On the meta subject of "what a fucking bunch of clowns", I'm pasting what David Frum has to say about the end of DOGE, and what it has done. I understand that not many here are that receptive to conservative voices, but I like to keep my hand in and see what sane conservatives are saying (I've said before that I still find it incredible to regard the author of "axis of evil" in that light, but times change), so here goes:
I want to open with a few preliminary thoughts about the expiry of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. DOGE was never really a department of government. It had a kind of extralegal existence. It was a creature of the president. But in the opening months of the Trump presidency, it dominated the agenda. It created havoc across the U.S. government and across the lives of many, many government employees and many people who depend on the U.S. government for services. I think, as it expires now, almost at the end of the year 2025, I think it’s fair to render the verdict that DOGE was an almost total fiasco. It failed to achieve its own stated goals of making any impact in government spending. The fiscal situation at the end of President [Donald] Trump’s first year is much, much worse than it was under President [Joe] Biden. Total debt—not that these numbers mean anything anymore, they’re so big—the total debt of the United States is now approaching $40 trillion and will continue to climb through the Trump presidency and beyond.
The root of the problem was that President Trump maintains very high levels of spending, is raising spending on defense, has made permanent the tax cuts that were supposed to be temporary when they were passed in 2025—sorry, 2017. They were now renewed in 2025, and they will last indefinitely. And DOGE and Trump’s big plan to offset the impact of his spending and his tax cuts is his tariff regime, which, first, doesn’t raise all that much money. Second, he’s already spent the money multiple times over: He’s promised to give the money to the farmers. He’s promised to rebate the money to the American consumer. He’s promised to rebate much more than the tariffs are collecting to the American consumer. And anyway, the tariffs are probably illegal and may well shrink or disappear very, very soon. So the DOGE failed entirely in its object. But I think it is worth thinking about why it failed and what legacy it leaves behind.
DOGE failed for three main reasons. The first was it was run by arrogant people who did not take the trouble to understand what they were doing. Elon Musk approached the problem of reducing government spending as a kind of coding error, a problem of computer engineering. You didn’t need any subject-matter expertise. You didn’t need to understand how health-care programs worked or how the Department of Defense worked. Just as a website is a website is a website, so he figured that solving the problems of overspending was solving the problems of overspending. You didn’t need to know anything in particular—=; you just fired people and saw what happened later. So in their arrogance and in their high-handedness, they didn’t bother to learn anything. And so they began cutting wires, metaphorically, and discovered that they were connected—those wires ran important machines.
But second, because they didn’t understand how government worked, or understand their subject matter, what they were doing, they completely misdiagnosed the problem. Government does have fraud, of course, and it has inefficiency, of course. A lot of the inefficiency is there to prevent fraud; that’s why there’s so much paperwork, is to make it difficult for people to steal. But even with the certain undeniable amounts of fraud and inefficiency that there are in government, they’re just not big drivers of the way the U.S. government spends. Most money flows out in direct payments to people, Social Security; or it flows out in direct payment to hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid; or it flows out to pay for the national defense. You have to wrestle with those problems, and the idea that you’re going to find cases of obvious [duplication] of spending or spending that achieves nothing, especially when you don’t know how anything works, that’s just—because they were arrogant, they didn’t study the problem. Because they didn’t study the problem, they addressed the wrong problem. And because they addressed the wrong problem—looking for inefficiency and fraud—instead of actually having to reduce services to people and products, they failed.
But the last thing that they did, and this is maybe the most important, was they broke the law. Under the law of the United States, once the House approves an appropriation, once the Senate confirms the appropriation, once Congress agrees on a budget—or any kind of spending mechanism—and once the president signs it, the president’s people cannot rescind that spending. What Trump was doing was claiming, through DOGE, a power to revoke government spending that Congress had passed and the president had signed. And that’s just illegal. Now, there are some states that give the governor a line-item veto, where, when a budget is presented to him, he can strike this item or that item. And maybe that’s a good idea, and maybe that’s not a good idea. But the president doesn’t have that power, and he certainly does not have the power to rescind the spending after he or his predecessor have signed the spending. So DOGE collapsed in the end because, again, they were too conceited to find out what they were doing; therefore, they did the wrong thing.
But DOGE does leave a legacy, and that is something we need to address. When you think about What did DOGE do?, the DOGE people were, on the nicest reading of what happened, were careless, or maybe something more sinister than careless, so that’s one legacy. The second is that DOGE did enduring harm to scientific and biomedical and climate research. The cuts made to the National Institutes of Health, the agencies that study the oceans and the air, those are difficult to undo. The people who worked in those jobs are very valuable people. Now, they’ve chosen public service either because that’s what they wanted or because they liked the benefits or because it suited their family life. But once you dispense them from public service, they will find other work to do. And you can’t simply blow a whistle and say, Okay, everybody come back. They have not been idling and collecting unemployment insurance; they’ve gone on to often more-lucrative jobs in the private sector. And it’s going to be difficult to call them back. Or they’ll be redirected from researching the kinds of things that National Institutes of Health do to the kinds of things that universities and other people do, and they’re different. So there has been a deep and enduring damage to the scientific-research capabilities of the United States government.
A third enduring change has been damage to the voice and standing of the United States. Rebuilding the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe and other stations, rebuilding the public-diplomacy aspects of the State Department, again, that’s going to be a big job. Many of the important people who had very specific language skills have been lost. The integrity of the service has been compromised. The relationship with listeners in unfree countries who turn to the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, or other stations for information, that has been strained. And most important of all the public-information and public-appearance things that the United States does has been the attack on foreign aid.
The United States doesn’t spend money abroad out of random charity or being a sucker or a dupe; it does so to advance the interests of the United States. And even when it acts in the most purely humanitarian way—when food arrives in a famine zone or flood relief after a disaster—it’s building relationships with people whose governments may defame the United States, but who will remember, When I was in trouble, it was an agency of the United States government that helped me. And that may have some political impact. Tremendous damage has been done to that. Some have tried to estimate lives lost because of the interruption of the flow of aid. That may be trying to quantify something that can’t be quantified. But there’s no doubt that people have been hurt, people have been harmed, the reputation of the United States has been lowered, and this will be enduring.
The last thing, though, and one of the hardest to fix and one of the most immediately felt, has been what DOGE did do was dismantle a lot of the financial-enforcement apparatus of the United States. The Internal Revenue Service that collects revenue for the government, the Securities and Exchange Commission, those agencies were really ravaged. And maybe it wasn’t a total coincidence that the head of DOGE had contentions and disagreements with the IRS and the SEC, and they’re now much less able to enforce, that DOGE’s damage to those agencies has been ratified by the recent government shutdown in the deal to end it. President Biden put about $40 billion over a decade into modernizing the IRS, both so that they would be more responsive to consumers, but also to improve the efficiency of their tax collections. A lot of the fraud in the United States is concentrated where the money is, on the high end. It’s been estimated that a dollar put into IRS collections brings back maybe 10 times, maybe more, in revenue to the government. And all of that has been dismantled. It is much easier to cheat on your taxes. It’s much easier to defraud your investors, if you’re a publicly traded company, post-DOGE than it was before. And again, reclaiming that expertise—getting the IRS people back, getting the SEC people back, rebuilding those agencies from the ground—that’s going to be the work of many, many years, and a lot will flow by in the interim. So DOGE did permanent damage in making it easier for the very wealthy to escape paying their taxes and, therefore, putting more of the onus of funding the government on people at the middle and the bottom.
You could think of DOGE, it seems to me, as a kind of decapitation strike against the executive functions of the United States government, that a lot of the government that runs on autopilot—as the Social Security system does—it continues to function in the way that, after a decapitation strike, the different branches of a military may continue, the cafeteria service may continue to work. But the brain’s nerve that [operates] the system, those were really damaged in a profound way, and in a way that is felt immediately and will last a long time. It’s an example of how the Trump administration, in its claim to make America great, is actually making America weak and little and pitiful. The reputation of the country is less. His ability to collect revenue is less. His ability to enforce its financial laws is less. Its ability to do research, to understand the universe, to protect Americans from diseases, all of that is less—less, less, less. But the deficit, the debt, the spending—more, more, more.
What a fiasco. After all the self-congratulation of the early months of this administration, it ends in, as so much of this administration does, in failure and disgrace.
[phone rings]
Steve Witkoff: Hi Yuri.
Yuri Ushakov: Yeah Steve hi, how are you?
SW: Good Yuri. How you doing?
YU: I am ok. Congratulations my friend.
SW: Thank you.
YU: You made a great job. Just a great job. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you.
SW: Thank you Yuri and thanks for your support. I know your country supported it and I thank you.
YU: Yes, yes, yes. Yes. You know that’s why we suspend the organization of first Russian-Arabic summit.
SW: Yes.
YU: Yeah, because we think that you are making the real job there in the region.
SW: Well listen. I am going to tell you something. I think, I think if we can get the Russia-Ukraine thing solved, everybody’ll be jumping for joy.
YU: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, you need to solve only one problem. [laughs]
SW: What?
YU: Russian-Ukrainian war.
SW: I know! How do we get that solved?
YU: My friend, I just want your advice. Do you think that it will be useful if our bosses will talk on the phone?
SW: Yes, I do.
YU: You do. And when you think it could be possible?
SW: I think as soon as you suggest, my guy is ready to do it.
YU: Ok, ok.
SW: Yuri, Yuri, here’s what I would do. My recommendation.
YU: Yes, please.
SW: I would make the call and just reiterate that you congratulate the president on this achievement, that you supported it, you supported it, that you respect that he is a man of peace and you’re just, you’re really glad to have seen it happen. So I would say that. I think from that it’s going to be a really good call.
Because — let me tell you what I told the President. I told the president that you - that the Russian Federation has always wanted a peace deal. That’s my belief. I told the president I believe that. And I believe the question is — the issue is is that we have two nations that are having a hard time coming to a compromise and when we do, we’re going to have a peace deal. I’m even thinking that maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza. We put a 20-point Trump plan together that was 20 points for peace and I’m thinking maybe we do the same thing with you. My point is this...
YU: Ok, ok my friend. I think that very point our leaders could discuss. Hey Steve, I agree with you that he will congratulate, he will say that Mr. Trump is a real peace man and so and so. That he will say.
SW: But here’s what I think would be amazing.
YU: Ok, ok.
SW: What if, what if... hear me out...
YU: I will discuss that with my boss and then I come back to you. Ok?
SW: Yeah because listen to what I’m saying. I just want you to say, maybe just to say this to President Putin, because you know I have the deepest respect for President Putin.
SW: Maybe he says to President Trump: you know, Steve and Yuri discussed a very similar 20-point plan to peace and that could be something that we think might move the needle a little bit, we’re open to those sorts of things — to explore what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done. Now, me to you, I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere. But I’m saying instead of talking like that, let’s talk more hopefully because I think we’re going to get to a deal here. And I think Yuri, the president will give me a lot of space and discretion to get to the deal.
YU: I see...
SW: ...so if we can create that opportunity that after this I talked to Yuri and we had a conversation I think that could lead to big stuff.
YU: Ok, that sounds good. Sounds good.
SW: And here’s one more thing: Zelenskiy is coming to the White House on Friday.
YU: I know that. [chuckles]
SW: I will go to that meeting because they want me there, but I think if possible we have the call with your boss before that Friday meeting.
YU: Before, before — yeah?
SW: Correct.
YU: Ok, ok. I got your advice. So I discuss that with my boss and then I come back to you, ok?
SW: Ok Yuri, I’ll speak to you soon.
YU: Great, great. Thank you so much. Thanks you.
SW: Bye, bye.
YU: Bye.
[Call Ends]
lj, since you are keen on Stewart Lee, in case you don't know he is a regular contributor to Carole Cadwalladr's and the other Observer refuseniks' new online publication The Nerve.
Meanwhile, it is being reported, Xi has been telling Trump how Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and must be reunited with the motherland. A meeting is being proposed. The Putin playbook is clearly an inspiration...
IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
I agree with this. And in fact, if you ignore the noise/chaos around Trump's conflicting messaging (like the recent couple of days), the consistent trend is that he continues to imply (or worse) that he will pull back unless Ukraine gives in to Russian demands with a side order of servile and performative gratitude to him. This has now happened in almost exactly the same way 3 or 4 times - including messaging that "it's going well", "we're making real progress" etc etc, until Putin pulls the plug. And then it starts all over again, including ongoing destruction and death in Ukraine, until the next Trump-initiated "diplomacy" which results in essentially the same suggested settlement.
With all this rage, we must also have a bold, simple policy plan — one that every American can understand. In the richest country in the history of our planet, we should not fear raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour, which had a 74 percent approval rating in 2023. We should not fear an America with free public college tuition, which 63 percent of U.S. adults favored in a 2021 poll. When 62 percent of Americans say their electricity or gas bills have increased in the past year and 80 percent feel powerless to control their utility costs, we should not fear the idea of expanding rural broadband as a public utility. Or when 70 percent of Americans say raising children is too expensive, we should not fear making universal child care a public good. And darn it, we should not fear that running on a platform of seismic economic scale will cost us a general election. We’ve already lost enough of them by being afraid to try. The era of half-baked political policy is over.
I'm well aware that not everyone here thinks kindly of James Carville, but I'm betting that nonetheless few will disagree with the extract above. Here's the whole thing:
I don’t think American voters, as a general rule, give a shit about what goes on outside of the borders, unless it is for the purposes of mythologizing
I think this is probably true. Although I suppose foreign affairs is only one of the ways an administration may behave dishonourably. January 6th was within the first Trump administration, and I guess was a sort of epitome of dishonourable behaviour. But it is debatable to what extent honour is even an applicable concept in the context of nations or administrations. Breaking promises and commitments, now, that's another matter, and can have serious practical repercussions.
As a Wall Street Journal editorial on Friday put it: “Mr. Trump may figure he can finally wash his hands of Ukraine if Europe and Ukraine reject his offer. He’s clearly sick of dealing with the war. But appeasing Mr. Putin would haunt the rest of his presidency. If Mr. Trump thinks American voters hate war, wait until he learns how much they hate dishonor. … A bad deal in Ukraine would broadcast to U.S. enemies that they can seize what they want with force or nuclear blackmail or by pressing on until America loses interest.”
Well, I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency. The piece from which I have taken that is in today's NYT:
However, I do have some (tiny amount of) hope that if this kind of criticism is very widespread, along with all the signalling from Europe, Trump might (once again!) back slightly off from this kind of approach. I guess this is what's behind today's statement that this was not his final offer. But to follow that by saying if Zelensky refuses to accept the terms, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” makes me feel sick. The Chamberlain comparison makes sense; appeasing Putin has been Trump's consistent approach as POTUS in both his terms.
Definitely true of Witkoff, and many other Trump appointees. But I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of "but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change". To me it has looked absolutely clear from the beginning that Trump's intention is essentially to give Putin whatever he wants, that he will throw Ukraine to the wolves, and that any little zigzags have been purely performative. There could be many explanations: that he is bought and paid for, that Putin has kompromat on him, that he hates Zelensky ever since the perfect phone call, or that he is at heart a weak and pathetic man who kowtows to those he sees as ruthless, strong and powerful. It could be a combination of any of these. But as for the bunch of clowns, dumb or not, if they know they are giving Trump what he really wants, it may not be their competence that is the problem.
I fault Obama for not acting on Crimea in 2014. But the behaviour of the Trump administration over Ukraine is a stain on America which, to paraphrase Trump, is probably the greatest ever seen.
Josh Marshall thinks that the MBS/Khashoggi issue will play badly in the light of Vindman's intervention because it will demonstrate that Trump outright lied to the press and public in that oval office meeting. I hope he's right, but personally I doubt it. Trump's well established as an outright liar, and I can't see, even if the call were to prove that MSB conceded to him that he knew about the murder, that MAGA or Trump's base would give a damn. And it really looks like that's all that Trump cares about.
Carole Cadwalladr has been on this for a while, and posted about Thiel and Nvidia yesterday. Many of her informant techbros are seriously sounding the alarm about the imminent pop....
Also treating this as an open thread: this is an piece from today's NYT, about the Tucker Carlson - Nick Fuentes interview and more importantly the Heritage Foundation's reaction, and on to Vance's response to so much of what has been happening around the tolerance of Nazi/fascist opinion among the right:
I posted this on People and Politics, which might now be a kind of defunct thread. But since lj has luckily now posted a thread specifically about the Epstein email releases, I am copying it here. Now that lj has helpfully given us the link, there may be other worthwhile finds.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure. Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It’s an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon’s part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn't notice it contained several links so it's awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great - sorry!
I can't even remember why I get Axios newsletters, but I thought this might be of interest - I know lj pays attention to Klein:
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein isn't content with opining about the Democratic Party — he's positioned himself as a powerbroker inside of it. Why it matters: Klein's columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Through his columns, hit podcast, private briefings with Democratic lawmakers and his bestselling book "Abundance" with reporter Derek Thompson, Klein has shaped the party's strategies and policies in President Trump's second term.
Driving the news: Klein has spoken privately this year to potential 2028 candidates such as former Vice President Harris, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, people familiar with the conversations told Axios.
He's also spoken with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on the sidelines of public events, and their teams have been discussing Shapiro appearing on Klein's podcast.
When Newsom signed a California deregulation law aimed at making it easier to build housing, he posted on X: "We're urgently embracing an abundance agenda" — a reference to Klein's book that argues Democrats need to back pro-growth policies.
Klein's column in early September urging Democratic senators to shut down the government to confront Trump's expansion of executive power was influential in the senators doing just that for an unprecedented 43 days, according to Senate Democratic officials.
After some moderate Senate Democrats said last weekend that they were going to vote to end the shutdown, Klein urged Democrats to keep fighting: "If I were in the Senate, I wouldn't vote for this compromise."
Klein's role in the partisan event raised internal concerns at the Times, people familiar with the situation told Axios. The Times typically has frowned on such actions by its journalists, even opinion columnists.
A Times spokesperson said Klein attended the event to discuss his book and told his editor in advance.
Jill Abramson, the paper's former executive editor, told Axios she doesn't see a conflict.
"It's true that this is a blurry line between journalism and politics and governing. But he's in the opinion category and not covering news — that's a little blurry itself."
"I'm a stickler for staying in your lane," she added. "I think his lane is the Ezra-lane and I don't see him crossing a line. I'm assuming the New York Times is cool with it."
Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: "Ezra is a tremendous talent .... he talks to people across the ideological spectrum; it's essential for his reporting to have those conversations, and he approaches them as a journalist. All of this makes him an ideal opinion columnist and host."
Klein did not respond to a request for comment.
Klein's large audience and brand has endeared him to some of the Times leadership.
His columns consistently have some of the outlet's biggest online traffic, according to people who have seen internal numbers.
Deputy managing editor Sam Dolnick, an influential member of the Sulzberger family that owns the Times, has been privately promoting Klein inside the paper and to other media reporters over the past year, people familiar with the matter told Axios.
Klein also changed his appearance — working out and growing a beard — which he acknowledged recently "has changed my public image more than I would have thought."
What they're saying: Some Democratic officials advising potential presidential candidates are worried about Klein's influence with party elites at a time when the party is trying to win back working-class votes, having suffered from being cast as too elite and coastal.
Klein isn't the person to guide Democrats out of the wilderness, they argue.
"You're telling me this man who sits in a f**king West Elm-decorated office is going to be the thought leader for Democrats?" one Democratic aide to a potential presidential candidate said.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It's an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon's part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began. “I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
On the meta subject of "what a fucking bunch of clowns", I'm pasting what David Frum has to say about the end of DOGE, and what it has done. I understand that not many here are that receptive to conservative voices, but I like to keep my hand in and see what sane conservatives are saying (I've said before that I still find it incredible to regard the author of "axis of evil" in that light, but times change), so here goes:
I want to open with a few preliminary thoughts about the expiry of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. DOGE was never really a department of government. It had a kind of extralegal existence. It was a creature of the president. But in the opening months of the Trump presidency, it dominated the agenda. It created havoc across the U.S. government and across the lives of many, many government employees and many people who depend on the U.S. government for services. I think, as it expires now, almost at the end of the year 2025, I think it’s fair to render the verdict that DOGE was an almost total fiasco. It failed to achieve its own stated goals of making any impact in government spending. The fiscal situation at the end of President [Donald] Trump’s first year is much, much worse than it was under President [Joe] Biden. Total debt—not that these numbers mean anything anymore, they’re so big—the total debt of the United States is now approaching $40 trillion and will continue to climb through the Trump presidency and beyond.
The root of the problem was that President Trump maintains very high levels of spending, is raising spending on defense, has made permanent the tax cuts that were supposed to be temporary when they were passed in 2025—sorry, 2017. They were now renewed in 2025, and they will last indefinitely. And DOGE and Trump’s big plan to offset the impact of his spending and his tax cuts is his tariff regime, which, first, doesn’t raise all that much money. Second, he’s already spent the money multiple times over: He’s promised to give the money to the farmers. He’s promised to rebate the money to the American consumer. He’s promised to rebate much more than the tariffs are collecting to the American consumer. And anyway, the tariffs are probably illegal and may well shrink or disappear very, very soon. So the DOGE failed entirely in its object. But I think it is worth thinking about why it failed and what legacy it leaves behind.
DOGE failed for three main reasons. The first was it was run by arrogant people who did not take the trouble to understand what they were doing. Elon Musk approached the problem of reducing government spending as a kind of coding error, a problem of computer engineering. You didn’t need any subject-matter expertise. You didn’t need to understand how health-care programs worked or how the Department of Defense worked. Just as a website is a website is a website, so he figured that solving the problems of overspending was solving the problems of overspending. You didn’t need to know anything in particular—=; you just fired people and saw what happened later. So in their arrogance and in their high-handedness, they didn’t bother to learn anything. And so they began cutting wires, metaphorically, and discovered that they were connected—those wires ran important machines.
But second, because they didn’t understand how government worked, or understand their subject matter, what they were doing, they completely misdiagnosed the problem. Government does have fraud, of course, and it has inefficiency, of course. A lot of the inefficiency is there to prevent fraud; that’s why there’s so much paperwork, is to make it difficult for people to steal. But even with the certain undeniable amounts of fraud and inefficiency that there are in government, they’re just not big drivers of the way the U.S. government spends. Most money flows out in direct payments to people, Social Security; or it flows out in direct payment to hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid; or it flows out to pay for the national defense. You have to wrestle with those problems, and the idea that you’re going to find cases of obvious [duplication] of spending or spending that achieves nothing, especially when you don’t know how anything works, that’s just—because they were arrogant, they didn’t study the problem. Because they didn’t study the problem, they addressed the wrong problem. And because they addressed the wrong problem—looking for inefficiency and fraud—instead of actually having to reduce services to people and products, they failed.
But the last thing that they did, and this is maybe the most important, was they broke the law. Under the law of the United States, once the House approves an appropriation, once the Senate confirms the appropriation, once Congress agrees on a budget—or any kind of spending mechanism—and once the president signs it, the president’s people cannot rescind that spending. What Trump was doing was claiming, through DOGE, a power to revoke government spending that Congress had passed and the president had signed. And that’s just illegal. Now, there are some states that give the governor a line-item veto, where, when a budget is presented to him, he can strike this item or that item. And maybe that’s a good idea, and maybe that’s not a good idea. But the president doesn’t have that power, and he certainly does not have the power to rescind the spending after he or his predecessor have signed the spending. So DOGE collapsed in the end because, again, they were too conceited to find out what they were doing; therefore, they did the wrong thing.
But DOGE does leave a legacy, and that is something we need to address. When you think about What did DOGE do?, the DOGE people were, on the nicest reading of what happened, were careless, or maybe something more sinister than careless, so that’s one legacy.
The second is that DOGE did enduring harm to scientific and biomedical and climate research. The cuts made to the National Institutes of Health, the agencies that study the oceans and the air, those are difficult to undo. The people who worked in those jobs are very valuable people. Now, they’ve chosen public service either because that’s what they wanted or because they liked the benefits or because it suited their family life. But once you dispense them from public service, they will find other work to do. And you can’t simply blow a whistle and say, Okay, everybody come back. They have not been idling and collecting unemployment insurance; they’ve gone on to often more-lucrative jobs in the private sector. And it’s going to be difficult to call them back. Or they’ll be redirected from researching the kinds of things that National Institutes of Health do to the kinds of things that universities and other people do, and they’re different. So there has been a deep and enduring damage to the scientific-research capabilities of the United States government.
A third enduring change has been damage to the voice and standing of the United States. Rebuilding the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe and other stations, rebuilding the public-diplomacy aspects of the State Department, again, that’s going to be a big job. Many of the important people who had very specific language skills have been lost. The integrity of the service has been compromised. The relationship with listeners in unfree countries who turn to the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, or other stations for information, that has been strained. And most important of all the public-information and public-appearance things that the United States does has been the attack on foreign aid.
The United States doesn’t spend money abroad out of random charity or being a sucker or a dupe; it does so to advance the interests of the United States. And even when it acts in the most purely humanitarian way—when food arrives in a famine zone or flood relief after a disaster—it’s building relationships with people whose governments may defame the United States, but who will remember, When I was in trouble, it was an agency of the United States government that helped me. And that may have some political impact. Tremendous damage has been done to that. Some have tried to estimate lives lost because of the interruption of the flow of aid. That may be trying to quantify something that can’t be quantified. But there’s no doubt that people have been hurt, people have been harmed, the reputation of the United States has been lowered, and this will be enduring.
The last thing, though, and one of the hardest to fix and one of the most immediately felt, has been what DOGE did do was dismantle a lot of the financial-enforcement apparatus of the United States. The Internal Revenue Service that collects revenue for the government, the Securities and Exchange Commission, those agencies were really ravaged. And maybe it wasn’t a total coincidence that the head of DOGE had contentions and disagreements with the IRS and the SEC, and they’re now much less able to enforce, that DOGE’s damage to those agencies has been ratified by the recent government shutdown in the deal to end it. President Biden put about $40 billion over a decade into modernizing the IRS, both so that they would be more responsive to consumers, but also to improve the efficiency of their tax collections. A lot of the fraud in the United States is concentrated where the money is, on the high end. It’s been estimated that a dollar put into IRS collections brings back maybe 10 times, maybe more, in revenue to the government. And all of that has been dismantled. It is much easier to cheat on your taxes. It’s much easier to defraud your investors, if you’re a publicly traded company, post-DOGE than it was before. And again, reclaiming that expertise—getting the IRS people back, getting the SEC people back, rebuilding those agencies from the ground—that’s going to be the work of many, many years, and a lot will flow by in the interim. So DOGE did permanent damage in making it easier for the very wealthy to escape paying their taxes and, therefore, putting more of the onus of funding the government on people at the middle and the bottom.
You could think of DOGE, it seems to me, as a kind of decapitation strike against the executive functions of the United States government, that a lot of the government that runs on autopilot—as the Social Security system does—it continues to function in the way that, after a decapitation strike, the different branches of a military may continue, the cafeteria service may continue to work. But the brain’s nerve that [operates] the system, those were really damaged in a profound way, and in a way that is felt immediately and will last a long time. It’s an example of how the Trump administration, in its claim to make America great, is actually making America weak and little and pitiful. The reputation of the country is less. His ability to collect revenue is less. His ability to enforce its financial laws is less. Its ability to do research, to understand the universe, to protect Americans from diseases, all of that is less—less, less, less. But the deficit, the debt, the spending—more, more, more.
What a fiasco. After all the self-congratulation of the early months of this administration, it ends in, as so much of this administration does, in failure and disgrace.
"
Well, well, so Bloomberg has the following tape:
[phone rings]
Steve Witkoff: Hi Yuri.
Yuri Ushakov: Yeah Steve hi, how are you?
SW: Good Yuri. How you doing?
YU: I am ok. Congratulations my friend.
SW: Thank you.
YU: You made a great job. Just a great job. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you.
SW: Thank you Yuri and thanks for your support. I know your country supported it and I thank you.
YU: Yes, yes, yes. Yes. You know that’s why we suspend the organization of first Russian-Arabic summit.
SW: Yes.
YU: Yeah, because we think that you are making the real job there in the region.
SW: Well listen. I am going to tell you something. I think, I think if we can get the Russia-Ukraine thing solved, everybody’ll be jumping for joy.
YU: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, you need to solve only one problem. [laughs]
SW: What?
YU: Russian-Ukrainian war.
SW: I know! How do we get that solved?
YU: My friend, I just want your advice. Do you think that it will be useful if our bosses will talk on the phone?
SW: Yes, I do.
YU: You do. And when you think it could be possible?
SW: I think as soon as you suggest, my guy is ready to do it.
YU: Ok, ok.
SW: Yuri, Yuri, here’s what I would do. My recommendation.
YU: Yes, please.
SW: I would make the call and just reiterate that you congratulate the president on this achievement, that you supported it, you supported it, that you respect that he is a man of peace and you’re just, you’re really glad to have seen it happen. So I would say that. I think from that it’s going to be a really good call.
Because — let me tell you what I told the President. I told the president that you - that the Russian Federation has always wanted a peace deal. That’s my belief. I told the president I believe that. And I believe the question is — the issue is is that we have two nations that are having a hard time coming to a compromise and when we do, we’re going to have a peace deal. I’m even thinking that maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza. We put a 20-point Trump plan together that was 20 points for peace and I’m thinking maybe we do the same thing with you. My point is this...
YU: Ok, ok my friend. I think that very point our leaders could discuss. Hey Steve, I agree with you that he will congratulate, he will say that Mr. Trump is a real peace man and so and so. That he will say.
SW: But here’s what I think would be amazing.
YU: Ok, ok.
SW: What if, what if... hear me out...
YU: I will discuss that with my boss and then I come back to you. Ok?
SW: Yeah because listen to what I’m saying. I just want you to say, maybe just to say this to President Putin, because you know I have the deepest respect for President Putin.
SW: Maybe he says to President Trump: you know, Steve and Yuri discussed a very similar 20-point plan to peace and that could be something that we think might move the needle a little bit, we’re open to those sorts of things — to explore what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done. Now, me to you, I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere. But I’m saying instead of talking like that, let’s talk more hopefully because I think we’re going to get to a deal here. And I think Yuri, the president will give me a lot of space and discretion to get to the deal.
YU: I see...
SW: ...so if we can create that opportunity that after this I talked to Yuri and we had a conversation I think that could lead to big stuff.
YU: Ok, that sounds good. Sounds good.
SW: And here’s one more thing: Zelenskiy is coming to the White House on Friday.
YU: I know that. [chuckles]
SW: I will go to that meeting because they want me there, but I think if possible we have the call with your boss before that Friday meeting.
YU: Before, before — yeah?
SW: Correct.
YU: Ok, ok. I got your advice. So I discuss that with my boss and then I come back to you, ok?
SW: Ok Yuri, I’ll speak to you soon.
YU: Great, great. Thank you so much. Thanks you.
SW: Bye, bye.
YU: Bye.
[Call Ends]
"
"Openish" thread, so:
I very much enjoyed (on hilzoy's bluesky feed) the comparison of RFK Jnr's "poetry" about Olivia Nuzzi to Vogon poetry
Further to which, Marina Hyde is fun today on the difference between American and English journalists' self assessment.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/25/rfk-erotic-poetry-scandal-america-olivia-nuzzi
lj, since you are keen on Stewart Lee, in case you don't know he is a regular contributor to Carole Cadwalladr's and the other Observer refuseniks' new online publication The Nerve.
"
Meanwhile, it is being reported, Xi has been telling Trump how Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and must be reunited with the motherland. A meeting is being proposed. The Putin playbook is clearly an inspiration...
"
IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
I agree with this. And in fact, if you ignore the noise/chaos around Trump's conflicting messaging (like the recent couple of days), the consistent trend is that he continues to imply (or worse) that he will pull back unless Ukraine gives in to Russian demands with a side order of servile and performative gratitude to him. This has now happened in almost exactly the same way 3 or 4 times - including messaging that "it's going well", "we're making real progress" etc etc, until Putin pulls the plug. And then it starts all over again, including ongoing destruction and death in Ukraine, until the next Trump-initiated "diplomacy" which results in essentially the same suggested settlement.
"
Charles, you amaze me (not).
"
With all this rage, we must also have a bold, simple policy plan — one that every American can understand. In the richest country in the history of our planet, we should not fear raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour, which had a 74 percent approval rating in 2023. We should not fear an America with free public college tuition, which 63 percent of U.S. adults favored in a 2021 poll. When 62 percent of Americans say their electricity or gas bills have increased in the past year and 80 percent feel powerless to control their utility costs, we should not fear the idea of expanding rural broadband as a public utility. Or when 70 percent of Americans say raising children is too expensive, we should not fear making universal child care a public good. And darn it, we should not fear that running on a platform of seismic economic scale will cost us a general election. We’ve already lost enough of them by being afraid to try. The era of half-baked political policy is over.
I'm well aware that not everyone here thinks kindly of James Carville, but I'm betting that nonetheless few will disagree with the extract above. Here's the whole thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/opinion/democrats-platform-economic-rage.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3k8.RLeA.wVApkzjlRXhM&smid=url-share
"
I don’t think American voters, as a general rule, give a shit about what goes on outside of the borders, unless it is for the purposes of mythologizing
I think this is probably true. Although I suppose foreign affairs is only one of the ways an administration may behave dishonourably. January 6th was within the first Trump administration, and I guess was a sort of epitome of dishonourable behaviour. But it is debatable to what extent honour is even an applicable concept in the context of nations or administrations. Breaking promises and commitments, now, that's another matter, and can have serious practical repercussions.
"
As a Wall Street Journal editorial on Friday put it: “Mr. Trump may figure he can finally wash his hands of Ukraine if Europe and Ukraine reject his offer. He’s clearly sick of dealing with the war. But appeasing Mr. Putin would haunt the rest of his presidency. If Mr. Trump thinks American voters hate war, wait until he learns how much they hate dishonor. … A bad deal in Ukraine would broadcast to U.S. enemies that they can seize what they want with force or nuclear blackmail or by pressing on until America loses interest.”
Well, I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency. The piece from which I have taken that is in today's NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/22/opinion/ukraine-russia-negotiations-trump-deal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E8.xN85.ecN93aJ-jZL7&smid=url-share
However, I do have some (tiny amount of) hope that if this kind of criticism is very widespread, along with all the signalling from Europe, Trump might (once again!) back slightly off from this kind of approach. I guess this is what's behind today's statement that this was not his final offer. But to follow that by saying if Zelensky refuses to accept the terms, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” makes me feel sick. The Chamberlain comparison makes sense; appeasing Putin has been Trump's consistent approach as POTUS in both his terms.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
If you want it lj, here it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/opinion/dubai-migration-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E8.A3HK.Gd0uik9LLL9G&smid=url-share
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
What a fucking bunch of clowns.
Definitely true of Witkoff, and many other Trump appointees. But I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of "but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change". To me it has looked absolutely clear from the beginning that Trump's intention is essentially to give Putin whatever he wants, that he will throw Ukraine to the wolves, and that any little zigzags have been purely performative. There could be many explanations: that he is bought and paid for, that Putin has kompromat on him, that he hates Zelensky ever since the perfect phone call, or that he is at heart a weak and pathetic man who kowtows to those he sees as ruthless, strong and powerful. It could be a combination of any of these. But as for the bunch of clowns, dumb or not, if they know they are giving Trump what he really wants, it may not be their competence that is the problem.
I fault Obama for not acting on Crimea in 2014. But the behaviour of the Trump administration over Ukraine is a stain on America which, to paraphrase Trump, is probably the greatest ever seen.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
What is our current Open Thread? Where should one talk about the Russia-US 28 point plan giving Putin almost everything he wants?
On “Your quest begins now!”
Josh Marshall thinks that the MBS/Khashoggi issue will play badly in the light of Vindman's intervention because it will demonstrate that Trump outright lied to the press and public in that oval office meeting. I hope he's right, but personally I doubt it. Trump's well established as an outright liar, and I can't see, even if the call were to prove that MSB conceded to him that he knew about the murder, that MAGA or Trump's base would give a damn. And it really looks like that's all that Trump cares about.
"
Pro Bono: FYLTGE
On “Pop!”
Carole Cadwalladr has been on this for a while, and posted about Thiel and Nvidia yesterday. Many of her informant techbros are seriously sounding the alarm about the imminent pop....
On “Your quest begins now!”
Also treating this as an open thread: this is an piece from today's NYT, about the Tucker Carlson - Nick Fuentes interview and more importantly the Heritage Foundation's reaction, and on to Vance's response to so much of what has been happening around the tolerance of Nazi/fascist opinion among the right:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/opinion/tucker-carlson-trump-groypers-fuentes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2E8.dcFB.iS10t8lip43s&smid=url-share
"
I posted this on People and Politics, which might now be a kind of defunct thread. But since lj has luckily now posted a thread specifically about the Epstein email releases, I am copying it here. Now that lj has helpfully given us the link, there may be other worthwhile finds.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It’s an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon’s part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn't notice it contained several links so it's awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great - sorry!
"
I can't even remember why I get Axios newsletters, but I thought this might be of interest - I know lj pays attention to Klein:
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein isn't content with opining about the Democratic Party — he's positioned himself as a powerbroker inside of it.
Why it matters: Klein's columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Driving the news: Klein has spoken privately this year to potential 2028 candidates such as former Vice President Harris, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, people familiar with the conversations told Axios.
Klein's column in early September urging Democratic senators to shut down the government to confront Trump's expansion of executive power was influential in the senators doing just that for an unprecedented 43 days, according to Senate Democratic officials.
The intrigue: Klein also privately briefed Senate Democrats at their summer retreat.
Jill Abramson, the paper's former executive editor, told Axios she doesn't see a conflict.
Klein's large audience and brand has endeared him to some of the Times leadership.
What they're saying: Some Democratic officials advising potential presidential candidates are worried about Klein's influence with party elites at a time when the party is trying to win back working-class votes, having suffered from being cast as too elite and coastal.
On “People and poliltics”
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It's an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon's part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
That's a terrific speech, nous. Thanks for posting it.
"
Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT on the whole thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/opinion/shutdown-democrats-senate-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k8.DRXA.pz0WPK3A3HUY&smid=url-share
"
Jon Stewart on top form. Sigh.
On “When virtues become vices”
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began.
“I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.