American progress has left them behind and greatly diminished their socio-economic status in relative terms. They are willing to take the gamble of destroying the system because of they feel that it has done nothing for them, and that they have no prospects of improving their lot within it.

Most of them made a bad bet. Trump's agenda will leave them worse off and reveal to them that they actually did have something to lose in the system that they are trying to destroy. The policies that they thought were the problem aren't the source of their dismay. Their future prospects within the system that they support destroying were better than they believed them to be. But, now that they've made that bet, a psychological unwillingness to admit that they've been duped and made a mistake, and the fact that much of the damage to both the system and the political process has already been done, makes remedying their mistake difficult.

The situation could still be turned around: If enough of the MAGA base is disillusioned fast enough. If enough old guard Republicans and conservative judges who are hypocrites wake up to the fact that the end game isn't a good one before it is too late. If Trump dies or implodes (which is a bet the left is trying to make by pushing the Epstein files issue) and no successor to Trump as the leader of the MAGA movement arises. 

But if it is turned around, the most likely failure mode for MAGA will be a dramatic collapse of the entire political movement. It will look like an economic bubble popping. It will look like the sudden death of the Whig party in favor of the new Republican party shortly before the Civil War. It will look like the collapse of Naziism at the end of World War II, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. It will look like the post-Herbert Hoover Republican Party of the 1930s. It might even look like the French Revolution with guillotines and all.

There isn't much room for a middle ground business as usual alternation of power at the margins at this point.

Moving Space Force HQ From Colorado To Alabama Is Stupid

Trump is about to renew his efforts to move the headquarters of the Space Force, a fifth military service that he created, from Colorado (where the headquarters of the part of the Air Force bureaucracy that was transferred to the separate Space Force service was located before he created the Space Force), to Alabama. He tried to do so during his first term, but the moved got bogged down in Department of Defense red tape, and the Department of Defense reversed that decision during the Biden Administration. 

UPDATE:

President Trump said one of the main considerations for moving Space Command out of Colorado Springs is because Colorado voters largely vote by mail. 

“I will say I want to thank Colorado,” Trump said. “The problem I have with Colorado… they do mail-in voting, they went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections." 

Trump has long criticized voting by mail, and has cited the practice as a major reason he lost the 2020 election to Biden though he has not provided evidence of fraud emanating from mail-in ballots." . . . 

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce estimates that Space Command supports nearly 1,400 jobs and has a $1 billion impact on the Colorado Springs economy. Colorado has a significant Space Force presence, hosting half the bases with its major operations, including Peterson as well as Schriever Space Force Base in the Colorado Springs area and Buckley Space Force Base in Aurora. Nationally, the branch has more than 14,000 military and civilian members, who are called Guardians. 

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Tuesday said his office was prepared to challenge in court Trump’s decision to move the command, though he did not elaborate the legal rationale for a lawsuit. . . . 

Huntsville, nicknamed Rocket City, has long been home to Redstone and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command is also located in Huntsville, which drew its nickname because of its role in building the first rockets for the U.S. space program.

This is almost certainly not a legitimate reason for executive branch action under the Administrative Procedure Act. It is also an outrageously false claim.

Colorado Pols has more details.

END UPDATE

This is very on brand for Trump. He is making a call that places partisan politics above what is best for national security and wastes federal dollars.

Alabama is less attractive than Colorado to the civilian employees and contractors (who have a choice unlike active duty service members), so it won't attract the same quality work force. And, if one was going to move it away from Colorado one could have justified an HQ in Florida or Texas, which are also GOP strongholds, but like Colorado and Washington State, actually have a space industry (but see the material in the update above about Huntsville). Charitably, the best that can be said for it is that it provides economic development assistance to an underdeveloped part of the U.S.A. that supports him politically. Less charitably, it can be seen as a political payoff to Senator Tommy Tuberville who was getting in the way of Trump's Defense Department agenda. Less charitably still, it is a way for Trump to try to take action solely attributable to him that will become part of a military service's legacy once the bad decisions that went into that choice are long forgotten.

Tearing down old infrastructure to move it somewhere else is also just wasteful, while providing no benefits to national security. It is will probably require a billion or so dollars of unnecessary defense spending.

Of course, creating the "Space Force" was a bone headed idea in the first place. It undermines interservice cooperation, and honestly, it would have been better to be truly conservative and roll the Air Force back into the Army, rather than further dividing the Air Force. There might be a time when a Space Force makes sense, but that time is far in future.

Space Force's military role remains ill-defined and it remains a work in progress that is currently creating more confusion rather than a stronger U.S. military. Do we really need a new Space Force academy? Do we really need Space Force reserves? How is it doing anything that the Air Force did better? How many people are even in the Space Force? According to Google AI it apparently has 9,400 active duty "guardians" and about 4,600 civilians, making it far smaller than even the Coast Guard.

Trump's other wasteful symbolic military acts

Trump's other symbolic military initiatives are similarly dubious. His military birthday parade in the District of Columbia on June 14, that the Army aptly converted to a boring historical display from the third-world dictatorship show of force that he wanted in an act of malicious compliance, it was a wasteful and expensive flop.

The idea he has floated to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War (as it was called during and before World War II), were also wastes of money, but at least are basically harmless. Indeed, the calling it the Department of War is also more honest.

Trump's intent to reassign Confederate names to U.S. military bases is fundamentally endorsing treason and insurrection and is patently un-American.

Trump's inappropriate domestic uses of the military

Trump's deployment of military force, mostly but not entirely, national guard troops, on the other hand, in addition to being a waste of money, are grossly improper, manufactured crises that threaten democracy, undermine federalism, are inappropriate for immigration enforcement, and are illegal.

The Courts rejected his efforts to criminalize illegal immigration by calling a large swath of the border a military base, and have rejected his characterization of illegal immigration as an "invasion" of the United States for constitutional purposes. Courts have also held that deportation flights he had the military make in violation of court orders were illegal.

Courts have shut down his military deployments to Los Angeles. As the New York Times explains:

A federal judge in California said President Trump broke the law by deploying roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to immigration protests. The judge said on Tuesday that Mr. Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Defense Department had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military to enforce domestic law. The judge barred them from using the troops for any law-enforcement purpose, but put the order on hold for 10 days. The administration is expected to appeal. . . . 

The ruling was the latest in a series of judicial battles over claims of expansive unilateral powers by the administration. Mr. Trump and administration officials have deported people without due process, imposed widespread and unpopular tariffs and rolled back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers that have been disputed in federal court. 

The president also declared crime in Washington, D.C., to be an emergency in order to send federal troops there in August, although crime rates in the nation’s capital have actually been falling and local officials said the deployment was not needed. Since then, Mr. Trump has publicly mused about sending the National Guard into other Democratic-led cities. Federal law gives the White House more latitude to conduct local law enforcement in the District of Columbia than in the states. . . .

The ruling places strict limits on the what the troops can do and applies only in California, although the judge noted that Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth “have stated their intention” to use Guard troops as a “national police force with the president as its chief.” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California praised the decision, saying Mr. Trump’s efforts were “illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Other bad defense department decisions.

These aren't the only bad defense department decisions he's made. He's banned books at the military academies (eventually rescinding all but a few of those bans). 

He wiped all mention of women and minorities who contributed to the U.S. military on government websites (another decision he has mostly backed down from in the face of court action and bad P.R.). 

He's systemically fired or removed from command women and minorities whom he has called "DEI hires" while putting in place less qualified individuals chosen for political loyalty. 

He's baselessly fired transgender troops contrary to their civil rights and denied them their legitimate benefits for being laid off and having served with distinction.

He's purged the ranks of generals and admirals and national intelligence officials to replace them with political loyalists. Trump's major appointments in the defense and national intelligence sectors have involved woefully unqualified people who have made major public blunders.

His openly revenge oriented revocations of security clearances and security details for various officials has been disgraceful.

The mixed bag of Trump's military deployments and threats abroad.

Trump's deployment of U.S. forces have been a mixed bag at best.

Trump wasn't wrong to continue Biden's policy of militarily engaging the Iranian backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been using advanced anti-ship missiles from Iran to interrupt maritime commerce in acts of piracy that they claim are in support of Gaza but really have nothing to do with it. But then, he just lost interest and ended U.S. involvement.

Trump wasn't wrong to provide some extra military support to Israel's raids on Iran to thwart its nuclear capabilities, although the B-2 bomber strikes he made were less effective than might have been hoped. And, of course, this is a problem of his own making created when he pulled the U.S. out of President Obama's deal with Iran to end its nuclear weapons program.

Trump, in his first term, set up Biden for failure, and the Afghan government installed by the U.S. and its allies for collapse, by negotiating with the Taliban for a U.S. withdrawal that left the Afghan government out of the loop and left Biden holding the bag when he took office, just a month or so before the scheduled pull out date. And, in his second term, Trump has broken faith with Afghan citizens who served U.S. forces in Afghanistan at great risk to their own lives by trying to revoke the immigration protections that the Biden Administration and his own administration in his first term provided to them.

Trump has been indecisive, has wrecked our alliances, has taken absurd and counterfactual positions, and has played into Russia's hand with respect to the Ukraine War, even though with immense bipartisan political pressure from Congress and from the Defense Department, he hasn't entirely abandoned it.

Trump's utter abandonment of Africa, ending U.S. Aid in a way that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will kill millions, planning to close all U.S. embassies there, and imposing tariffs upon it, has basically ceded the entire continent to China.

Trump has been less firm than he might have been in the Philippines-China clashes in the South China Sea caused by Chinese Coast Guard harassment of Filipino military and civilian shipping in places that international law has declared to be international waters.

Trump's response to the situation in Israel with Gaza has ranged from rudderless to absurd with his call to vacate Gaza and turn it into a Trump owned beach resort. By floating the proposal without even consulting his advisors, he has undermined U.S. credibility on the issue.

Trump's deployment of naval forces towards Venezuela seems to be an attempt to manufacture a war. His early threats to invade Greenland and Panama and Mexico, contrary to the sovereignty of a NATO member, to treaty obligations, and to international law, and to annex Canada, have likewise been toddler level moves that have undermined U.S. credibility in foreign affairs and turned us into a global menace.

The mixed bag of Trump's procurement decisions

Trump's military procurement decisions have also been a mixed bag.

The cancelation of the M10 Booker light tank (that the Army refused to call a tank) was a good move. Cancelling the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle for the Army (one of the best procurement decisions that the Army and Marine Corps have made for ages), while keeping the Army's buy of the obviously bad Infantry Squad Vehicle that ignores all of the lessons the Army learned in Iraq and Afghanistan was a very bad move.

Cancelling the Army's successor to the M113 was mostly a good move, but leaves the Army without a next generation medical transport and field hospital vehicle, even though other parts of that buy were unwise. Progress on an Osprey-like tilt wing successor to the Blackhawk helicopter in the Army is positive. Upgrading Army small arms makes sense.

The decision to boost purchases of the B-21 Raider and the F-47 Air Force fighter (to replace the F-35A) aren't horrible decisions, nor is the decision to continue the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (a.k.a. Loyal Wingman drone) program. Looking at ways to use cargo aircraft as bombers or missile launching platforms also makes sense. This administration's continued failure to recognize the need to have a close air support aircraft (shared with past administrations), however, even if the A-10 is just too old, wasn't wise. Trump's absurd attempt to play aerospace engineer and claim that the F-47 really needs twin engines, however, is more toddler level governance.

A focus on improving U.S. air defenses in a program known as the Golden Dome (playing on Israel's Iron Dome), on ramping up U.S. drone production, and on rushing to get drone defense resources fielded aren't wrong. Developing hypersonic missiles also makes sense. 

Developing new anti-ship tactical nuclear missiles, however, is a bad call and doesn't meet a real military need since existing anti-ship missiles are more than adequate to sink any ship in existence.

The decision to fund development of Elon Musk's SpaceX Rocket Cargo program which is technologically challenging, doesn't have a proven track record of quality control, and doesn't meet an urgent need, is less wise. This contract is just political payback.

It is honestly still hard to tell, more than seven months into the administration, what it's naval policy is. The Navy is appropriately looking at a major increase in unmanned ships and submarines, and at containerized anti-ship missiles for ships that wouldn't ordinarily have any missiles. Is the successor to the F-35C on or off? Is the Constellation class frigate on or off? Where is the Littoral Combat Ship program? Do we really need more old model Arleigh Burke destroyers? Does spending big bucks on maintaining a large scale amphibious attack capability really make sense?

Trump has talked big about using the U.S. military against cartels in Latin America, but the Department of Defense has apparently done nothing to prepare for this historically law enforcement and Coast Guard mission.