Limiting Trump

Here are four out of a number of articles detailing how aspects of the governing system - both internal and external - are limiting efforts of the Trump Administration to quickly implement its goals.

I've mentioned in class that inertia is built into the constitutional system, here's proof.

1 - Lawfare: Bannon in Washington: A Report on the Incompetence of Evil.

Steve Bannon has proved himself to be so monumentally incompetent that I am fairly certain the Republic is safer than I could have believed three weeks ago, at least from Bannon’s flailing efforts to maximize whatever supposed contradictions he believes he has identified.

Bannon isn’t an arch-villain. And he’s not the guy who’s going to destroy American democracy. Instead, as I’ll explain, he’s just an internet troll.

Bannon’s ineptitude has become clear in the context of his role at the center of the refugee order’s botched writing and rollout—strangely, the same context out of which emerged the portrait of him as the sinister, all-knowing eminence grise. To paraphrase Benjamin Wittes, the executive order was both deeply malevolent and profoundly incompetent.

. . . it’s very hard to dismantle major democratic institutions without a certain degree of capability. The establishment of authoritarianism takes both effort and cunning. And I’m much less worried than I was that these folks have the kind of cunning and focus it would take to take down the American experiment.

And for that I say, thanks, Steve Bannon.

2 - Lawfare: The Real Constitutional Danger.

The real story in the last week, and indeed of the Trump presidency, is (as predicted) how well our constitutional checks and balances are working in reaction to an unorthodox, norm-breaking, law-indifferent President. It is increasingly clear that the main danger in a Trump presidency is not that it will be too strong, but that it will be too weak.

In November I argued that “the permanent bureaucracy, including inspectors general and government lawyers; the press; civil society; Congress; and courts … will operate in much more robust fashion to check President Trump than they did to check President Obama,” and that “Trump’s seeming indifference to the rule of law and his pledges to act unlawfully will cause the checking institutions to judge all of his actions with much greater scrutiny and skepticism.” That is precisely what has happened.

3 - Washington Post: In the early weeks of the new administration, the humbling of a president.

For Trump, nothing has proved as easy as it might have looked on the campaign trail, despite the flurry of executive orders and actions that flowed from his desk in the first days after the inauguration. He has signaled a radically different direction for the country, but only that. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller’s claim that Trump has accomplished more in a few weeks than most presidents do in their entire administrations should be seen as the fanciful boast that it is. The record is only beginning to be written.

The powers of the president are vast, but they are not unlimited. Trump has come face to face with the checks and balances built into the Constitution and with the difficulty of commanding a huge bureaucracy of federal workers who value their role as public servants. He has seen anew the power of a free press to dig and report and hold those in power accountable. He has felt the power and sting of leaks from inside the government. There’s nothing new about any of this. It has been true for past presidents. Trump is learning the lesson painfully.

4 - The New Republic: Donald Trump Is on the Ropes.

Trump’s obsession with the leakers, and those who are eager to publish these leaks, is consistent with his longtime political strategy of demonizing the press and professional bureaucrats. The leaking issue allows him to pair these two alleged foes as a united enemy—a characterization his base will no doubt devour—and also allows him to have his cake and eat it, too: He can bemoan the “illegally given” information on the one hand, and then claim it’s all “fake news” anyway. Further, this obsession is also consistent with his propensity for conspiracy theories. The very anonymity of leakers makes it easy to portray them as shadowy conspirators plotting against him.

This isn’t just a matter of rhetoric, though. It’s also a reflection of Trump’s approach to governing. He’s being undermined by leakers because he doesn’t know how government works, is isolated and alienated from the professional bureaucracy, and has been slow in appointing his own people to key spots. The result is an utterly chaotic, confused administration—and where there’s chaos and confusion in government, there are usually leaks, too.

Obama's August 31st speech on Syria - and the people who helped shape it

Click for a transcript here.

In order to get a head start at a look at the White House Staff - which we will cover when we look at the section on Presidential Power - let's look at some of the people responsible for gathering the information contained in the speech.

The National Security Council: This group was created in the same piece of legislation that created the Department of Defense, among other things: "the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies."
- Click here for the White House page on the NSC

Some relevant news items:

Here's a look at the internal debate within the council about whether to strike against Syria, and whether to ask Congress for authorization.Here's a look at the NSC's attempt to brief members of Congress - especially the members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.

The NYT has links to past stories involving the NSC.

The National Security Advisor is the primary advisor to the president on security affairs and heads the NSC's staff - which collects the information and conducts the research that forms the basis for the advice sent to the president.

- Here's a wayback look at the NSC staff during the Clinton years.

Something to file away for later use: The NSC is just one of the may advisory institutions which allow presidents to manage the multiple functions carried out by the executive branch. More on this in a few weeks, but its useful right now in order to figure our where the president is getting the information that suggests that a tactical strike against Syria is the right thing to do in response to the  recent chemical attack.  

Obama appoints Susan Rice as national security adviser

From the NYT:

President Obama announced on Wednesday afternoon that Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, would replace Tom Donilon, who is resigning, as national security adviser in a major shakeup of his foreign-policy inner circle.

The appointment, which Mr. Obama made in a Rose Garden ceremony, puts Ms. Rice, 48, an outspoken diplomat and a close political ally, at the heart of the administration’s foreign-policy apparatus.

It is also a defiant gesture to Republicans who harshly criticized Ms. Rice for presenting an erroneous account of the deadly attacks on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya. The post of national security adviser, while powerful, does not require Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama also named Samantha Power, a National Security Council official, as Ms. Rice’s replacement at the United Nations. Ms. Power, who has written extensively about genocide, is closely allied with Ms. Rice on human rights issues.

What is the national security adviser?

. . . a senior official in the Executive Office of the President who serves as the chief advisor, stationed in the White House, to the President of the United States on national security issues. This person also participates in the meetings of the National Security Council. The National Security Advisor's office is located in the West Wing of the White House. He or she is supported by the National Security Council staff that produces research, briefings, and intelligence for the APNSA to review and present either to the National Security Council or directly to the President.

History of the National Security Council.

What does the National Security Adviser Do Exactly?

This isn't the most flattering portrayal of the recently resigned Jim Jones, but it helps us understand the role the position plays -- or can play -- within a presidential administration.

National Security Advisor Steps Down

More transitions in the White House Staff:

President Obama announced on Friday that Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, had resigned and will be replaced by Thomas E. Donilon, the principal deputy national security adviser.

In addition to directly advising the president, the NSA sits on the National Security Council in the Executive Office of the President.

- Wikipedia: National Security Advisor.
- Wikipedia: Thomas Donilon.

The National Security Council

Some recent news involving the National Security Council:

- A Call To Duty, Changes To Obama's National Security Staff
- Take the Obama War Council Quiz
- President Petraeus?

What National Security Advisers Do

They lobby for the president.

The adviser in question is Stephen J. Hadley and he does not seem to have been successful. He's attempted to reign in some of the Republican Senators who have begun questioning the success of the surge.

Troublesome concern: "Some senators were left with the impression that the White House still does not recognize the scope of the Iraq dilemma. Worse yet, they see the president running out the clock until April, when a depleted U.S. military will be blamed for the fiasco."

Let's hope it does not come to this.