Trump Is Flooding the Zone While We're All Trying to Figure Out What Happened

And What's Coming Next

It’s been a minute. I’ve been slammed pretty much across the board, including getting married on February 8. My latest writing has been over at the Independent Center. I’ve got pieces on the imperial presidency, birthright citizenship, and H-1B visas for you to read.

I’ve gotten some questions over the last few weeks, including several from The Wife™️ and friends, about some of the flood-the-zone actions taken by the Trump administration and what they mean. It’s hard to answer with specifics on what has happened, what will happen, or if courts will uphold these actions, but I’ve taken some of the questions I’ve gotten and answered them below the best I can.

Why are you, a classical liberal who claims to want a smaller government, not supporting DOGE? Isn’t that hypocritical?

This is a question I’ve gotten a few times from friends of mine. When Elon Musk, who may or may not run DOGE, said he wanted to cut $2 trillion in spending, I had two immediate questions: Are these $2 trillion in cuts over a year, five years, or ten years? Are they planning to touch Social Security and Medicare? These questions relate to each other because cutting $2 trillion in spending in a year is impossible unless DOGE is willing to cut Social Security and Medicare.

I’ll concede I’m in a weird spot because I do want a smaller government that does fewer things. At the same time, I’m also an advocate of the Constitution and the rule of law. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution isn’t ambiguous. Congress controls the power of the purse and decides what gets spent and for which programs. Congress may provide some measure of discretion to the Executive Branch, but that discretion may be limited. The bottom line, though, if Congress passes an appropriations bill, and it’s signed into law, Trump has an Article II responsibility to ensure that the law is executed.

What I have a problem with is an unelected individual, who has evident conflicts of interest, wielding vast power with no apparent oversight. That same unelected individual, whose companies currently benefit from government contracts and stand to get more contracts, has threatened primary challenges against Republicans who go against him or Trump.

So, my primary problem with DOGE is that it violates the separation of powers and is run by someone who stands to benefit from government contracts. I have secondary issues with DOGE as well.

First, I’m not sure how much of these supposed cuts represent real changes in spending. As of today, DOGE claims $55 billion in savings. There’s reason to believe that figure may be inflated. How much it’s inflated remains to be seen. For all the claims of transparency, DOGE hasn’t been that transparent. For example, DOGE claimed to cut a contract worth $8 billion that was actually worth up to $8 million. That cuts into DOGE’s supposed savings in a substantial way.

Second, every single supposed cut is from the discretionary side of federal spending. As I’ve noted before, discretionary spending represents 26.3 percent of all federal outlays. The share of discretionary spending is projected to decline to 22 percent in FY 2035 and from 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 5.3 percent in the same period. That 5.3 percent would be a historic low. That’s without DOGE.

Mandatory outlays—which includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—is 60.2 percent while net interest on the share of the debt held by the public is 13.5 percent. Considering that net interest can’t be touched, the only real way to address spending is on the mandatory or discretionary side. Discretionary spending is projected to total $1.848 trillion in FY 2025. Meanwhile, the budget deficit is projected to be $1.865 trillion. DOGE’s supposed savings are 3 percent of discretionary outlays and 0.8 percent of all federal spending.

Finally, even if DOGE’s supposed savings continue to grow and are real, I’m unconvinced that most of these savings are lasting. Musk may be able to shift the Overton Window, but a lot can change in four years, and Congress may force the administration’s hand by insisting that dollars it appropriates are spent on the dedicated purpose. Not to mention that the courts may rule against the administration.

Why isn’t Congress doing anything about Trump and DOGE? Isn’t it their job to control the power of the purse?

This is a really good question, but it’s not easy to answer. Part of this is because Congress is always slow to respond. Another part of it is blind partisanship. I’m old enough to remember when “constitutional conservatism” was a label worn by many Republicans in Congress. Those same Republicans are either silent or are actively cheering unconstitutional actions. My wife would say that Republicans are scared of a Trump and Musk-backed primary challenge. She wouldn’t be as diplomatic as I’m being. There’s some truth to that. Well, there’s probably a lot of truth to that.

That said, some of the Republicans who are the most likely to speak against what the administration is doing and be willing to support Democratic efforts to put guardrails in place in appropriations bills and other legislation are also the most likely to win the districts they represent. In other words, if you try to primary a vulnerable Republican in a swing House district, a Trump and Musk-backed candidate may have a hard time winning a general election against a moderate Democrat.

The best place to address some of these issues is through the appropriations process. It’s looking increasingly unlikely that we’ll see a full appropriations package before Congress reaches March 14. That means we’re looking at another continuing resolution (CR), possibly for the rest of FY 2025. This is because Republican and Democratic appropriators can’t reach agreements on a package. That probably has a lot to do with the funding freeze that the White House put in place in January and DOGE’s efforts.

I do think there are more clashes over the power of the purse are coming. There will eventually be a case or cases on this that wind up before the Supreme Court. Obviously, this Court is something of a wildcard, but Congress has constrained the power of the president to withhold funding. The Supreme Court has spoken on the matter as well. What we know suggests that Trump and Musk will probably lose this battle at the Court. Still, there aren’t any certainties.

I really want the Ukraine-Russia war to end. Why is it a bad thing that the Trump administration is talking to Russia? Aren’t they also talking to Ukraine?

Believe me, I want the war to end. I also want to see Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to be held accountable for his crimes. That probably won’t happen, though, because Trump seems like he’s determined to make a deal with Putin that makes Russia very happy.

The Trump administration talking to Russia is a bad thing because Ukraine isn’t part of the negotiations. Not only that, but Trump has also blamed Ukraine for the war and referred to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator.” The claims are absurd, and I’ve addressed some of the disinformation about Ukraine here and here, but this is where we are.

The notion that Zelenskyy is a dictator, in part, comes from the declaration of martial law declared when Russia invaded in February 2022, and which has been extended. Other examples include the banning of a pro-Russian party and the pro-Russian Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine is independent from Russia. Back to the point. The Ukrainian Constitution provides for martial law (see Article 106, Clause 20) and laws in the country determine when it can be used. The declaration of martial law also has to be declared by Ukraine’s parliament. Elections are expected when the war ends.

When you’re negotiating about a country’s future, it seems like it should be important to include them in said negotiations. Zelenskyy has been staring down aggressor in a war Ukraine didn’t want or begin for nearly three years. I don’t think he’s going to be deterred by pressure from Trump, who appears to be parroting Russian propaganda. And that’s largely what the “talking to Ukraine” is right now—pressure.

That pressure includes the administration wanting $500 billion in rare earth minerals from Ukraine. Access to rare earth minerals is one major reason why Trump wants Greenland. China is the dominate player when it comes to rare earth minerals, producing 60 percent of them and processing 90 percent. In December, China banned rare earth exports to the United States. Why is this important? Rare minerals are used in virtually all technology and are necessary for the production of semiconductors. That $500 billion in rare earth minerals that Trump wants is also an absurd figure, considering that the United States provided $151 billion in aid to Ukraine from FY 2022 through FY 2024. A little more than 54 percent of that was for defense.

Zelenskyy, wants Ukraine in NATO or security to enforce any agreement as part of any deal, may be losing the United States as an ally, but Europe seems like it’s going to step up its support for Ukraine. That’s the good news.

I keep hearing that Zelenskyy doesn’t want the war to end. Is that even true?

I hadn’t heard this one before. It seems pretty clear that Zelenskyy wants Russia’s unprovoked aggression to end, but he does want any peace to be just. He wants the territorial integrity of Ukraine restored to its pre-2014 borders. That means he wants Crimea and Donbas given back to Ukraine. Crimea was annexed by Ukraine in 2014 while two areas of Donbas—Donetsk and Luhansk—broke away from Ukraine with Russia’s help.

Ukraine and pro-Russian militias have been fighting in Donbas since 2014, and the region is part of Ukrainian territory that Russia now controls, which is an area (43,320 square miles) roughly the size of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian puppet republicans of Donetsk and Luhansk were a combined 9,100 square miles.

Will Congress pass the tax cuts?

Who knows. The House is expected to vote on its budget resolution to kick start the budget reconciliation process next week. There are some divides in the House Republican Conference that threaten the passage of the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Money for the border is also going to be part of the final product.

On one hand, you have conservatives who want $2 trillion in spending cuts over ten years. It’s hard to get there without cutting programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Cuts to those programs make moderates uneasy, even more so if they’re in a competitive district. You also have Republicans from California, New York, and New Jersey who want the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction either eliminated or doubled from the current $10,000 to $20,000.

Are any of these Republicans willing to go against Republican leadership? You bet. There are plenty of them who will buck the leadership of their party. The real question is, are they willing to go against Trump on the biggest aspects of his policy agenda? I’m not so sure about that. As I’ve already noted, some members can probably get away with it because they’re in swing districts that a conservative most likely can’t win.

With control of the House on the line in 2026, does Trump want to take the gamble of backing a yes-man primary challenger who could lose a swing district? Honestly, I don’t know. If it’s a choice between getting revenge and keeping control of the House, I don’t know which way he’d go. Your guess is as good as mine.

Are #NeverTrumpers who aren’t willing to openly declare the end of the American experiment wrong?

I guess we’ll find out.

In all seriousness, I’ve been pondering the question of “is this the end of the American experiment?” myself over the past few weeks. I don’t mean to be hyperbolic, but the men who signed the Declaration of Independence broke away from a monarchy and purposefully chose the form of government over a monarchy.

Trump is claiming absolute power, ironically relying on the neoconservative “unitary executive theory.” That’s a scary prospect because of the natural growth of the Executive Branch and the escalatory nature of American politics. Trump won’t be America’s last president, and every president takes the power of his or her predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. To be clear, this isn’t solely a Trump problem. This has been the natural course of the Executive Branch, particularly since the Great Depression.

Left unchecked by Congress, the next president, who could be a Democrat, could consolidate even more power. Then again, maybe the next Democratic president doesn’t consolidate power to the same degree. Perhaps retribution by Democrats comes in other forms, say, the elimination of the filibuster in the Senate to undo much of what Trump has done.

The framers of the Constitution included the separation of powers and checks and balances, but the enforcement mechanism was always meant to be “We the People.” Of course, there are other avenues that Congress can take, but I don’t think those avenues are wise.

I’m of the mindset that if Trump’s actions increase the cost of living, voters will respond in the midterms by at least giving Democrats the House. That’s the correction we may see. In the meantime, a lot of things are happening that simply aren’t constitutional, and Trump is alienating longtime allies of the United States. That doesn’t bode well for us, in part, because it creates a leadership vacuum that will be filled by other countries. Sure, the United Kingdom and the European Union may step in to fill some degree of that void. Who else stands to see greater influence? China. The United States’ primary geopolitical foe has already invested so much across the world, and it only stands to gain even more now that Trump has decided to antagonize so many friendly nations.