The Trump administration sent out 5800 emails to agencies today cancelling contracts which provided polio vaccinations, AIDS treatments, Tuberculosis drugs. malaria control and prevention, nutrition programs for underfed mothers and children, and so forth. If that was not bad enough, the emails began with the crass statement that this was for "the convenience of the United States Government"!

The programs of USAID that were cancelled uniformly target urgent medical needs around the world. Cancelling urgent health programs on the other side of the world can come back to bite us. There is nothing about the US that provides eternal protection from Sexually Transmitted Infections, Tuberculosis, AIDS, Polio, and many other not-so-famous fatal infections.

Surveillance and statistical keeping is important, but as a health administrator in Africa pointed out, funds to count the dead were also cut.

New MAGA hat: Make America God Awful

More detail:

Here are some of the projects that The New York Times has confirmed have been canceled:

A $131 million grant to UNICEF’s polio immunization program, which paid for planning, logistics and delivery of vaccines to millions of children.

A $90 million contract with the company Chemonics for bed nets, malaria tests and treatments that would have protected 53 million people.

A project run by FHI 360 that supported community health workers’ efforts to go door-to-door seeking malnourished children in Yemen. It recently found that one in five children was critically underweight because of the country’s civil war.

All of the operating costs and 10 percent of the drug budget of the Global Drug Facility, the World Health Organization’s main supply channel for tuberculosis medications, which last year provided tuberculosis treatment to nearly three million people, including 300,000 children.

H.I.V. care and treatment projects run by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation that were providing lifesaving medication to 350,000 people in Lesotho, Tanzania and Eswatini, including 10,000 children and 10,000 pregnant women who were receiving care so that they would not transmit the virus to their babies at birth.

A project in Uganda to trace contacts of people with Ebola, conduct surveillance and bury those who died from the virus.

A contract to manage and distribute $34 million worth of medical supplies in Kenya, including 2.5 million monthlong H.I.V. treatments, 750,000 H.I.V. tests, 500,000 malaria treatments, 6.5 million malaria tests and 315,000 antimalaria bed nets.

Eighty-seven shelters that took care of 33,000 women who were victims of rape and domestic violence in South Africa.

A project in the Democratic Republic of Congo that operates the only source of water for 250,000 people in camps for displaced people located in the center of the violent conflict in the east of the country.

Pre- and postnatal health services for 3.9 million children and 5.7 million women in Nepal.

A project run by Helen Keller Intl in six countries in West Africa that last year provided more than 35 million people with the medicine to prevent and treat neglected tropical diseases, such as trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis and onchocerciasis.

A project in Nigeria providing 5.6 million children and 1.7 million women with treatment for severe and acute malnutrition. The termination means 77 health facilities have completely stopped treating children with severe acute malnutrition, putting 60,000 children under the age of 5 at immediate risk of death.

A project in Sudan that runs the only operational health clinics in one of the biggest areas of the Kordofan region, cutting off all health services.

A project serving more than 144,000 people in Bangladesh that provided food for malnourished pregnant women and vitamin A to children.

A program run by the aid agency PATH, called REACH Malaria, which protected more than 20 million people from the disease. It provided malaria drugs to children at the start of the rainy season in 10 countries in Africa.

A project run by Plan International that provided drugs and other medical supplies, health care, treatment of malnutrition programming, and water and sanitation for 115,000 displaced or affected by the conflict in northern Ethiopia.

More than $80 million for UNAIDS, the United Nations agency, which funded work to help countries improve H.I.V. treatment, including data collection and watchdog programs for service delivery.

The President’s Malaria Initiative program called Evolve, which did mosquito control in 21 countries by methods that include spraying insecticide inside homes (protecting 12.5 million people last year) and treating breeding sites to kill larvae.

A project providing H.I.V. and tuberculosis treatment to 46,000 people in Uganda, run by the Baylor College of Medicine Children’s Foundation, Uganda.

Smart4TB, the main research consortium working on prevention, diagnostics and treatment for tuberculosis.

The Demographic and Health Surveys, a data collection project in 90 countries that were crucial and sometimes the only sources of information on maternal and child health and mortality, nutrition, reproductive health and H.I.V. infections, among many other health indicators. The project was also the bedrock of budgets and planning. — NY TImes

Part of Trump and Musk's Global Misanthropy efforts.

A major NY Times analysis How Musk Took Over the Federal Government - gift link

One of today's headlines: "DOGE presses to check federal benefits payments against IRS tax records -
Officials with Elon Musk’s group say they want to search for fraud. Privacy law bars the IRS from disclosing tax information to other parts of the government."

In Australia, there was a massive scandal over a similar scheme, dubbed Robodebt, were automatic matching technologies were used to pursue purported social security debts, often without any human oversight. The resulting debacle caused more than a few suicides and ended a few careers. Of course, none of that would matter to Elon Musk, as he'll just chainsaw anyone who stands in his way, with Presidential permission.

Having bludgeoned the Congress into pathetic submission, MAGA is now setting its sights on the judiciary, the last remaining bastion of constitutional democracy.

“The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,” Mr. Musk wrote this week on X, his social media platform, in one of multiple posts demanding that uncooperative federal judges be ousted from their lifetime seats on the bench.

“We must impeach to save democracy,” Mr. Musk said in another entry on X after a series of rulings slowed the Trump administration’s moves to halt congressionally approved spending and conduct mass firings of federal workers. He pointed to a purge of judges by the right-wing government in El Salvador as part of the successful effort to assert control over the government there. — NY Times

We must impeach to save democracy is directly suggestive of 'We had to destroy the village in order to save it', from William Caley, officer in charge of the Mai Lai massacre,

Comments on January 6th revisionism belong in another thread. Maybe the Trump thread - Count Timothy, as you're a mod, perhaps you might be so kind as to move them there. This thread is about the Musk Plutocracy which is providing ample material for discussion in its own right.

If the goal is to pave the way for greater authoritarianism, the judicial branch would have to be rendered powerless. This occurred to me a while back, so I was expecting some ramp up in anti-judiciary rhetoric.

In 1930's Louisiana, there was a governor who became a dictator by taking over the state legislature. He fired some judges and was eventually shot and killed by the son of one of the judges he fired. If history repeats, we should expect assassination attempts after judges are removed. The problem is that even if all the key players were killed, there's no viable opposition to take over right now. That doesn't mean it couldn't develop, but if it did, the US would sink into internal conflict in a way it hasn't experienced since the Civil War. I think most likely the US will be off the world stage for the foreseeable future.

If the goal is to pave the way for greater authoritarianism, the judicial branch would have to be rendered powerless. — frank

It wouldn't be all that difficult to render the judicial system powerless.

First, the legal system is effective when the people agree to follow it.
Second, the judicial system has (had?) great authority, but it doesn't have great power.

If an executive at the federal or state level decides to carry out unconstitutional acts, a court can not summon the army to force them to cease and desist. The court has federal Marshalls, and possibly local police, and sheriffs. True, there are sanctions, contempt of court declarations, and so on but these substantially depend on willing cooperation.

Some conservatives (Trump allies) have floated the idea that not all court injunctions have to be obeyed. That marks a real crack in the system.

Civil society, law, democracy, reliable money, God, etc. all depend on faith--belief, confidence--in the system. We have had these things because we believed these good things were valid and acted accordingly. If everyone with power to act agrees that a court decision is valid, it will be enforced. If that agreement falls apart, then perhaps it will not be enforced.

At the moment, all sorts of executive actions have taken place in the Federal Government, and a lot of them have been challenged in court. But a court challenge is only one step -- it has to work its way through the appeals system on its way to the SCOTUS. The Supremes may turn out to be supremely disappointing, allowing what were previously unacceptable actions to proceed.

And if the Supremes rule against the executive branch, and the executive branch ignores them, then we're screwed.

Nice analysis! We see a similar thing in the international arena. If a country's leaders defy international law, even commit what are considered to be war crimes, or humanitarian violations, the perpetrators usually cannot be brought to justice,

Hence the repeated references to a ‘constitutional crisis’, although, really, Trump’s election was already one, as he had patently and obviously engaged in a plot to overthrow the 2020 election. It’s utterly absurd that Trump were allowed to run for President. It beats me why he wasn’t disbarred under the constitutional clause banning insurrectionists from public office.

Anyway there was a major victory for the courts late last week when Trump’s peremptory firing of the an inspector general was struck down:

A U.S. judge on Saturday declared President Donald Trump's firing of the head of a federal watchdog agency illegal in an early test of the scope of presidential power likely to be decided at the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington had previously ruled Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel who is responsible for protecting whistleblowers, could remain in his post pending a ruling. — Reuters

There are numerous other suits being contested. MAGA is making noises about possibly defying or ignoring legal injunctions. It hasn’t happened yet but the writing is on the wall, although what action could be taken in response, and by whom, is far from clear. (Wouldn’t it be great to see Musk arrested and taken into custody for contempt of court?) Trump and Musk are utterly and flagrantly in breach of accepted practice and constitutional norms, they’re far outstripping the so-called ‘check and balances’ in the system by simply trampling them.

Second, the judicial system has (had?) great authority, but it doesn't have great power. — BC

So their power just came down to respect for rule of law? What about the National Guard?

The National Guard is integrated into the Federal command structure. States have some authority toward mobilization but not an override of Executive decisions.

What happened on the 'Valentine's Day Massacre' at the NSAA is typical of the reckless endangerment of critical Government programs through the haphazard mass firings of employees and the chaos that will ensue. Because in this case the subject was radioactive materials and nuclear weapons, DOGE/MAGA quickly backtracked and withdrew the sackings. The same about-face won't happen for other vital but lower-profile agencies, such as food safety, weather forecasting, and social security, because, who cares? They're all sucking off the public teat, that money would be far better directed to tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

Amid the tumult of mass firings, the Trump administration’s dismissal of workers who maintain America’s nuclear weapons delivered perhaps the greatest shock. These are people with highly sensitive jobs, the Energy Department would later acknowledge, who should have never been fired.

Almost all the workers were rehired in an embarrassing about-face, a prominent example of how the administration has had to reverse dismissals in multiple instances where its scattershot approach caused deeper damage to agencies than anticipated.

Yet late the night before Valentine’s Day, the Trump administration perfunctorily fired 17 percent of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s workforce, over the strenuous objections of senior nuclear officials.

The employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration are stewards of a sprawling government system that keeps 5,000 nuclear warheads secure and ready. They make sure radiation doesn’t leak, weapons don’t mistakenly detonate and plutonium doesn’t get into the wrong hands.

“The president said workers critical to national security would be exempt from the firings. But then there was an active decision to say these positions are not critical to national security,” said an official at the nuclear agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals. “It is so absurd I don’t even know what to say.”

The episode proved to be among the biggest blunders of Trump’s first weeks in office as he deployed the blunt instrument of the U.S. DOGE Service, overseen by billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk, to radically slash government payrolls. (Gift link) — DOGE Fires, then Recalls, Workers Essential to Maintenance of US Nuclear Weapons

These GSA cuts undercut the support for the digital platform of Social Security accounts.

That sucks after pretty much having to sign up to maintain contact with what the agency says is the balance of payment.

If an executive at the federal or state level decides to carry out unconstitutional acts, a court can not summon the army to force them to cease and desist. The court has federal Marshalls, and possibly local police, and sheriffs. True, there are sanctions, contempt of court declarations, and so on but these substantially depend on willing cooperation. — BC

Let's face it. Law that cannot be enforced is dead letter. Government that does not respect the law is tyranny. What next?

Nothing is next. There is no next. That’s the point!

Let's face it. Law that cannot be enforced is dead letter. Government that does not respect the law is tyranny. What next? — Ludwig V

This is why the US is broken. No laws seem to have any effect on the people in power. It doesn't matter how many times lawyers, officials, police, artists or philosophers point towards laws being broken or manipulated.

If the law doesn't have any effect on people abusing their power against the citizens and nation, and no one who's on the side of enforcing the law does anything to uphold the law; the only action left is to remove the power abusers by force.

It's either that, or accept being ruled by these abusers. This is a pretty binary choice for the people. The French at the end of the 18th century could have just accepted the status quo... or not.

Nothing is next. There is no next. That’s the point! — Wayfarer

Do you mean that I'm caricaturing the situation and there are good reasons for saying that things are not so simple as I represent them? I wouldn't argue with that. But things do seem to be heading that way.
Do you mean that there is no alternative to using legal and democratic means to remove such a Government? I devoutly hope that such means will work. But they don't seem to be working yet.

If the law doesn't have any effect on people abusing their power against the citizens and nation, and no one who's on the side of enforcing the law does anything to uphold the law; the only action left is to remove the power abusers by force.
It's either that, or accept being ruled by these abusers. This is a pretty binary choice for the people. The French at the end of the 18th century could have just accepted the status quo... or not. — Christoffer

Yes, that's the choice. Though there's good reason to think that the French were too disunited to make a collectivve decision and it was more a matter of who won the war. That's the nightmare waiting at the bottom of the cliff. Perhaps the law will get there in the end.

Yes, that's the choice. Though there's good reason to think that the French were too disunited to make a collectivve decision and it was more a matter of who won the war. That's the nightmare waiting at the bottom of the cliff. Perhaps the law will get there in the end. — Ludwig V

I think that the problem that has occurred in our modern times is that the materialistic and individualistic lifestyle programmed people into being too disjointed to ever mount any form of pressure that amounts to anything but some small protests on the street outside of people in power who couldn't give a shit what "lesser people" says about them.

Society has essentially programmed away the people's sense of community identity, programmed away any revolutionary spirit that could amount to actual threats against people in power. And while some would point at Jan 6th, there's clearly a difference between people in power rallying uneducated manipulated and indoctrinated people to be meat spears in trying to conduct a coup, to that of the people themselves rallying against people in power in order to fight for a better life and not being abused by these people.

Revolution, even by force, does not have to be bloody. The force can also be not to comply with what the enforcers of the people in power inflict on them. Just look at Gandhi's revolution.

If enough people were to occupy places in a way that the state stops functioning properly, in opposition towards the ruling government, then when the government turns to violence, every drop of blood from the people will be a loss for those currently in power.

If everyone who oppose Trump were to organize for something like this, it would have an effect.

But the people won't do it.

If there's anything I hate more than dictators and abusers of power, it's the apathy of the people just doing nothing. Just turn inwards into their own echo chamber, into the comfort of social media spaces were they can complain about everything in a way that makes no difference whatsoever.

Apathetic people deserve any abuse that people in power inflict on them as their apathy rolled out the carpet for this abuse.

The National Guard is integrated into the Federal command structure. States have some authority toward mobilization but not an override of Executive decisions. — Paine

I hadn't realized that the SCOTUS' authority was backed by the executive branch. So the SCOTUS actually has no power over the executive. That means we were never too far from dictatorship. All it takes is an executive with the will to ignore the SCOTUS, and a legislative branch that's behind the executive. Voila.

Revolution, even by force, does not have to be bloody. The force can also be not to comply with what the enforcers of the people in power inflict on them. Just look at Gandhi's revolution. — Christoffer

I'm hoping something like that will happen. Non-violent civil disobedience. As you say, it can be a powerful force.

Apathetic people deserve any abuse that people in power inflict on them as their apathy rolled out the carpet for this abuse. — Christoffer

They may change their minds. But it needs organization. Perhaps it's happening somewhere - quietly.

I hadn't realized that the SCOTUS' authority was backed by the executive branch. So the SCOTUS actually has no power over the executive. That means we were never too far from dictatorship. All it takes is an executive with the will to ignore the SCOTUS, and a legislative branch that's behind the executive. Voila. — frank

It looks as if there's a flaw in the Constitution!

So their power just came down to respect for rule of law? What about the National Guard? — frank

Well, the National Guard is there, along with other parts of the civil and military establishment constituting the government, but it is part of the executive branch of government, which is the branch which might be presently willing to flout the judicial branch.

Some actions of the Trump administration may be unconstitutional, and challenges have been filed in various lower federal courts and they in turn have issued decisions. BUT, that's just the first step in judicial action. Court decisions in these matters will be appealed to higher courts, on up to the top.

Chaos was intended here, and there have been so many questionable actions, so many suits filed, that it is difficult to determine where we are at this point. Trump has currently been in power for only 40 odd days, so clearly his demolition operation is just getting started.

As you know, the Republican Party has majority control of both houses of congress. That's another factor limiting intervention. Not at all incidentally, Trump isn't the only destructive actor here. Senator Mitch McConnell engineered the senate's refusal to take up Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS, claiming it was too late in the administration to act on it--an entirely specious refusal. McConnell helped create the conservative court majority.

Then, of course, the voters who put a conservative majority in both houses of Congress and a loose cannon in the Presidency, are also responsible for where we are.

Revolution, even by force, does not have to be bloody. The force can also be not to comply with what the enforcers of the people in power inflict on them. Just look at Gandhi's revolution — Christoffer

Remember that Gandhi began his non-violent efforts in South Africa in 1906, and in India in 1920, achieving success (in ending British rule of India) in 1947. It took time and on-going efforts. Even fairly small-scale domestic resistance in the United States has been spasmodic, without successfully building any sort of on-going resistance movement.

Between 500,000 and a million people demonstrated against the Vietnam war on November 15, 1969 in Washington (I was there). It was peaceful, orderly, brief and inspiring. President Nixon was reportedly enraged by the demonstrations, but not so disturbed that he moved to end the war (which ended in 1975 in defeat).

The American Civil Rights movement started in 1954 and achieved legislative success in 1968. This was a more sustained, intensive effort than the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Point is: focussed resistance takes years to achieve success. Had anti-Trumpist organizing began in 2015 and continued, we'd be farther ahead in the game. Instead, a lot of us figured Trump was a one-off aberration who was finished well and good in 2020. Alas...

Nothing is next. There is no next. That’s the point!
— Wayfarer
Do you mean that I'm caricaturing the situation and there are good reasons for saying that things are not so simple as I represent them? I wouldn't argue with that. But things do seem to be heading that way. — Ludwig V

No, I mean that if a real authoritarianism sets in, there will be no way to overturn it by democratic means. Remember Trump said during the campaign if you voted for him this time you wouldn’t have to vote again in the future.

It is the U.S. Marshalls who enforce court orders as well as 'contempt of congress' actions.

When a federal court imposes contempt sanctions, the U.S. Marshals Service enforces the order, including arresting persons ordered imprisoned for contempt. The U.S. Marshals Service is an executive branch agency within the Department of Justice. Some commentators have expressed concerns that, if the executive branch chose to defy a court order, it might also seek to prevent the U.S. Marshals from enforcing contempt sanctions. The U.S. Marshals are required by statute to “execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States,” and the President’s pardon power does not apply to civil contempt sanctions. The 2018 review of contempt against the federal government notes that, historically, Presidents have complied with federal court orders and have not directed the U.S. Marshals not to enforce contempt orders. — CRS Reports

In the case of impeachment, Congress has more power than Courts because they can strip away the authority of the President altogether. Any officials who obeyed such a person after that would be committing straight up sedition.

The Founders did not figure on a Legislative Branch no longer jealous of their power.

Well, the National Guard is there, along with other parts of the civil and military establishment constituting the government, but it is part of the executive branch of government, which is the branch which might be presently willing to flout the judicial branch. — BC

I get that. But do I remember right that when the South Korean President tried to go unconstitutional, the Army just refused to obey his orders? Thus avoiding a heap of anguish and likely bloodshed. But I guess they know from personal experience what authoritarian rule means.

Court decisions in these matters will be appealed to higher courts, on up to the top. — BC

Quite so. If it was just a question of time, it would be OK. Sort of. But we are talking about wholesale institutional capture here, so a long-drawn-out process risks being frustrated. Do you think it will work otu in the end?

Point is: focussed resistance takes years to achieve success. Had anti-Trumpist organizing began in 2015 and continued, we'd be farther ahead in the game. Instead, a lot of us figured Trump was a one-off aberration who was finished well and good in 2020. Alas... — BC

Well, I hope there are some people who are thinking long-term about this.

No, I mean that if a real authoritarianism sets in, there will be no way to overturn it by democratic means. Remember Trump said during the campaign if you voted for him this time you wouldn’t have to vote again in the future. — Wayfarer

In hindsight, there was a wonderful ambiguity about that. Did he mean that he couldn't run again? Or something else? It could bear a quite different interpretation now. Though Trump still has plausible deniability.

Doesn't the history of the USA show that democracy may need to be set up by non-democratic means? Other democratic countries have more complicated stories, but I'm pretty sure that none of them established democracy by democratic means. Even Gandhi's non-violent campaign had to face violence.
There are paradoxes around this, to be sure. But it is clear, isn't it, that if authoritarianism sets in, there will be some dreadful decisions to be made by each citizen?

See the Trump thread.

when the South Korean President tried to go unconstitutional, the Army just refused to obey his orders — Ludwig V

In a top-down response, the military could refuse to obey an illegal order. It could conceivably refuse to obey a legal but unpalatable order. We don't have enough contemporary experience to judge how likely it is that the military will reject a civilian-originated order. The military does have some autonomy; after all, they are THE FORCE, so who would stop them?

Do you think it will work out in the end? — Ludwig V

It will absolutely "work out" in the end, for better or worse. I don't know whether bad resolution will come about or not, or how bad "bad" might be.

I hope there are some people who are thinking long-term about this — Ludwig V

There are people who have been thinking about this. Unfortunately, the thinkers haven't been in a position to do much about it. For example: Noam Chomsky has been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but Chomsky has never run a campaign to put his observations into effect -- or to even suggest what 'we the people' listening to him ought to do. Some scholars of fascism have published important books; it's up to the readers to act, or not.

if authoritarianism sets in, there will be some dreadful decisions to be made by each citizen? — Ludwig V

It has already set in, and not just in the last few weeks. We have seen drift towards authoritarianism in various parts of our culture. For instance, there are workplaces that are run under authoritarian terms. Police forces are more and less authoritarian depending on the demographic being policed. United States History reveals numerous episodes of tyranny conducted by supposedly democratic agents and agencies. On the list: enslavement of Africans; genocide of aboriginal people; the entire confederacy; post-reconstruction vengeance on blacks; Jim Crow laws; ruthless suppression of labor and unionism; McCarthyism; COINTELPRO (FBI infiltration and disruption of leftist organizations); Watergate; and on and on.

You are quite right: Citizens will have to make inconvenient to dreadfully difficult decisions. I am grateful that I am old and may die of natural causes before I am asked to make dreadful choices. On the other hand, I might not die quite quick enough.

This is why the US is broken. No laws seem to have any effect on the people in power. — Christoffer

Can I please know from what position you're watching this film? It's not one i've seen. Definitely not a documentary.

In case this was missed...


Things really are bad. It's different from last time. The damage being done here is permanent for a few reasons.

....Even if you refuse to accept the unapologetic pivot to a fascist Russian modeled mob kleptocracy, the US is fucked. For decades.