Like a coven of Dr Frankensteins stitching together a monster of dissimilar parts, each of them with his own agenda and eyeing his fellows for the moment to drive home the knife, the factotums, grifters, flak catchers, and zombiefied minions of Trump in the Party of Treason have voted to approve and send to their co-conspirators in the senate Trump’s Big Bill to Sabotage Democracy and usher in the most massive transfer of wealth in our history, from the poor and working middle classes to the billionaire class.
This is class war, which will create a new precariat and hollow out the middle class, and I urge and advise us all to fight it as such, By Any Means Necessary.
Vote while your vote still has meaning, protest while you still can without being abducted by Homeland Security without cause or charges and sent to a foreign prison to be forgotten, wage lawfare and political and legislative action while such institutions are not yet infiltrated, subverted, and captured by the Fourth Reich. Because that day fast approaches, when America is truly fallen and your citizenship is meaningless; because voting is better than shooting.
So say I from a life which has witnessed far too much of the latter.
I remember vividly the Cambodian refugees who arrived en masse in Sonoma, and were assigned to my mother’s English class at the high school for acculturation and language skills. Filled with stories of horrors they were, and shaped by them as well. During the Presidential election of 1980, when Carter was replaced by Reagan, the whole community vanished for weeks; when they returned to class she asked them where they went. Her star pupil replied; “To the hills. New President, soldiers come now.”
Mom told them; “That can’t happen here.”
This was answered with utmost seriousness in funereal tones; “That’s what we thought, before Pol Pot.”
I imagine we all thought so, in what now seems a long time ago in a vanished age in a world far, far away, before Trump.
As I wrote in my post of July 19 2023, The Republican Party Plan to Dismantle Democracy If Trump Is Re-Elected; This upcoming election will not only decide who is to be the next President of the United States, but also the direction of our future and the shape of humankind to come, possibly for centuries.
Will we choose liberty or tyranny, inclusion and diversity or racism and white supremacist terror, gender equality or patriarchal sexual terror, a secular or theocratic society, truth or falsification and an empire of lies?
Since the capture of the Republican Party in 1980 by fundamentalists and the infiltration and subversion of the state by the Fourth Reich under its figurehead Traitor Trump, most dangerous Russian agent to ever attack America, we have begun a slide into totalitarianism halted but not yet reversed in the Restoration of America under Joe Biden.
We are not safe yet, nor will we be unless we expose and confront our destroyers and purge from among us those who would enslave us. I believe the natural consequences of treason to include forfeiture of assets, loss of citizenship, and exile.
As I have said for many years now, thanks for showing us all what’s under your masks, Republicans; Treason, Racism, Untruth, Misogyny, Predator.
So what’s in this bill, now passed by the house and on its way to the Senate to become law?
As written by Chris Stein in The Guardian, in an article entitled Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ spending bill, from tax cuts to mass deportations: All the key points laid out in the US president’s House-approved sweeping bill as it awaits Senate consideration; “The Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday passed the One Big Beautiful Bill act, which would enact Donald Trump’s taxation and spending priorities. The legislation will now be considered in the Senate, where the Republican majority will probably make its own changes.
Here is what the version of the bill passed by the House would do:
Extend tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term
After taking office in 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, and generally benefited high earners more than most. Those provisions are set to expire after this year, but the Big Beautiful Bill makes them permanent, while increasing the standard deduction by $1,000 for individuals, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for married couples, albeit only through 2028.
An array of new tax write-offs – but only while Trump is president
The bill creates many new tax exemptions, several of which stem from promises Trump made while campaigning last year. Taxpayers will be able to write off income from tips and overtime, and interest made on loans for cars assembled in the United States. People aged 65 and over are eligible for an additional deduction of $4,000, provided their adjusted gross income does not exceed $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for married couples. But all of these incentives expire at the end of 2028, right before Trump’s term as president ends.
An expanded Salt deduction
In addition to paying federal taxes, residents of many states must also pay state and local taxes (Salt). Prior to 2017, they could deduct these payments on their federal returns, but the tax law Trump signed that year capped these deductions at $10,000, an amount taxpayers in states with high Salt burdens such as New York, New Jersey and California often exceed. House Republicans who represent districts in those states spent weeks demanding the Big Beautiful Bill increase that limit, and succeeded: the bill passed by the House raises the deduction to $40,000 per year.
Money for mass deportations and a border wall
As part of Trump’s plan to remove undocumented immigrants from the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will receive $45bn for detention facilities, $14bn for deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029. More than $50bn is allocated for the construction of new border fortifications, which will probably include a wall along the border with Mexico. And immigrants hoping to claim asylum or otherwise seek relief through immigration courts will face a host of new fees that advocates say may keep them out of the country altogether.
A much higher budget deficit
All these tax breaks and other spending come with a major cost. Congress’s non-partisan fiscal scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), estimates the bill’s tax policies alone will add nearly $3.8tn to the federal deficit.
A potentially potent restriction on federal courts
Trump’s supporters routinely attack judges who rule against him, and the bill includes a provision that prohibits federal courts from enforcing contempt citations related to temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. At least one federal judge appears ready to issue such a citation in a high-profile immigration case involving the administration. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley’s school of law, wrote that judges could get around the provision for future cases, but hundreds of existing court orders covering all sorts of subjects – including the many lawsuits against Trump’s policies – would become unenforceable.
Transformed social safety net programs
Republicans have attempted to cut down on the bill’s cost by slashing two major federal safety net programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to poor and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps people afford groceries. Both are in for funding cuts, as well as new work requirements. The Urban Institute thinktank believes, based on an analysis of a similar policy, these could remove as many as 5.2 million people from Medicaid, while the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities forecasts about a quarter of Snap recipients could leave the program, or nearly 11 million people.
More benefits for the rich than the poor
Wealthier taxpayers appear set to receive more benefits from this bill than poorer ones. Taxpayers with the highest incomes will see their household resources increase by 4% in 2027 and 2% in 2033, largely due to the extended tax cuts, the CBO estimated earlier this week. The poorest tax payers would see their resources drop by 4% in 2033, largely due to the downsized benefit programs, according to the office.
The end of Biden’s green energy incentives
The bill will phase out tax incentives created by Congress during Joe Biden’s presidency meant to encourage consumers and businesses to use electric cars and other clean energy technology. Credits for cleaner cars will end this year and incentives for wind and solar energy will only be available for projects that begin construction 60 days after the bill’s enactment and enter service by 2028. Clean energy manufacturing tax credits will be axed by 2031, while Americans seeking to upgrade their homes to cleaner or more energy efficient appliances will get no further subsidy after the end of this year.
An increased debt ceiling
The US government’s authority to borrow, known as the debt limit, will increase by $4tn. Earlier this month, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, predicted the government would hit the limit by August, at which point it could default on its debt and spark a financial crisis.”
As written by Arwa Mahdawi in The Guardian, in an article entitled Don’t be fooled. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is typically ugly and typically misnamed: Republicans love to make the most harmful laws sound sensible or even noble. This pretty-sounding package of tax breaks and spending cuts is just the latest example; “What’s big, beautiful and kept a lot of Republicans up late on Sunday night? There might be various responses to that question, but the answer I’m looking for is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Coming in at 1,116 pages, the bill isn’t quite War and Peace but it’s definitely big. Whether the mega-package of tax breaks and spending cuts is beautiful, however, is up for debate.
And there has certainly been a lot of debate. The bill has been in limbo for a while because a few Republicans who consider themselves “fiscally conservative” are happy with the package’s extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and increased spending for the military and immigration enforcement, but don’t think enough social and climate-related programmes have been slashed to pay for it all. In particular, they want deeper cuts to food stamps and Medicaid, which is a government programme providing health care to low-income people. Late on Sunday, however, in an unusual weekend vote, the hardliners relented a little and the House Budget Committee revived the bill. It still faces some challenges, but it is now closer to becoming law.
If you are in a masochistic mood you can read all 1,116 pages of the bill. But the TLDR is that a more accurate name for the package would be the Screw Poor People and Make the Rich Richer Act. Or the Kick Millions Off Medicaid So a Billionaire Can Buy Another Yacht Act. This isn’t to say that every single element of the package is bad. There is one part, for example, where children under eight are given $1,000 for “Money Accounts for Growth and Investment”, AKA “Maga” savings accounts. In general, though, it’s pretty on-brand for Republicans.
The deceitful name is on-brand too. The right is very cunning when it comes to legislative framing: it loves hiding nasty intentions behind noble-sounding names that are difficult to argue with. Emotive words such as “protect” tend to come up a lot. If a bill has “protect” and “women” in its name, you can be sure it’s not about protecting women, but about bullying transgender people. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 (which was blocked by Democrats in the Senate in March), for example, focused on banning transgender athletes from women’s sports. As the National Education Association said at the time, however, it “does nothing to promote equity in resources, funding, or opportunity, or to tackle the sexual abuses of athletes and subsequent cover-ups that have occurred in women’s sports”.
Another thing Republicans love to do is to pass entirely unnecessary bills with highly emotive names, in order to amplify misleading information. Take, for example, the rightwing lie (repeatedly amplified by Trump) that Democrats want to execute newborn babies. This is obviously nonsense – infanticide is very much illegal in the US – and is a willful misinterpretation of the fact that doctors may sometimes give palliative care to dying babies. This didn’t stop cynical lawmakers from coming up with the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (a bill that has gone through a number of iterations but was passed by House Republicans earlier this year) requiring doctors to provide care for children born alive during an attempted abortion. Again, there are already laws in place that cover this. The bill was completely unnecessary but it gave Republicans a great opportunity to conflate abortion and infanticide. “Tragically, House Democrats opposed the bill, voted for infanticide, and opted to deny medical care to crying newborns on operating tables struggling to live,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said after most Democrats voted against the legislation.
Republicans have always understood how to use language to manipulate people far better than the Democrats. You may have forgotten the name Newt Gingrich but the former Republican House Speaker has been an integral part in the rise of Trumpism and the current culture wars. Back in 1990 his political action committee distributed a pamphlet called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” that instructed Republican candidates to learn to “speak like Newt”. Gingrich was very keen on exploiting emotive language and saying outlandish things that would make headlines and get the media inadvertently amplifying a preferred narrative. The Republican party may now be full of toadies – but you can’t deny they’re all fluent in Newt.’
As written by Steven Greenhouse in The Guardian, in an article entitled ‘Pro-worker priorities’? Trump’s budget bill offers the exact opposite: The ‘big, beautiful’ measure going through Congress would cut health, food and education benefits – and offer a huge boost to the richest; “With Donald Trump pushing hard to give big tax cuts to the rich and do huge favors for crypto billionaires, it was jarring to see a photo of a Trump aide carrying a sign that said: “President Trump’s Pro-Worker Priorities”. The aide was about to place the sign on Trump’s lectern; it mentioned such “pro-worker priorities” as ending federal taxes on tips and overtime pay: catchy, but scattershot policies that will help only a fraction of the nation’s workers.
Not surprisingly, that sign made no mention of Trump’s many anti-worker policies that will do serious harm to millions of workers and their families. Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill, which is advancing in the House, includes the biggest cuts ever to Medicaid, a nearly 30% reduction in food assistance, and a $350bn cut in aid that helps working-class kids afford college. Trump has also pushed to end home-heating assistance and to make it harder for millions of Americans to afford Obamacare. If that isn’t painful enough, GOP deficit hawks have vowed to torpedo the budget bill unless it includes even more cuts. Under the current Trump House bill, at least 13.7 million people would lose health coverage – and the deficit hawks’ demands would increase that number.
Even some prominent Republicans acknowledge that the Republican bill contains policies that will screw workers. Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, slammed the Trump-GOP push to chop hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. “These are working people and their children who need healthcare, and it’s just wrong to go and cut their healthcare when they’re trying to make ends meet, trying to help their kids,” Hawley said. He added: “No Republican should be supporting Medicaid benefit cuts.”
To give a truer picture of what Trump is all about, that Trump aide should have also been carrying a sign that said: “President Trump’s Pro-Billionaire Priorities”. Those priorities are more ambitious and will cost far more than Trump’s “pro-worker priorities” – they include over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, stratagems to help crypto billionaires grow ever richer, and big cuts to the IRS budget to reduce the chances that the ultra-wealthy will get audited. To please his billionaire finance buddies, Trump has sought to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created to protect typical families from financial scams and extortionate banking practices. And let’s not forget the many ways Trump is helping to steer more business to Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and Trump’s biggest campaign contributor (to the tune of $270m backing the president and other Republicans).
The Center for American Progress points out that the Trump/Republican budget bill would, if implemented, “be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in US history”. Another progressive thinktank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, notes that the budget bill would cut $1.1tn from food aid, Medicaid and other health programs while lavishing $1.1tn in tax cuts upon those earning over $500,000. Not only that, the 1m households earning over $1m a year would receive $105bn in tax cuts in 2027 – that’s more than the tax cuts going to the 127m households earning under $100,000.
Republicans defend their painful program cuts as healthy, saying they will hold down the budget deficit. But there is of course a far less painful and more worker-friendly way to reduce the budget deficit: don’t extend the trillions in Trump tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the rich.
When Trump boasts about the “big, beautiful” bill, he talks only about the tax cuts, but never about how the cuts in Medicaid and Snap (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) will hurt millions of families. The Republican party consistently fails to note that one in four small-business owners and one in four veterans live in households that receive help from Snap, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Under the planned cuts to Snap, 42 million people – including one in five children in the US – could see their food assistance reduced.
According to the Penn Wharton Budget model, when one factors in the Medicaid and Snap cuts along with the tax cuts, the Trump-House bill would cause Americans earning less than $17,000 a year to lose $1,030 on average in after-tax income starting in 2026. Households earning between $17,000 and $51,000 a year would lose around $700 on average. The very wealthy do far better. For those in the richest 0.1% – that is, households earning at least $4.3m a year – their after-tax income would jump by over $388,000.
That doesn’t sound very pro-worker to me. It’s a perversion of the truth for Trump to boast of his pro-worker bona fides when he steadfastly refuses to push for the two things that would do most to lift workers’ living standards: push to raise workers’ pay and push to strengthen labor unions and worker bargaining power. Not only has Trump done nothing to increase the paltry $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage, but he killed a Biden-era regulation that required federal contractors to pay their workers at least $17.75 an hour. Now many of those workers will see their pay sink to $13.30 an hour. What’s more, Trump has sought to sabotage unions, not strengthen them. He has moved to strip 1 million federal employees of their right to bargain while also seeking to cripple the National Labor Relations Board, which protects workers’ ability to bargain for better pay and conditions.
As for Trump’s call to end the tax on tips, that will help many restaurant servers and hotel housekeepers, but the Yale Budget Lab says that provision has a narrow scope and will help less than 3% of all workers.
Last year, candidate Trump said: “As soon as I get to office, we will make housing much more affordable.” But second-term Trump is doing just the opposite. His budget calls for a devastating 40% cut in rental assistance that millions of Americans rely on to pay their monthly rent. Candidate Trump also said: “Your heating and air conditioning, electricity, gasoline – all can be cut down in half.” But for millions of Americans he is increasing that burden by pushing to end a program that helps six million struggling households afford to heat and cool their homes.
Many blue-collar Americans are eager to send their kids to college, but Trump and House Republicans would make that harder. Around one in eight Americans have federal student loans, which have been key to enabling millions of people to afford college. But Republicans want to eliminate subsidized loans for undergraduates and increase the minimum monthly payments that low-income borrowers already have a hard time paying.
Trump boasts he is pro-worker, but he is doing absolutely nothing to help with what many workers say are their biggest priorities: making housing more affordable, reducing the cost of childcare and healthcare, making it easier to send one’s kids to college, and bringing down prices. Billionaires can rejoice that Trump is capitulating to them and their priorities, but American workers shouldn’t be fooled into believing that Trump is addressing their needs.”
As written by Dan Rather in Steady; “Donald Trump and his MAGA buddies in Congress are attempting to slip one by the American people. The mega-spending bill that Trump calls “one big, beautiful bill” is 1116 pages long, contains huge spending and tax cuts, and was dropped on the U.S. House of Representatives just seven days ago. The first committee vote was taken on Sunday night, in case you missed it. And many Republicans hope you did.
Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing for a vote on the massive domestic policy bill by the end of the week, in time for Memorial Day.
Someone needs to call a timeout, or this massive remake of the federal government could be a done deal faster than you can say three-day weekend. The incredibly short timeline is no accident. Trump and Johnson don’t want to give anyone time to read the fine print.
Because then folks would know that the bill would cut $625 billion from Medicaid, pushing more than 8 million of our most vulnerable from its rolls.
People would also be aware that cuts to the food stamp program would target families with children, seniors, and veterans.
Voters would find out that someone making less than $15,000 a year would see their federal taxes increase by 74.3% by 2031. That is not a typo.
Trump claims all of these cuts are necessary to make his $4.5 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations permanent.
Now you understand the reason for the rush. Get it signed, sealed, and delivered before the ink is dry, and Americans will be none the wiser. Though it will still have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.
The timeline is so short that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not had time to fully vet the bill and produce estimates of its budgetary impact. How can lawmakers read, research, and debate the bill in mere days? They can’t.
Even with the absurdly short timeline, Johnson is facing opposition from both ends of his party. Four hardline fiscal hawks stalled the bill in committee but ultimately allowed it to move to the full House. They didn’t vote in favor of the bill; they just voted “present.”
This does not bode well for the speaker, who will have to make significant concessions to appease the hawks and get them on board. But every concession he gives them will likely mean a “moderate” Republican will balk. Republicans have only a seven-vote majority in the House.
Those less radical Republicans know the spending cuts and tax giveaways are deeply unpopular. Though the cuts are being framed as a way to root out “waste, fraud and abuse,” most Americans aren’t buying it. They strongly oppose cuts to entitlement programs like Medicaid. They do not favor big tax cuts for billionaires and other very wealthy people.
Where is the president on all of this? For a decade, Trump has repeatedly said he would not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. As recently as May 4, he said he would veto any bill that included Medicaid cuts. He has been mum on the topic since.
The “big, beautiful bill” dubbed the “big bad billionaire bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus has the potential to hurt the overall economy too.
The CBO determined that the tax cuts will add at least $4.6 trillion to the national debt, causing Moody’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating over the weekend. This change could affect the markets and the interest rate the U.S. government can get to borrow money.
The consequences of some of Trump’s executive orders are now affecting real people in real time. First, the tariffs. Over the weekend, Walmart, the retail version of the canary in the coal mine, said it would be passing on price increases caused by the tariffs to Walmart shoppers. This incensed the president, who jumped on Truth Social to yell at the country’s biggest retailer, insisting that Walmart should, “EAT THE TARIFFS and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”
And with one social media post, Trump finally admitted what he’s long denied — tariffs raise prices. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates the average American household will pay an additional $2,300 a year.
Walmart capitulated, sort of — saying it would pass on just some of the increased costs. The specter of higher prices and inflation has pushed consumer sentiment to its second-lowest level ever.
While the rich are about to get even richer, the rest of America is forced to suffer because of decisions made by the president.
The effects of staffing and budget cuts made by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency are becoming more pronounced. As tornadoes bombarded Kentucky over the weekend, the state’s weather office scrambled for staff. The office in Jackson, Kentucky, no longer has overnight forecasters after DOGE cut hundreds from the National Weather Service. And that’s just one area of one state. Coming soon: hurricane season, on June 1.”
As written by the Alt National Park Service on their FB page; “Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” isn’t just about tax cuts it quietly guts federal protections and reshapes entire agencies. Here’s what’s buried inside:
– Closure of the U.S. Department of Education
– 25% expansion of logging in national forests, bypassing environmental reviews and fast-tracking timber production
– Rollbacks on clean energy incentives, cutting tax credits for EVs and renewables, gutting key climate provisions
– More public lands opened up for drilling, mining, and logging, with royalty breaks for fossil fuel companies
– Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, ending U.S. participation in global climate efforts
– Executive Order 14215, forcing independent federal agencies to follow White House legal interpretations and centralizing authority under the presidency
– Pension changes for federal workers hired before 2014, cutting take-home pay by raising required contributions, reducing future payouts, and eliminating early retirement supplements
– REINS Act-style regulation repeal, where major federal rules expire unless Congress re-approves them every 5 years allowing Trump to quietly erase protections without rewriting laws
– Expanded executive control over agency budgets, allowing the White House to move federal funds internally without explicit congressional approval
– Restoration of impoundment powers, giving Trump the ability to block or delay spending already passed by Congress reviving powers stripped after Watergate
– Creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), placing White House–aligned teams inside every federal agency with access to internal systems and influence over hiring and daily operations
– Sharp cuts in regulatory enforcement, with agencies like the EPA, CFPB, and Labor and Transportation Departments halting enforcement of key safety, environmental, and anti-discrimination rules
– Trump’s personal control over economic policy, strengthening his power to direct tariffs, pressure private companies, and dictate pricing with little resistance treating the U.S. economy like his own business
This bill isn’t just “big.” It’s a roadmap for dismantling oversight, hollowing out federal protections, and handing Trump sweeping, unchecked control. Read the fine print.”
As written by Robert Reich in a Substack article entitled Why the one big beautiful bill is the single ugliest you can imagine; “Friends,
The old professor in me thinks the best way to convey to you how utterly awful the so-called “one big beautiful bill” passed by the House this morning actually is would be to give you this short 10-question exam. (Answers are in parentheses, but first try to answer without looking at them.)
1. Does the House’s “one big beautiful bill” cut Medicare? (Answer: Yes, by an estimated $500 billion.)
2. Because the bill cuts Medicaid, how many Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage? (At least 8.6 million.)
3. Will the tax cut in the bill benefit the rich, the poor, or everyone? (Overwhelmingly, the rich.)
4. How much will the top 0.1 percent of earners stand to gain from it? (Nearly $390,000 per year.)
5. If you figure in the benefit cuts and the tax cuts, will Americans making between about $17,000 and $51,000 gain or lose? (They’ll lose about $700 a year.)
6. How about Americans with incomes less than $17,000? (They’ll lose more than $1,000 per year on average.)
7. How much will the bill add to the federal debt? ($3.8 trillion over 10 years.)
8. Who will pay the interest on this extra debt? (All of us, in both our tax payments and higher interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and all other longer-term borrowing.)
9. Who collects this interest? (People who lend to the U.S. government, 70 percent of whom are American and most of whom are wealthy.)
10. Bonus question: Is the $400 million airplane from Qatar a gift to the United States for every future president to use, or a gift to Trump for his own personal use? (It’s a personal gift, because he’ll get to use it after he leaves the presidency.)
Most Americans are strongly opposed to all of these things, according to polls. But if you knew the answers to these 10 questions, you’re likely to be in a very tiny minority. That’s because of (1) distortions and cover-ups emanating from Trump and magnified by Fox News and other right-wing outlets; (2) a public that’s overwhelmed with the blitzkrieg of everything Trump is doing and can’t focus on this; (3) outright silencing of many in the media who fear retaliation from the Trump regime if they reveal things that Trump doesn’t want revealed.
Please do your part: Share this as widely as possible.”
As written by Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman in the New York Times, in an article entitled Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025: The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies; “Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.
Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.
Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.
He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.
He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.
“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.
“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.
The strategy in talking openly about such “paradigm-shifting ideas” before the election, Mr. Vought said, is to “plant a flag” — both to shift the debate and to later be able to claim a mandate. He said he was delighted to see few of Mr. Trump’s Republican primary rivals defend the norm of Justice Department independence after the former president openly attacked it.
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”
The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Mr. Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.
Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.
That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.
Some elements of the plans had been floated when Mr. Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Mr. Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.
“It would be chaotic,” said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”
The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decades-long effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.
Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.
The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.
“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”
Personal power has always been a driving force for Mr. Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Mr. Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mr. Mueller ousted, but was defied.
Early in Mr. Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Mr. Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.
Now, Mr. Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
One idea the people around Mr. Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.
Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)
Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.
Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.
Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Mr. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”
Such an order was drafted in Mr. Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.
The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Mr. Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Mr. Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Mr. Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.
Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Mr. Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.
“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Mr. Vought said.
Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Mr. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.
Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.
“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”
Mr. Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.
On his campaign website, Mr. Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.
Mr. Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.
The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.
Mr. Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but President Biden rescinded it. Mr. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.
Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.
“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Mr. Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”
Mr. Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.
“We will demolish the deep state,” Mr. Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”
As written by Lee Moran in Huffpost, in an article entitled Authoritarianism Expert Warns Why It’s Critical To Listen To Trump’s Words Right Now: Ruth Ben-Ghiat explained how authoritarian takeovers usually go down; “Authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat warned on Wednesday that when Donald Trump talks about obliterating and then politicizing the civil service, and seizing control of every aspect of government if he wins the White House in 2024, he really means it.
“Nobody is ever prepared” for an authoritarian takeover of their country, Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University and author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi.
“They think they are going to be the exception. They don’t listen to the warning signs until it’s too late,” she continued.
But Trump is actually “being very clear” with what he is saying, said Ben-Ghiat.
Last week, a New York Times article said Trump would seek to expand presidential authority “over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”
Ben-Ghiat cautioned: “Authoritarians always tell you what they are going to do as a kind of challenge and as a warning, and people don’t listen until it’s too late.”
If Trump wins election again, he will “be finishing the job that he started, and by the way that’s not just destroying democracy internally,” she added. His other main aim was “to take America out of the realm of democratic internationalism and align it with autocracies. That will happen as well.”
Republicans create a monster of unlike parts in the Big Bill
Trump’s ongoing threat to American democracy/ MSN
Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ spending bill, from tax cuts to mass deportations
All the key points laid out in the US president’s House-approved sweeping bill as it awaits Senate consideration
The new Trump-led tax bill promises an American ‘golden age’ – that conveniently ends with his presidency, Chris Stein
Don’t be fooled. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is typically ugly and typically misnamed, Arwa Mahdawi
‘Pro-worker priorities’? Trump’s budget bill offers the exact opposite
Steven Greenhouse
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/22/trump-house-budget-bill-workers
The Final Checkmate: Republicans Move to Destroy the Balance of Powers
Authoritarianism Expert Warns Why It’s Critical To Listen To Trump’s Words Right Now/ Huffpost
Why the one big beautiful bill is the single ugliest you can imagine, Robert Reich
Trump’s tax bill to cost 830,000 jobs and drive up bills and pollution emissions, experts warn
The Republican Plan to Dismantle Democracy if Trumps is re-elected/ New York Times
Letters From An America by Heather Cox Richardson
Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present by Ruth Ben-Ghiat https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53597796-strongmen
Fascism: A Warning by Madeleine K. Albright https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35230469-fascism
How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future by Steven Levitsky
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35356384-how-democracies-die
The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36217163-the-road-to-unfreedom
How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them by Jason F. Stanley https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38255329-how-fascism-works
The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt




