Trump The AUTHORITARIAN

1. 61

   Willowarborposted 5 days ago

   An assertion of absolute power... FASCISM
   
   https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1960424561008136507

   replyreport
2. 67

   IslandBitesposted 2 days ago

   Defying Congress, Trump Moves to Cut $4.9 Billion in Foreign Aid
   
   The White House has informed Congress it intends to cancel $4.9 billion that lawmakers approved for foreign aid programs, invoking a little-known and legally untested power to slash spending without their approval.
   
   The 15-page notification, sent to Congress on Thursday night and reviewed by The New York Times, is the administration’s first effort to push through what is known as a “pocket rescission.” It is an effort to unilaterally claw back money that has already been appropriated by waiting so late in the fiscal year to make the request that lawmakers do not have time to reject it before the funding expires.
   
   The move, the latest chapter in an intensive fight between Mr. Trump and Congress over spending powers, drew swift condemnation from the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who called it illegal.
   
   The maneuver could further complicate lawmakers’ attempts to cobble together a bipartisan funding package to ensure the government does not shut down on Oct. 1. Any spending compromise must win Democratic support in the Senate to pass, and Democrats have said they would be loath to lend their votes to such a package if the White House continued unilaterally cutting congressionally approved funding.
   
   The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight body that reports to Capitol Hill, ruled during the first Trump administration that pocket rescissions are illegal. But Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has made the case that the executive branch has broad discretion to use them.

   replyreport
3. 83

   Sharlee01posted 2 days ago

   From a different angle, this action could be seen as a strong exercise of executive power to prioritize U.S. interests and taxpayer money. Supporters might argue that foreign aid spending has often been excessive, poorly targeted, or lacking accountability, and that the president is right to assert discretion over how funds are allocated, especially when Congress has approved large sums without stringent oversight. By invoking the “pocket rescission” process, even if legally untested, the administration signals a willingness to challenge entrenched spending practices and assert fiscal discipline.
   
   Here are facts on what was cut. 
   
   Reuters   https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen … hatgpt.com
   
   There is now more detailed information about the $4.9 billion in foreign aid that President Trump has canceled through a "pocket rescission." The funds were allocated across 15 international programs, primarily managed by the State Department and USAID. These programs include:
   Reuters
   
   $3.2 billion for USAID development assistance
   
   $322 million for USAID-State Department peacekeeping and democracy-building initiatives
   
   $1.7 billion from the Economic Support Fund, which supports economic development and stability in strategic countries
   
   $496 million from the International Disaster Assistance account
   
   $500 million from Global Health Programs, which fund child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious disease initiatives
   
   $125 million from the Clean Technology Fund, which invests in green energy projects
   
   $437 million from the International Organizations and Programs account, which funds voluntary contributions to international organizations and programs, including the United Nations
   
   $460 million from Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, which supports former communist countries in Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
   
   $496 million from the International Disaster Assistance account, which provides humanitarian assistance
   
   $125 million from USAID Operating Expenses, which funds salaries and benefits for USAID direct hires and staff overseas
   
   $57 million from Transition Initiatives, which supports activities that prevent and respond to crises in fragile countries
   
   $27 million from the Inter-American Foundation, which provides grants to organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean
   
   $22 million from the United States African Development Foundation, which supports development projects in Africa
   
   $15 million from the U.S. Institute of Peace, which funds conflict mitigation and intervention programs
   The Washington Post
   The White House
   
   These cuts have raised concerns.  The move is expected to face legal challenges, possibly reaching the Supreme Court.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

      I say that it is
      
      Executive overreach, cutting funding that Congress appropriates. Why do you continue to write such eloquent prose and make such elaborate excuses to what is clearly a usurpation of the power and authority of one branch by another. Are the Republicans in Congress so mesmerized as to give up their Constitutional role regarding the public purse? You write such a flowery narrative  to make it all seem reasonable and as natural as a sunrise.
      
      That is the danger of MAGA, making the unacceptable, unethically or illegal actions by Trump seem much more palatable and normal, while that is far from the truth. The scent of impeding tyranny is in the air…..

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Don't expect an answer.

         replyreport
      2. 83

         Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Hi Cred, I really appreciate your comment; it makes for a solid conversation. You’re asking thoughtful things on the subject and showing genuine interest in another perspective, which I respect. Too often, I notice people assume what I’m thinking instead of simply asking, so I value your approach.
         
         As for my earlier comment, I was really just putting out another possibility to consider. I could have gone further, but I didn’t want it to come across as biased. The second part of my post was just to add some factual context, mainly what Trump actually proposed to cut. I think seeing those details helps frame the issue more clearly. The article that was shared gives some truth and facts, but it doesn’t really break down what specifically is being cut, who the money was going to, or what programs were involved. For me, seeing where our tax dollars were headed before these cuts was eye-opening. I honestly didn’t realize how large the amounts were, who was receiving them, or for what purposes.
         
         So really, I wasn’t trying to push a personal opinion about the funds or about Trump cutting them. I was just offering some food for thought. To be honest, I’d want to look much more closely at the full list before forming a solid stance.
         
         I see you are of the view that Trump has stepped over the line, and overreach is in play.  I can again only share my opinion. This is a really complicated issue. But a really fair concern, and I think it deserves a straightforward answer.  Trump used something called a “pocket rescission” to hold back about $4.9 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already approved. Yes, normally, Congress controls the money through the “power of the purse,” but the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 gives the president limited room to suggest canceling funds (a rescission). If the request is filed during the last 45 days of the fiscal year, the money can be frozen, and if it runs out of time before Congress acts, those funds basically disappear. No president has used this move since 1977.
         
         Legally, it looks like a bit of a gray area. The administration says this is allowed under the Act, but critics, including from both parties, say it crosses the line and undercuts Congress’s authority. The Government Accountability Office has even said before that pocket rescissions aren’t legal, so there’s definitely a real debate here.
         
         And just earlier this month, a federal appeals court actually let Trump go ahead with the cuts, overturning a lower court’s block. But the judges didn’t rule on whether it was constitutional; they said the challengers didn’t have legal standing to sue. One judge disagreed, warning that this kind of maneuver could upset the balance of power between branches. The court also pointed out that, technically, it’s the GAO that has the power to enforce the Impoundment Control Act.
         
         So, bottom line: Trump did use the rescission process to delay the funds. Whether it’s fully legal is still unsettled. His team says yes, GAO says no, and the courts haven’t given a final answer yet. 
         
         So, I am going to stand with whatever the courts rule. I am not setting a match to my hair; I trust that in the end, the courts will handle this.
         
         I’ll add that Trump had promised to do this, so it wasn’t a surprise to me when he followed through. Please keep that in mind. I think many people didn’t take him at his word, simply because we aren’t used to presidents working so vigorously to keep their promises.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

            What say you to these decisions?
            
            Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) — The Supreme Court held the Executive may not withhold congressionally appropriated funds to frustrate Congress’s program; the statute did not give “limitless power” to withhold funds. This case is the classic affirmation of Congress’s power of the purse.
            
            City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987) — After INS v. Chadha invalidated one-House legislative vetoes, the D.C. Circuit struck down the ICA’s original deferral section (then §1013) as inseverable, and stressed the difference between limited programmatic delays and unlawful policy impoundments. Congress later amended the ICA (1987) to allow only narrow, programmatic deferrals and to end at the close of the fiscal year. This history undercuts end-run tactics like pocket rescissions.
            
            State Highway Comm’n of Missouri v. Volpe (8th Cir. 1973) — Courts rejected Nixon-era attempts to withhold highway funds; another affirmation that agencies must carry out spending laws absent clear authority to withhold.
            
            Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lynn (D.D.C. 1973) — District court ordered HUD to administer programs rather than suspend them for policy reasons: executive disagreements with Congress are not a basis to ignore spending laws. (CRS sums this up.)
            
            Seems like the courts are pretty consistent - the "pocket recission" is illegal.

            replyreport
   2. 83

      My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      From the real angle - that illegal action is PURE AUTHORITARIANISM. Each time it has been tried, the GAO ruled it illegal as did several courts, including the Supreme Court.
      
      But, what else do you expect from a man who has no respect for the law or our Constitution?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Willowarborposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      How is using the National Guard to pick up Starbucks cups or planting petunias, to the tune of $1 million dollars per day,  from DC prioritizing taxpayer dollars???

      replyreport
4. 83

   My Esotericposted 2 days ago

   Trump to DEPORT Guatemalan children back to the country they escaped from - how many will suffer and die as a result.
   
   I hope you agree, Trump is one sick Bastard!
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/29/politics … mmigration

   replyreport
5. 67

   IslandBitesposted 2 days ago

   There's always an excuse.

   replyreport
6. 83

   My Esotericposted 2 days ago

   I had ChatGPT do a deep dive on where we stand on the Authoritarianism scale of 0 - 100, where 0 is no threat to democracy and 100 is we have fallen over the authoritarian cliff.
   
   It used several outside sources who study such things and had it develop its own analysis based on that research. Here is what it comes up with and it sure seems correct:
   
   Estimated U.S. authoritarianism danger score, 1990 → 2025
   
   Year           Score                                  Why (federal, condensed)
   
   1990         15               Low baseline: competitive elections, strong courts/press; pre-PATRIOT Act era.
   
   1994         18               Culture-war polarization intensifies; religious-right organizing embedded in GOP (Christian Coalition).
   
   2001         22               9/11 → PATRIOT Act expands surveillance/search powers; civil-liberties concerns rise.
   
   2004         23               Ongoing war-on-terror authorities (NSLs, detentions) normalize exceptional powers.
   
   2010         24               Citizens United supercharges outside money/party capture risks; institutions still strong.
   
   2013         25                Shelby County v. Holder guts VRA preclearance—opens door to restrictive voting laws (mainly state-level, but affects federal elections).
   
   2016         25                 Still a functioning liberal democracy; warning lights: Garland blockade (Senate refuses hearings) + EIU downgrades U.S. to “flawed democracy” on trust-erosion grounds.
   
   2018         30                  First Trump term: norm erosion (attacks on DOJ/FBI, media as “enemy”), but press/courts remain assertive; RSF rank around this era shows a pressured but free press.
   
   2021         40                  Jan 6: violent attempt to block certification; ~140 officers injured; Congress later awards Capitol Police gold medals. Durable election-legitimacy damage.
   Police Forum
   Congress.gov
   
   2025 (Aug)    50          Second Trump term: intensified loyalty politics in Congress, direct pressure on universities (e.g., $2.2B Harvard freeze), threats to prosecutorial independence; expert panels (Bright Line Watch) put overall democracy performance in the mid-50s/100.
   
   How I estimated
   
   Same criteria as before: congressional fealty to the leader; rule of law/prosecutorial independence; press & dissent; weaponization of federal power; respect for checks and norms.
   
   Anchor points: I used major, well-documented inflection events to nudge the score up/down (PATRIOT Act 2001; Citizens United 2010; Shelby 2013; 2016 Garland/EIU downgrade; Jan 6; 2025 loyalty/retaliation dynamics and academic-freedom fights).
   
   External cross-checks (not determinative): RSF press-freedom snapshots and Bright Line Watch’s 0–100 expert ratings (fell to ~55 in early 2025), to make sure my qualitative scores were in the same neighborhood.
   
   If you plot that data you will see slow growth in Authoritarianism until 2005 when it starts to level out to the 25% level. Then starting in 2017, it grows very quickly to the current estimate of 50% or halfway to a Putin-like society. That fits with my perception. My bet is Credence may see it closer to 75%.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

      “My bet is Credence may see it closer to 75%.”
      
      He does, what I am being exposed to here is unprecedented and unorthodox.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         No doubt and understandable given where you come from as opposed to my  upbringing.

         replyreport