What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Syt]

Trump says he'll send feds into Chicago and Baltimore:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-chicago-baltimore-law-enforcement-6d7c80258f17c3d679358467531f7e9d

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he will direct federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition from state and local officials in both cities.

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, Trump said, "We're going in," but added, "I didn't say when."

"I have an obligation," the president said. "This isn't a political thing."

Trump has already sent National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., and federalized the police force in the nation's capital. More recently, he has said he plans similar moves in other cities, particularly those run by Democratic officials.

The president praised Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser for working with federal forces, but criticized Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who has said crime in Chicago doesn't require federal intervention.

Trump said he'd love to have Pritzker call and say, "Send in the troops" — even though the governor has repeatedly said he won't be doing that.

"If the governor of Illinois would call up, call me up, I would love to do it," Trump said. "Now, we're going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it."

Pritzker deemed Trump's comments to call him for help as "unhinged."

"No, I will not call the president asking him to send troops to Chicago," he said at his downtown Chicago office. "I've made that clear already."


Trump also said he has an "obligation to protect this country, and that includes Baltimore." Local officials there have joined Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore in similarly opposing federal law enforcement intervention.

Trump said his efforts in Washington have ensured it "is now a safe zone. We have no crime."

The White House announced separately Tuesday that more than 1,650 people have been arrested since the Trump administration first mobilized federal officials on Aug. 7.

"And this city was really bad," Trump said. He said, "we're really proud of" federal efforts to curb crime in Washington.

[Syt]

Also, Pentagon says they'll send 600 lawyers to act as "temporary immigration judges."

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-immigration-judges-trump-pete-hegseth-b07950833591270b926ad86ede8b961f

[Admiral Yi]

Fine, it's fascists vs. decent people

Not all non-fascists are decent people.

[Tamas]

Fine, it's fascists vs. decent people

Not all non-fascists are decent people.

Irrelevant to my point. No I will not explain why.

[Neil]

Yeah, I tend to agree.

Which then raises the question of what has driven - and drives - such value changes.

My slight counter to that is that I think all through American history there is a very strong, and perhaps distincitvely American, tradition of isolationist, nativist, protectionist, populist, paranoid, conspiratorial politics. The champions and parties shift over time - they're not always the same and they rarely win high office. But it runs through the 19th century and the early 20th century like a stick of rock - it is the heart of the old right. At the less reputable end it's America First, more respectably it's Robert Taft.

I don't think it's for nothing that the second the wall falls you have Pat Buchanan running on exactly that type of "paleocon" style platform against George Bush Sr (who, of course, referred to a "new world order") and I think some of that energy also feeds into Perot.

I think it's less that values changed but that the external threat of the Soviet Union and communism disappeared and that acted as a discipling force for the vast majority of the American elite and their politics. I think you also see that also in the "bipartisanship" that is often mourned now, but also the fairer split of the shares between labour and capital. There was an external big bad to fight - it's why I think Taft is so interesting because he was running in the Republican primary in 48 or 52 running on an anti-NATO, return to interwar American isolationism. I think it's key that he is defeated because without that I don't think you get the bipartisanship or the related commitment to an American world order based on its alliances.

This is actually a pretty good idea.  The association of the right with a forward and muscular defence policy is something of a historical oddity.  They've often been the party of isolation. 

[The Minsky Moment]

My slight counter to that is that I think all through American history there is a very strong, and perhaps distincitvely American, tradition of isolationist, nativist, protectionist, populist, paranoid, conspiratorial politics. The champions and parties shift over time - they're not always the same and they rarely win high office. But it runs through the 19th century and the early 20th century like a stick of rock - it is the heart of the old right. At the less reputable end it's America First, more respectably it's Robert Taft.

I mostly agree except that per my earlier post on this, I think the isolationist/nativist strain is distinguishable from the paranoid/conspiratorial.  There is definite overlap as the conspiracists also tend strongly to isolationism, but they are distinct roots and distinct manifestations.  In the 20th century, Coolidge and Taft were champions of the isolationist-nativist tendency but neither embodied or embraced the "paranoid style".

One notable feature of the conspiratorial strain is that historically it has never been dominant.  Its influence has waxed and waned but it never commanded any branch of government. In 2017-2020, Trump took power as a sheer opportunist and except for the very end, the internationalists were mostly in the drivers' seat.  What is unique about the present moment is that it appears to be the first historical moment where the conspiratorial strain has become dominant, as the main animating force at the White House and with strong influence in Congress.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump says he'll send feds into Chicago and Baltimore:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-chicago-baltimore-law-enforcement-6d7c80258f17c3d679358467531f7e9d

it's frustrating that the press keeps falling for the BS narratives.

Trump did not "federalize" the DC police force.  He said he was going to do it, got sued immediately and quickly backed down (within 48 hrs) confirming DC control because of the obvious lack of any legal authority.  The "federal" effort in DC consisted of National Guardsmen doing photo ops in low crime areas of the city and some FBI guys dinging the citizenry for minor pot offenses and violation of DC carry laws.

Since federal authority is even weaker in the states, expect less of the same.  This is just another example of running the presidency as a reality show, with Trump playing the role of someone playing the role of being President as opposed to actually doing the job.

[Admiral Yi]

"But a provision of the Home Rule Act, called Section 740, allows the president to take control of the police department for 30 days during an emergency."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-take-control-washington-fight-citys-crime-2025-08-12/

[Sheilbh]

I mostly agree except that per my earlier post on this, I think the isolationist/nativist strain is distinguishable from the paranoid/conspiratorial.  There is definite overlap as the conspiracists also tend strongly to isolationism, but they are distinct roots and distinct manifestations.  In the 20th century, Coolidge and Taft were champions of the isolationist-nativist tendency but neither embodied or embraced the "paranoid style".

One notable feature of the conspiratorial strain is that historically it has never been dominant.  Its influence has waxed and waned but it never commanded any branch of government. In 2017-2020, Trump took power as a sheer opportunist and except for the very end, the internationalists were mostly in the drivers' seat.  What is unique about the present moment is that it appears to be the first historical moment where the conspiratorial strain has become dominant, as the main animating force at the White House and with strong influence in Congress.

That's a fair correction. I agree with that - I think they are separate strands that shift over time (although the isolationist/nativist is pretty solidly in the tradition of what is now the Republican party) in slightly constellations. They're not necessary a package

One slight challenge/question is on your last point which may be answer. Because it seems to me that Coolidge and Taft a period of intensely weird, fevered conspiratorial politics in response to FDR and the New Deal. And perhaps that's because that strain comes to the fore in moments of weakness and what is unusual now is that it is happening at a point of political strength.

A further thing just to add on your earlier comment about Buckley - I've not read the new biography of him, which I'm looking forward to. But I understand that one of the arguments it engages in is whether we should believe Buckley's own narrative (and the "official" narrative of American conservatism) that he was gamekeeper of movement conservatism: gradually pushing the scope of "acceptable" opinion to the right but in part through rigorously policing the boundaries. Because I believe the other argument is that you look at who he published in National Review, or some of his own attitudes and pieces and the question is the extent to which he was less gamekeeper than smoothing off the edges of the more cranky and weird pre-war old right into something presentably mid-century. He expelled the Birchers, he also defended himself against the charge of being anti-Bircher pointing out that his mother was a member of the John Birch Society. (As ever - answer is, inevitably, probably both "...there was continuity AND change...")

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I tend to agree.

Which then raises the question of what has driven - and drives - such value changes.

My slight counter to that is that I think all through American history there is a very strong, and perhaps distincitvely American, tradition of isolationist, nativist, protectionist, populist, paranoid, conspiratorial politics. The champions and parties shift over time - they're not always the same and they rarely win high office. But it runs through the 19th century and the early 20th century like a stick of rock - it is the heart of the old right. At the less reputable end it's America First, more respectably it's Robert Taft.

I don't think it's for nothing that the second the wall falls you have Pat Buchanan running on exactly that type of "paleocon" style platform against George Bush Sr (who, of course, referred to a "new world order") and I think some of that energy also feeds into Perot.

I think it's less that values changed but that the external threat of the Soviet Union and communism disappeared and that acted as a discipling force for the vast majority of the American elite and their politics. I think you also see that also in the "bipartisanship" that is often mourned now, but also the fairer split of the shares between labour and capital. There was an external big bad to fight - it's why I think Taft is so interesting because he was running in the Republican primary in 48 or 52 running on an anti-NATO, return to interwar American isolationism. I think it's key that he is defeated because without that I don't think you get the bipartisanship or the related commitment to an American world order based on its alliances.

We've always called the certain strain of American foreign policy "isolationist", but that's not really accurate.  Switzerland and Sweden are isolationist.  The US was more unilateralist.  The so-called Isolationists in the US didn't want the US to stop interfering with other countries within it's sphere of influence.  They didn't want the US to be a situation where other countries could influence the US.  What they opposed was the US working with other countries as equals.

[The Minsky Moment]

"But a provision of the Home Rule Act, called Section 740, allows the president to take control of the police department for 30 days during an emergency."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-take-control-washington-fight-citys-crime-2025-08-12/

Like I said, the press keeps falling for the BS narrative.

Section 740 does not allow the Feds to seize control of the DC police. It empowers the President, in case of emergency, to direct the DC Mayor to make the DC police available to provide the services of the DC police for federal purposes.  It doesn't allow the President to replace the chief of police and direct local law enforcement.

The Mayor and the DC police immediately challenged the improper use of Section 740 and the White House caved; they returned control back to the DC police chief.

[grumbler]

"But a provision of the Home Rule Act, called Section 740, allows the president to take control of the police department for 30 days during an emergency."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-take-control-washington-fight-citys-crime-2025-08-12/

That is incorrect.  The president can, in an emergency and for 30 days, require the DC police department to provide specific services to the Federal government, but he cannot take control of the DC police department (as the courts instantly ruled). Reuters was just suckered into repeating bogus administration claims rather than doing the research.

[crazy canuck]

Vance says he is ready to take over (read eager to do so)

[Syt]

Vance says he is ready to take over (read eager to do so)

I find him more odious than Trump, tbh. Trump is a self-serving narcissist opportunist with authoritarian impulseses. Looking at Jack Daniels Vance's CV he is an opportunist, too, IMHO, but more of a "true believer" than Trump when it comes to culture wars and reshaping America, a savvier, slightly less creepy Stephen Miller. He doesn't seem to have the same populist pull as Trump, but that doesn't mean he can't do plenty of damage.

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwywjgynyxo

Trump says 11 killed in US strike on drug-carrying vessel from Venezuela

President Donald Trump says the US has carried out a strike against a drug-carrying vessel in the southern Caribbean, killing 11 "Narcoterrorists".

He posted on social media that Tuesday's US military operation had targeted members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

Trump said the vessel was in international waters and was transporting illegal narcotics bound for the US.

The Trump administration has ratcheted up military and political pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in recent weeks, including through a $50m (£37m) reward for information leading to his arrest on drug-trafficking charges. Maduro has vowed Venezuela would fight any attempted US military intervention.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said that US forces had "shot out" a "drug-carrying boat" in the vicinity of Venezuela.

"A lot of drugs in that boat," he said.

Trump added he had been briefed on the incident by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine.

Later the president posted on his Truth Social platform: "Earlier this morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility."

He added: "The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!"

His post was accompanied by a grainy aerial video showing a motor boat speeding across choppy waters before it bursts into flames.

In a social media post, Venezuela's Communications Minister, Freddy Nanez, suggested, without evidence, that the video shared by Trump was created with artificial intelligence.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a post on X that "today the US military conducted a lethal strike in the southern Carribean against a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela and was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organisation".

It is so far unclear what drugs the vessel was believed to have been carrying.

Since returning to the White House in January, the Trump administration has designated several drug-trafficking organisations and criminal groups in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America as terrorist organisations.

Among them are Tren de Aragua and another Venezuelan group the "Cartel of the Suns", which US authorities allege is headed by President Maduro and other high-ranking government officials, some drawn from the country's military or intelligence services.

The US military has moved to bolster its forces in the southern Caribbean over the last two months, including through the deployment of additional naval vessels and thousands of US Marines and sailors.

The Trump administration has repeatedly signalled a willingness to use force to stem the flow of drugs into the US.

"There's more where that came from," Trump said of the strike on the vessel.

Venezuela's government has reacted angrily to the deployments.

On Monday, for example, Maduro vowed to "declare a republic in arms" if the US attacked, adding that the American deployments are "the greatest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years".

So, is narcoterrorism a thing now?