Are Democrats Falling Into Musk's Trap?

Occasionally, Co-President Donald Trump makes news by saying something so outlandish that it is impossible to ignore (like calling for all the Gazans to be removed from Gaza so he can develop it into the Trump Riviera), but increasingly, the other co-president, Elon Musk, seems to be actually running the show. And he is very clever, something co-president #1 is not. In particular, it looks like Musk set a trap for Democrats and, sure enough, they all ran headfirst into it.

The trap was abolishing USAID, which doles out foreign aid to poor countries. A good case can be made that foreign aid is more in the interest of the U.S. than of the recipient country because poor, unstable countries produce terrorists, as well as people desperate to escape to the U.S. at all costs. Keeping them out requires walls and a bigger border patrol and holding pens and more immigration judges and the cost of all that greatly exceeds the measly $40 billion in foreign aid that USAID distributes. However, most Americans don't understand this. They see "lots" of money (in reality, <1% of the federal budget) being given to foreign countries instead of being spent in America. Again, in reality, much of the money is spent in America, making products (food, medicine, blankets, etc.) that are shipped to the recipient country, thus creating jobs for Americans. Also, if the U.S. pulls back from helping these countries, China is sure to move in to fill the vacuum. But given the public perception that there is a lot of waste in the government, Musk cleverly picked foreign aid as his first battle. Many people approve of getting rid of it. Going after the Department of Education first would have been dumb since many people think schools are actually a good idea.

Sure enough, as soon as Musk made his move, Democrats rallied around saving USAID. Look:

When long-time Democratic strategist David Axelrod was asked whether Democrats were "walking into a trap" on foreign aid, he said: "My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: 'Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight.' When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: 'Cut foreign aid.'" Former White House chief of staff, congressman, mayor of Chicago, and ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel said: "You don't fight every fight. You don't swing at every pitch. By gutting an unpopular program and then 'daring' the Democrats to defend it, Musk has put Democrats into a position of very visibly defending something most voters don't like." Even though Henry Clay was a Whig, not a Democrat, many Democrats have embraced his famous statement: "I'd rather be right than be president." Democrats who waste precious political capital on defending foreign aid may be right, but they are not going to be president.

This is not to say the Democrats should have rolled over and played dead. What they could have done is vociferously oppose Musk on the grounds that Congress, not the Executive Branch, not Trump, and certainly not Musk and his band of 20-something hackers, has the constitutional right to decide how the government spends its money. It doesn't matter if USAID is a worthy organization or not. If it isn't, it is up to Congress to cut it, not Musk. The idea of an unelected businessman personally deciding to override laws passed by Congress is a much bigger deal than whether USAID is worth the $40 billion. But this is a "process" argument, and many people aren't moved by "process" arguments, even if the argument is: "Didn't Donald Trump take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to have his sidekick subvert it?"

A few Democrats get it. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said: "The emergency is now. We need to act like it. This isn't about any particular program or the theater criticism that substitutes for strategy. This is about making sure these billionaires are not able to loot the federal government and strip it for parts." The Democrats should have effectively ignored the agency's specific mission and focused on a private businessman usurping Congress' constitutional role. (V)

Has Musk Violated (M)any Laws?

With the blessing of Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Elon Musk has been given the power—but not the legal authority—to control the federal government's payment system through which $6 trillion worth of payments flow every year. This move has stoked widespread alarm that Musk has already violated the Privacy Act, cybersecurity laws, and other laws. Alan Butler of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said: "The scale here is unprecedented in terms of the risk to sensitive personal and financial information. It's an absolute nightmare." Mary Ellen Callahan, former Chief Privacy Officer at the Department of Homeland Security, was apoplectic. She said: "If we lose control of that data, we've lost control forever." Alex Joel, an adjunct professor of law at American University, said of Musk's personal decision to kill off USAID despite Congress having created and funded the agency: "I think it's the most clearly unconstitutional act that he's doing."

It's not just the payment system that Musk and his band of hackers have commandeered. They also have taken over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and sent out a mass mailing offering an early buyout to federal employees who want to quit. The only problem here (OK, the most obvious problem here) is that Congress has not authorized or funded any such buyout. Also, a lawsuit alleges that Musk ordered a private e-mail server to be set up in the office controlled by his band of merry young men. Private e-mail server? Private e-mail server? We read about that once somewhere a few years ago. We forget where, though. But we vaguely recall some people saying it was a security problem.

What Musk clearly understands is that laws are not self-enforcing. In a modern government (or corporation, as well) control of the IT systems is really the key to controlling the beast. If you are old enough, you might remember photos of some revolutionary guerilla group in some distant country claiming victory when they captured the TV station in the capital. A modern version of a coup is not capturing the TV station, but capturing the government's computers. That has been done now, so the rest should be easy.

A story in Wired reports that a 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez working for Musk has acquired root access and can log in from his notebook computer (via ssh—secure shell) to two of the most sensitive government systems, the Payment Automation Manager and the Secure Payment System, and change the code there, possibly making hidden, undocumented, and effectively irreversible changes while reporting to no one except Musk. Needless to say, this violates all kinds of privacy and security laws. If Musk has ordered Elez or anyone else in his band of kids to copy data from the federal systems onto their notebooks, that would violate another batch of privacy and security laws. One (anonymous) federal worker with a decade of cybersecurity experience in multiple federal agencies said that the actions of Musk and his allies violate both the spirit and letter of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and security controls established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for securing federal systems. The person further added: "These systems have now become untrusted, so once this is done and over, to have those systems back to the level of assurances they had on Jan. 20 will require a lot of work and a lot of resources." And, we might add: "a lot of time." (V)

Musk Might Save Ukraine

Let's be fair and balanced here. Elon Musk has done some iffy things (see above) but at least he cares about the people of Ukraine. However, he cares even more about the magnets used to power electric cars. These use rare earth elements with rare names like dysprosium, neodymium, samarium, and terbium. There are 17 rare earths but they are neither rare nor earths. They are found in low concentrations in many places (the low concentration makes it uneconomical to extract them), but in high concentrations in only a few places. Refining them in any concentration causes serious environmental damage. If you have forgotten this previously-not-so-important bit of high school chemistry, here is a short refresher course on rare earths.

Most rare earths now come from China, which doesn't care about the environmental impact of refining them. In a trade war, one pressure point China could apply is cutting off their exports. This would hit the electric car industry very hard. People who care about the fortunes of the electric car industry but who are wary of China are getting nervous. Fortunately, there is another country with large deposits of rare earths in high concentrations: Ukraine. If you see where this is going, you are smarter than the average bear.

Donald Trump, who doesn't know the difference between a piece of samarium and a samovar, is suddenly interested in making a deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: rare earths for weapons. He has no doubt been urged on by someone who can tell erbium from terbium blindfolded. Trump has long said he wants to end the war in Ukraine. However, if making a deal to get valuable rare earths he could give to (some of) his supporters prolongs the war by enabling Ukraine to continue to resist the Russian invasion, well, business is business, and Trump just loves making deals and then bragging about how great they are.

Making such a deal will not make Trump's next meeting with his buddy Vladimir P. go smoother, but again, business comes first, especially if the side effects of the deal include undercutting and weakening China and helping selected supporters. A Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that all the deal would do is make Ukraine pay for the weapons it gets instead of getting them for free. Sounds like sour cerium to us. (V)

Will Trump Be the New McKinley?

During his first term, Donald Trump's favorite president was Andrew Jackson, another populist who didn't pay much attention to the laws (or, famously, to the Supreme Court). Of course, Old Hickory defined what the Democratic Party was to become, but no one is perfect.

But Trump is fickle, and now his presidential love goes out to... William McKinley, not one of the all-time best-known and best-liked presidents (although he did get his own mountain). What's the deal with McKinley?

McKinley was a Republican, elected in 1896, reelected in 1900, and assassinated in 1901. McKinley did three things that Trump likes:

1. He imposed heavy tariffs on imports.
2. He expanded the U.S. territory.
3. He consolidated Republican control of government for 30 years.

These did come with some downsides, though. The tariffs caused inflation and were wildly unpopular, causing the Republicans to lose 19 seats (out of 348) in McKinley's first midterm. The U.S. did acquire The Philippines as a territory during his administration, after a 3-year war that cost many American lives. But McKinley's longest lasting achievement was realigning the country to become dominated by the Republicans for the next 30 years. Look at these presidential election maps:

Before 1900, elections were kind of mixed, but from 1900 to 1928 Republicans dominated everywhere outside the solid South, except during 1912 and 1916, when a bad split between traditional Republicans and Teddy Roosevelt's reformers allowed Woodrow Wilson to get elected with a plurality of the vote (42% in 1912; 49% in 1916). Republicans also dominated Congress in this period. It is this decades-long Republican control of the country that Trump wants as his legacy, so he is naturally attracted to a Republican president who pulled it off (and got his own mountain as a consequence).

Trump is not the only Republican since McKinley with this dream. After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush was immensely popular. His political genius, known as "Bush's brain," Karl Rove, foresaw decades of Republican domination. However, a botched war in Iraq, a botched response to Hurricane Katrina, and a recession in 2008 paved the way for Barack Obama. Stuff happens. Will Trump be as successful as McKinley? Maybe, but there are multiple factors working against this.

First, McKinley tried (successfully) to unite a country still reeling from the Civil War. Does anyone see Trump as trying to unite the country still reeling from the Culture War?

Second, after McKinley's assassination, Teddy Roosevelt took over. He was a charismatic and wildly popular president who solidified the unification of the nation. He cracked down on the big trusts and endorsed the income and estate taxes, much to the dismay of Big Business. He created a big-tent party. Trump's goal is to have a party that can get 50.01% of the vote. We can't imagine a successor, say J.D. Vance or Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), doing things that Big Business hates in order to please Democrats and bring them into the tent.

Third, the country is so polarized now that every presidential election comes down to at most a few hundred thousand votes in seven states. That is hardly a formula for an enduring majority. The country booted out the president's party in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Yet another flip in 2028 is certainly plausible if the Democrats can find the right candidate and especially if a split between a MAGA-man like Vance or DeSantis and a traditional Republican like Nikki Haley mirrors the Republicans' fracture of 1912.

Fourth, to a large extent, the Republican dominance now is due to what is basically a cult of personality around the person of Donald J. Trump. Republicans lost 42 seats in the House in 2018 because Trump wasn't on the ballot and his supporters didn't show up to vote. So far there is little evidence that Trump's supporters will automatically transfer to Vance, DeSantis, or any other Republican. Many of the marginal, low-information Trump voters who gave him victory in 2024 are Trumpians, not Republicans.

So while Trump may dream of Republican trifectas until deep into the 2050s, there is little reason to think that he can pull it off. Worse yet, if his administration is wildly unpopular for any reason (the economy, a war, or a surprise factor), that could lead to a Democratic trifecta as early as 2028. (V)

All Eyes Are on the Federal Courts Now

Democrats have no power at the federal level now (although they do at the state level). With blinding speed, Donald Trump has purged the DoJ of anyone who might challenge him, fired many of the inspectors general, and let Elon Musk and his small band of hackers take over the government's computers. The XOs and other orders are coming so fast, Democrats are getting dizzy. Their one hope is the federal courts. There the lawsuits are ramping up. The Democrats' hope is that judges, even Republican appointees, will put the law first.

Fortunately, some of the things Donald Trump has done are so blatantly illegal that Democrats could win some of the legal battles. For example, yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against Trump's XO that tries to overrule the Fourteenth Amendment. She wrote: "It has been said the right to U.S. citizenship is a right no less precious than life or liberty. If the court does not enjoin enforcement of the executive order, children subject to the order will be denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship and their parents will face instability." She also noted that the XO "conflicts with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment."

A federal judge in Washington State, John Coughenour, came to the same conclusion earlier. He wrote: "I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?" In the end, this case is going to end up in John Roberts' lap. Everything does. But this case is actually easy, at least from a legal perspective.

Another case where a judge has already ruled involves the XO stating that there are two sexes, determined at conception. One consequence of that is people who were born as men but now identify as women are now redefined as men. Under the Biden administration, people in this group who were convicted of federal crimes were housed in women's prisons. Trump's XO directs the Bureau of Prisons to move them to men's prisons. Three of them sued, although the Constitution doesn't really say a lot about where transgender prisoners are to serve their time. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the XO was likely unconstitutional. This was the second time a federal judge shot down the XO. It is estimated that about 2,230 transgender inmates are in federal custody. About 1,500 are trans women, most of whom are in men's prisons.

This is only the start. Virtually every XO will generate one or more lawsuits, and as usual, all of them are going to end up at the Supreme Court. Roberts may end up wondering why he even took the job. (V)

A Trip Through Trump Country

Reporter Daniel Allott traveled around Trump Country to see what motivated voters there. He discovered some interesting things.

One thing that has puzzled many political analysts about the 2024 election is why Trump did so well among young Black men—especially when the Democrats fielded a Black candidate. One of Allott's discoveries—and one we haven't seen much elsewhere—is that young Black men didn't think of Harris as the sitting vice president. They thought of her as the California AG who put a lot of young Black men in prison and was proud of it. She wanted to be seen as a law-and-order AG. It worked. Young Black men got the message. They didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Harris, to punish her. They aren't Republicans and might well have voted for Biden had he remained the candidate.

Others were just weary of politics and wanted a change. During the campaign, when Harris was asked if there was anything she would have done differently than Biden, she couldn't think of anything. That doesn't smell like change. People wanted change and Trump was the change candidate. The events of the past 2 weeks have indeed shown that Trump was the change candidate. Maybe not the change they were looking for, but change nevertheless.

Still another point is that people have very short memories. The Dobbs decision came down on June 24, 2022. Many people have already forgotten it. Trump barely mentioned abortion during the campaign and even said he would veto a nationwide abortion bill if Congress passed one. The result is that Harris built her campaign around abortion and swing voters didn't care.

One person said there was a "softening" toward Trump. He wasn't seen as so bad, really. Some people said we survived Trump v1.0 just fine, so why would Trump v2.0 be any different? Little did they know.

As an experiment, Allott put on a red MAGA hat and roamed around the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. He got a few unpleasant stares and one person yelled "sh**" but even there, in the People's Republic of Madison, everyone just seemed worn out. This could be the "softening" that someone mentioned. People can't keep up being outraged all the time—unless they watch Fox every evening.

One interesting visit was Howard County, IA. It was the only county in America to vote for Obama by over 20 points in 2012 and then for Trump by over 20 points in 2016. In 2024, Trump carried the county by 32 points. It is 99% white and very rural. Many people were bummed out because Obama didn't live up to his promises. That seems to be a burden Democrats have. When a Democrat promises something and doesn't do it, for example because Republicans control at least one chamber of Congress, the Democrat gets blamed for failing to keep his promise. When the same thing happens to Trump, people forgive him and say "At least he tried." Democrats don't get credit for trying. Think of Joe Biden not forgiving student loans, despite trying very hard and being shot down by the Supreme Court. (V)

Democratic AGs Warn Government Workers about the Buyout

We ran letters from career civil servants a few days ago about the "buyouts" Donald Trump is offering. Turns out there are a lot of strings attached. Now a coalition of 11 Democratic attorneys general, led by NY AG Letitia James, is warning people to be very cautious about taking the offer.

The group is warning people that the benefits may not be assured. James, in particular, said: "President Trump's so-called buyout offers are nothing more than the latest attack on federal workers and the services they provide." She urged federal workers to listen to their unions before making any decisions. Arizona AG Kris Mayes said the offer was "completely unreliable." Michigan AG Dana Nessel urged workers to "read the fine print" before signing. California AG Rob Bonta called the buyouts "a pointed attack aimed at dismantling our federal workforce and sowing chaos for Americans that rely on a functioning government." New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin took direct aim at Elon Musk: "President Trump has allowed an unelected billionaire with no constitutional authority to intimidate the civil servants who keep our government running in an attempt to push them out of their jobs."

This is not the first time Democratic AGs have banded together to oppose Trump. We suspect it won't be the last time, either. (V)

The Turtle in Winter

As more and more contentious and probably illegal and/or unconstitutional items come before the Senate, some senators are looking at Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for guidance. He is no longer the minority or majority leader of the Republican conference, but he has a lot of experience and despises Donald Trump. Those Republican senators who are at least a little bit concerned about what is best for the country may be interested in his views on things. Of course, there are increasingly few of those.

McConnell voted against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense and has questioned the views of other nominees. He believes tariffs are bad policy and wants a robust defense budget, with plenty of military aid for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. He is clearly swimming upstream in the modern GOP though.

McConnell has become something of an institutional historian, telling newer members how things used to be. But for newer and Trumpier members, he is just a historical curiosity. He likes to wax philosophical, trying to impart some wisdom to his colleagues. Wisdom is in short supply in the Senate now, but there is also not so much demand either.

McConnell and Trump have had a testy relationship for years, in no small part on account of Trump saying racist things about McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, who has served in multiple cabinets. But McConnell is generally liked by most Republican senators. One of them, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), even named his dog Mitch.

Yesterday, McConnell fell while leaving the Senate. Aides got him back on his feet. Then he fell again during the conference's lunch meeting. Later he moved around the Capitol in a wheelchair. This is just the most recent health problem he has had. We can't imagine him running for reelection in 2026. The sooner he announces this, the sooner the race to replace him can go public. Under the radar, it is already going on, of course. (V)

Few Politicians Are Popular

A Gallup poll taken Jan. 21-27 asked U.S. adults whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of various politicians. Most politicians were not viewed favorably, except Robert Kennedy Jr., Marco Rubio, and Hakeem Jeffries. Broken down by partisanship, here are the results for Republican politicians:

	Republicans		Independents		Democrats		All
Republican	Fav.	Unfav.	Fav.	Unfav.	Fav.	Unfav.	Net fav.
Robert Kennedy Jr.	80%	12%	43%	36%	19%	70%	+8%
Marco Rubio	67%	9%	36%	35%	23%	55%	+8%
John Thune	52%	4%	25%	23%	10%	47%	+3%
J.D. Vance	87%	4%	38%	39%	7%	78%	+2%
Mike Johnson	65%	9%	32%	36%	15%	58%	+1%
Tulsi Gabbard	50%	12%	24%	28%	12%	39%	+1%
Donald Trump	93%	7%	47%	49%	7%	92%	-2%
Elon Musk	83%	9%	38%	48%	11%	85%	-4%
Pete Hegseth	51%	11%	16%	26%	4%	50%	-7%

When the favorable + unfavorable ratings are less than 100%, the remaining people didn't have an opinion. Much of this is predictable, such as Republicans loving Trump and Democrats hating him, but there are a few surprises. Independents like Kennedy but don't like Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, and Pete Hegseth. The message here to Democrats is to pound on Musk as being a huge danger to the country. There is potential here that it will stick. If Musk manages to hang on until, say, next January, the Democrats could run on an "Eat the billionaires" platform, with Musk as the poster boy. It could work.

Now on to the Democrats:

	Republicans		Independents		Democrats		All
Democrat	Fav.	Unfav.	Fav.	Unfav.	Fav.	Unfav.	Net fav.
Hakeem Jeffries	11%	56%	30%	27%	68%	4%	+7%
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez	4%	76%	24%	40%	66%	5%	-10%
Kamala Harris	6%	91%	38%	56%	87%	11%	-11%
Chuck Schumer	8%	77%	27%	43%	67%	14%	-12%
Nancy Pelosi	7%	89%	26%	58%	72%	20%	-23%

It is interesting that Hakeem Jeffries is the only Democrat above water. This is probably because Republicans have not targeted him intensely, as they have all the others. His favorables among Republicans soar at 11% while his unfavorables are a mere 56%. Also noteworthy is that 20% of Democrats don't like Pelosi, probably mostly progressives. After all, she tried to get stuff done. She knew no progressive bills could ever pass Congress, so she never tried. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger