thebulwark--2020-07-20--What We Know, and Don’t Know, About Portland and the DHS

In recent days the Department of Homeland Security has dispatched federal law enforcement officers to Portland , scene of more than 50 consecutive nights of protests , which have regularly included damage to the federal courthouse and other major buildings .
Oregon Public Broadcasting has reported one protester ’ s account of being pulled off the street by a group of federal officers in camouflage , carried off in a van , asked questions which he eventually refused to answer without an attorney , and later released without charges .
On Friday acting Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview with Sarah McCammon , and his answers help narrow down the still disputed allegations on events in Portland .
Cuccinelli ’ s comments confirm that what has been happening is disturbing , and badly needs oversight and investigation .
* Were federal agents operating incognito ?
Photos show agents clad in camouflage , with at least some of them wearing a generic “ POLICE ” label and in at least some cases a patch from the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Customs and Border Patrol .
DHS , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the separate Department of Justice ) , seems to have organized the federal law enforcement response .
What the federal agents are not wearing are badges that identify agents ’ names .
While local police practice may require the use of such identifiers , it may come as an unpleasant surprise for people to learn that federal law does not as a rule require federal law enforcers to wear them .
In a Friday tweet , Customs and Border Patrol official Mark Morgan acknowledged that the agents were not wearing name badges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect them from retaliation .
But he claimed that the officers did wear unique identifiers .
In one photograph , “ ZT1 ” is visible above an officer ’ s agency patch .
The practice in Portland echoed the events of June when the U.S. Department of Justice hastily organized employees from multiple agencies , including the Bureau of Prisons , to counter protests in Washington , D.C .
Many of these officers lacked not only badges but any insignia indicating which agency they belonged to .
It took days of press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basics on the record .
* Whose van is that ?
Unmarked police vehicles are not new .
In this case , however , it is alleged that the camo-clad teams are picking persons off the street , bundling them into unmarked vehicles , and driving them away from the scene .
In the NPR interview , Cuccinelli basically conceded the essentials of this allegation and defended the use of unmarked vans as a way “ to keep both the officers safe and also , when crowds gathered , to move people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are people being arrested for ?
In the absence of a warrant , an arrest can be made only for probable cause .
On Cuccinelli ’ s telling , the individuals are being arrested on probable cause of having committed crimes involving the federal courthouse in Portland .
In the episode related by OPB and most widely cited in the new reports , a protester named Mark Pettibone alleges that he was picked up at some distance from the courthouse , bundled into a van , and taken to a location for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courthouse itself .
Then , after Pettibone refused to answer further questions without a lawyer , he claims he was released after 90 minutes , without charges or paperwork of any kind documenting his detention .
Cuccinelli did not address the Pettibone case directly in his NPR interview .
But he did acknowledge a case in which agents “ believed they had identified someone ” who had broken the law at the courthouse , drove the person to a separate location , determined that “ they did not have the right person , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if Cuccinelli ’ s account is accurate and complete , further investigation is badly needed to pin down exactly what probable cause the DHS officers had , what sort of record-keeping is being done concerning these detentions , and whether this kind of thing has happened other times .
* How far from federal property are federal agents operating ?
Cuccinelli said only “ We will pick them up in front of the courthouse .
If we spot them elsewhere , we will pick them up elsewhere.
” * What are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their detainment ?
Pettibone alleges that he wasn ’ t informed why he was being detained , and on being released without charges , was given no paperwork documenting that the episode had even happened .
These are among the most disturbing of his claims .
To check the validity of probable cause for an arrest , you ’ d ordinarily look to things like what the arresting officer told the suspect was the reason for it , as well as the paperwork generated during later stages of detention and release .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hard—and perhaps even impossible—to check .
You can read this either way : as a reason to be cautious about taking the Pettibone story at face value , or as evidence of the agents ’ having set up their tactics in such a way as to evade accountability .
But either way , we need more explanation from DHS .
* Who invited the feds into Portland in the first place ?
It is possible to be alarmed at the allegations of DHS behavior and also understand that there are some legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not limitless , legal authority ) for federal law enforcement to intervene in the Portland disorders .
Despite loose talk about “ graffiti ” as the main offense , the nightly outbreaks at the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse have included repeated arson attempts .
The federal government is not required by law to wait until one of these attempts succeeds in burning down the courthouse before dispatching law enforcement to protect it .
Nor is DHS required to accommodate the wishes of either the local or state elected officials that it stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been instances in which state and local authorities have proved incapable or indulgent in the face of political violence and street disorder .
Much of the Civil Rights Era involved agents of the federal government wading into cities and states where the locals did not want them in order to enforce the law .
So while it ’ s part of Washington ’ s political and prudential calculus that Portland and Oregon elected officials want the feds to stay out , it ’ s not dispositive .
To observe that the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinarily local law enforcement situations does not mean either that it should do so in this case or even that it should have so much such power .
On this , Steve Vladeck ’ s new piece in Lawfare ( which is worth reading throughout on the legal background ) makes a particularly startling observation : As genuine as the problem of violence and disorder in Portland may be , some of the practices being alleged are simply not acceptable ways for the American government to act and , if proven , should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why it was welcome on Friday when the U.S. Attorney for Oregon , Billy Williams , said he wants an investigation into the actions of the federal agents .
Congress should also investigate and , as appropriate , draw up new legislation to clarify and limit federal police powers and tactics .
Here ’ s my opening bid .
We should normally expect police to wear both badges with their names and easy-to-spot agency insignia , not the kind of generic “ POLICE ” rectangle that random bad guys could readily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen seeing a bundle of poorly-identified men with firearms jumping out of an unmarked van would not be crazy to wonder if they were agents of law enforcement or the kind of cos-play militia-performers we have seen so much of recently .
We should also expect law enforcement officers—whatever the agency—to follow probable-cause standards for arrest and announce and document the grounds for and circumstances of the arrest , label vans used to transport arrestees , and so on down the line with all of the other protections we expect of local law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where one of these measures isn ’ t feasible , let ’ s hear what they are .
Protecting officers from retaliation by concealing their identities may sound plausible , but it ’ s been a rationale offered at many times and places for secret police .
Americans won ’ t , and shouldn ’ t , put up with anonymous , arbitrary , and unaccountable police behavior .

In recent days the Department of Homeland Security has dispatched federal law enforcement officers to Portland, scene of more than 50 consecutive nights of protests, which have regularly included damage to the federal courthouse and other major buildings. Oregon Public Broadcasting has reported one protester’s account of being pulled off the street by a group of federal officers in camouflage, carried off in a van, asked questions which he eventually refused to answer without an attorney, and later released without charges.
On Friday acting Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli appeared on NPR’s All Things Considered in an interview with Sarah McCammon, and his answers help narrow down the still disputed allegations on events in Portland. Cuccinelli’s comments confirm that what has been happening is disturbing, and badly needs oversight and investigation.
* Were federal agents operating incognito? Photos show agents clad in camouflage, with at least some of them wearing a generic “POLICE” label and in at least some cases a patch from the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol. DHS, which houses multiple law enforcement agencies (as does the separate Department of Justice), seems to have organized the federal law enforcement response.
What the federal agents are not wearing are badges that identify agents’ names. While local police practice may require the use of such identifiers, it may come as an unpleasant surprise for people to learn that federal law does not as a rule require federal law enforcers to wear them.
In a Friday tweet, Customs and Border Patrol official Mark Morgan acknowledged that the agents were not wearing name badges. He said this was in order to protect them from retaliation. But he claimed that the officers did wear unique identifiers. In one photograph, “ZT1” is visible above an officer’s agency patch.
The practice in Portland echoed the events of June when the U.S. Department of Justice hastily organized employees from multiple agencies, including the Bureau of Prisons, to counter protests in Washington, D.C. Many of these officers lacked not only badges but any insignia indicating which agency they belonged to. It took days of press questions to get even some of the basics on the record.
* Whose van is that? Unmarked police vehicles are not new. In this case, however, it is alleged that the camo-clad teams are picking persons off the street, bundling them into unmarked vehicles, and driving them away from the scene. In the NPR interview, Cuccinelli basically conceded the essentials of this allegation and defended the use of unmarked vans as a way “to keep both the officers safe and also, when crowds gathered, to move people to a safe location for questioning.”
* What are people being arrested for? In the absence of a warrant, an arrest can be made only for probable cause. On Cuccinelli’s telling, the individuals are being arrested on probable cause of having committed crimes involving the federal courthouse in Portland.
In the episode related by OPB and most widely cited in the new reports, a protester named Mark Pettibone alleges that he was picked up at some distance from the courthouse, bundled into a van, and taken to a location for questioning—which turned out to be the U.S. courthouse itself. Then, after Pettibone refused to answer further questions without a lawyer, he claims he was released after 90 minutes, without charges or paperwork of any kind documenting his detention.
Cuccinelli did not address the Pettibone case directly in his NPR interview. But he did acknowledge a case in which agents “believed they had identified someone” who had broken the law at the courthouse, drove the person to a separate location, determined that “they did not have the right person,” and then released the individual.
Even if Cuccinelli’s account is accurate and complete, further investigation is badly needed to pin down exactly what probable cause the DHS officers had, what sort of record-keeping is being done concerning these detentions, and whether this kind of thing has happened other times.
* How far from federal property are federal agents operating? Cuccinelli said only “We will pick them up in front of the courthouse. If we spot them elsewhere, we will pick them up elsewhere.”
That is unacceptably vague.
* What are the individuals being told about the reasons for their detainment? Pettibone alleges that he wasn’t informed why he was being detained, and on being released without charges, was given no paperwork documenting that the episode had even happened.
These are among the most disturbing of his claims. To check the validity of probable cause for an arrest, you’d ordinarily look to things like what the arresting officer told the suspect was the reason for it, as well as the paperwork generated during later stages of detention and release. Instead, major elements of the Pettibone story are hard—and perhaps even impossible—to check.
You can read this either way: as a reason to be cautious about taking the Pettibone story at face value, or as evidence of the agents’ having set up their tactics in such a way as to evade accountability.
But either way, we need more explanation from DHS.
* Who invited the feds into Portland in the first place? It is possible to be alarmed at the allegations of DHS behavior and also understand that there are some legitimate grounds (together with extensive, though not limitless, legal authority) for federal law enforcement to intervene in the Portland disorders.
Despite loose talk about “graffiti” as the main offense, the nightly outbreaks at the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse have included repeated arson attempts. The federal government is not required by law to wait until one of these attempts succeeds in burning down the courthouse before dispatching law enforcement to protect it. Nor is DHS required to accommodate the wishes of either the local or state elected officials that it stay away.
Throughout American history there have been instances in which state and local authorities have proved incapable or indulgent in the face of political violence and street disorder. Much of the Civil Rights Era involved agents of the federal government wading into cities and states where the locals did not want them in order to enforce the law.
So while it’s part of Washington’s political and prudential calculus that Portland and Oregon elected officials want the feds to stay out, it’s not dispositive.
To observe that the federal government has vast authority to deploy personnel to ordinarily local law enforcement situations does not mean either that it should do so in this case or even that it should have so much such power.
On this, Steve Vladeck’s new piece in Lawfare (which is worth reading throughout on the legal background) makes a particularly startling observation:
It also appears that the federal government is using Customs and Border Protection officers in Portland—which, like so much of the United States, lies less than 100 miles from an international border (yes, the Pacific Ocean counts). Although federal immigration authorities are generally nationwide, there are a few specific authorities (and some important constitutional exceptions) that come into play “along the border.” Simply put, there are a ton of statutory authorities that allow the federal government to use a wide array of federal law enforcement officers to enforce federal law (including destruction or vandalism of federal property). Those authorities don’t usually require officers to stay in their regulatory lanes (for instance, immigration officers can arrest for any federal offense committed in their presence). There’s a good bet that that’s at least part of what’s going on here.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
As genuine as the problem of violence and disorder in Portland may be, some of the practices being alleged are simply not acceptable ways for the American government to act and, if proven, should not be allowed to stand. That’s why it was welcome on Friday when the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Billy Williams, said he wants an investigation into the actions of the federal agents.
Congress should also investigate and, as appropriate, draw up new legislation to clarify and limit federal police powers and tactics.
Here’s my opening bid. We should normally expect police to wear both badges with their names and easy-to-spot agency insignia, not the kind of generic “POLICE” rectangle that random bad guys could readily grind out at home. An average citizen seeing a bundle of poorly-identified men with firearms jumping out of an unmarked van would not be crazy to wonder if they were agents of law enforcement or the kind of cos-play militia-performers we have seen so much of recently.
We should also expect law enforcement officers—whatever the agency—to follow probable-cause standards for arrest and announce and document the grounds for and circumstances of the arrest, label vans used to transport arrestees, and so on down the line with all of the other protections we expect of local law enforcement.
If there are special circumstances where one of these measures isn’t feasible, let’s hear what they are. Protecting officers from retaliation by concealing their identities may sound plausible, but it’s been a rationale offered at many times and places for secret police.
Americans won’t, and shouldn’t, put up with anonymous, arbitrary, and unaccountable police behavior.


thebulwark--2020-07-20--How the Portland Secret Police Happened

How the Portland Secret Police Happened

The rule of law matters most in times of crisis .
Today , America is in crisis along multiple fronts and instead , we may be sliding into unauthorized and unaccountable federal policing and domestic security activity .
This is the story of what has happened .
On May 25 , George Floyd was killed by police officers in Minneapolis .
In the weeks that followed there were public protests across the nation , as well some concurrent acts of violence .
During the period , federal law enforcement personnel were deployed robustly—purportedly to protect federal property and restore public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere .
Over 15 different federal government agencies or components , including multiple agencies across the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) were reported as taking part in the federal law enforcement response in the District of Columbia in May .
This past week , DHS personnel , including officers of the Customs and Border Patrol ( CBP ) , were deployed by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct domestic law enforcement activities in Portland .
But policing protest activity , in particular , requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional rights .
And the reports out of Portland indicate that DHS has provided an uncontrolled and over-militarized response .
Moreover , these assignments of federal officers to control domestic unrest may be part of a broader slide toward a federal domestic security expansion that has neither been announced , nor vetted either by the citizenry , the Congress , or the courts .
The unfolding situation in Portland as it relates to DHS , in particular , has been brewing for some time due to a combination of inherent insufficiencies within DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure .
First , let ’ s look at the politicization .
During the campaign of 2016 , candidate Trump ingratiated himself to the Border Patrol union , previewing a potential politicization of that workforce .
In a spring 2019 visit with border agents at Calexico , California , Trump indicated a willingness to use his pardon authority for if CBP refused to allow migrants U.S. entry pursuant to existing asylum laws .
Meanwhile , the president has marginalized the FBI while pivoting to DHS to carry out his “ law and order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed or pressured to resign nearly every Senate-confirmed leadership official in DHS , leaving the department with inadequate leadership relative to the size , budget , and broad scope of responsibilities .
Last year , Garrett Graff and I warned that DHS ’ s trouble stemming from internal public corruption , inadequate training and lack of transparency makes it more susceptible to inappropriate political pressure .
In May , as a result of a year ’ s worth of research and consultation with former DHS senior officials , former legislative staff and outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that DHS requires immediate congressional attention to improve its internal oversight and accountability mechanisms .
In particular , the report called attention to the need for modernized and department-wide guidelines for conducting law enforcement activity , as well as updating the department ’ s mission , which has become wildly out of sync with its day to day activities .
In short : The extent to which DHS is becoming almost a rogue arm of federal law enforcement should not surprise anyone who has followed the department for the last four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence may not be limited to DHS .
In connection with the May protests in the District of Columbia an associate deputy attorney general approved a request from the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) for the temporary authority to “ enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd.
” This memo , first reported and published by Buzzfeed , could be subject to ongoing reauthorization .
The policy authorizes DEA to enforce other criminal laws outside of its usual remit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts of other organizations for the purposes of public safety .
This expansion alone , under the circumstances , would be unobjectionable .
But the memo went further .
It also authorizes DEA to “ conduct covert surveillance ” and “ share intelligence ” as part of its supplemental activities .
Those provisions open the door to DEA agents conducting physical surveillance without identifying themselves , using technical surveillance techniques over crowds of individuals without suspicion of wrongdoing , and otherwise collecting intelligence—covertly—on individuals purposefully exercising their First Amendment rights .
And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line into domestic security activities .
Most law enforcement activities do not require covert activity .
And when undercover activities are needed , they are performed according to strict rules and procedures and approvals .
These approvals are given on a case by case basis .
In the normal course of events , law enforcement activity is conducted openly : agents identify themselves when they conduct interviews , execute searches , or make arrests .
Why should law enforcement need to use covert means to protect public safety in the context of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to imagine a scenario where covert surveillance would be necessary in such a context .
The United States of America is not Colombia and the people protesting the death of George Floyd are not sicarios who track down government agents for retribution .
The DEA memo is also missing an important qualifier : That surveillance or investigative activity would not be permitted solely on the basis of First Amendment activity .
That simple proviso is the key between allowing police or federal authorities to use investigative techniques inside the United States for legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfettered domestic security apparatus .
It ’ s the key to requiring that there be some other reason—such as an indication of criminal activity or foreign intelligence threat—to apply the weighty powers of the federal government against an individual in contradiction of his or her constitutional rights .
Existing attorney general-approved guidelines include this very proviso , prohibiting conducting investigations solely for the purpose of monitoring First Amendment activity .
Congress added a similar requirement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , ensuring that surveillance and searches conducted for foreign intelligence purposes could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity .
If we were going to take the most generous possible interpretation here , we might suggest the following : Given Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s public statements regarding purported violent Antifa activity concurrent with legitimate protest activity—and the president ’ s public statements about domestic terrorism—that DOJ is increasing its domestic terrorism investigative activity against that or other networks of affiliated individuals who are causing real damage and committing acts of violence .
But even if you took that extremely friendly view , doing so would not require a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would appropriately be conducted under the attorney general ’ s standing guidelines governing FBI domestic operations and would take place in accordance with internal FBI policies and procedures .
It is important to understand that these changes are new .
America has never had a purely domestic security service .
After September 11 there was a robust debate in this country over whether or not one should be created .
The 9/11 Commission specifically rejected the notion that creating a domestic intelligence agency was a good idea .
Why ?
The reason here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the creation of such an organization could lead to “ abuses of civil liberties [ that ] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence ” to combat actual national security threats .
Read that again : Standing up a domestic security service would lead to “ abuses of civil liberties [ that ] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence ” to combat actual national security threats .
Instead , Congress provided additional resources to the FBI , and Robert Mueller directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s national security division , especially its counterterrorism activities .
The FBI went from prioritizing mobsters to prioritizing terrorists .
• A U.S. intelligence community focused on combatting foreign threats to national security • An FBI tasked with domestic counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities , and with investigating domestic terrorism • And a newly created DHS , which was intended to coordinate physical security and a wide array of border , immigration , and transportation security activities .
DHS has also been tasked with addressing threats that have developed more substantially since its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presently , election security .
The United States should not feel compelled to stick with the post-9/11 structure without sufficient attention to modernizing the government ’ s ability to address a changing threat environment .
But the changing threat environment does not call for a federalized police force or internal security service .
Yet among the agencies that have been deployed to conduct physical security and law enforcement over the past two months are various components of DHS .
Perhaps an unintended consequence , DHS is now the organization with the largest number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government department .
It should be obvious , but in case it needs saying out loud : The reason to not have a domestic security service is rooted in aversion to creating anything that might have the potential to morph into a Stasi-like organization .
Because a domestic security service is incongruous with the exercise of constitutional rights .
But it ’ s not enough just to avoid the active creation of a dedicated domestic security service .
We must also guard against the unintentional authorization of federal domestic security activities due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political ambitions of appointees trying to curry favor with a proto-authoritarian president .

The rule of law matters most in times of crisis.
Today, America is in crisis along multiple fronts and instead, we may be sliding into unauthorized and unaccountable federal policing and domestic security activity.
This is the story of what has happened.
On May 25, George Floyd was killed by police officers in Minneapolis. In the weeks that followed there were public protests across the nation, as well some concurrent acts of violence.
During the period, federal law enforcement personnel were deployed robustly—purportedly to protect federal property and restore public safety—in the nation’s capital and elsewhere. Over 15 different federal government agencies or components, including multiple agencies across the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were reported as taking part in the federal law enforcement response in the District of Columbia in May.
This past week, DHS personnel, including officers of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), were deployed by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct domestic law enforcement activities in Portland.
But policing protest activity, in particular, requires a special sensitivity to and protection of constitutional rights. And the reports out of Portland indicate that DHS has provided an uncontrolled and over-militarized response.
Moreover, these assignments of federal officers to control domestic unrest may be part of a broader slide toward a federal domestic security expansion that has neither been announced, nor vetted either by the citizenry, the Congress, or the courts.
The unfolding situation in Portland as it relates to DHS, in particular, has been brewing for some time due to a combination of inherent insufficiencies within DHS’s internal controls and inappropriate political pressure.
First, let’s look at the politicization. During the campaign of 2016, candidate Trump ingratiated himself to the Border Patrol union, previewing a potential politicization of that workforce. In a spring 2019 visit with border agents at Calexico, California, Trump indicated a willingness to use his pardon authority if CBP refused to allow migrants U.S. entry pursuant to existing asylum laws.
Meanwhile, the president has marginalized the FBI while pivoting to DHS to carry out his “law and order” agenda. Trump has fired, removed or pressured to resign nearly every Senate-confirmed leadership official in DHS, leaving the department with inadequate leadership relative to the size, budget, and broad scope of responsibilities. Last year, Garrett Graff and I warned that DHS’s trouble stemming from internal public corruption, inadequate training and lack of transparency makes it more susceptible to inappropriate political pressure.
In May, as a result of a year’s worth of research and consultation with former DHS senior officials, former legislative staff and outside experts, I put forth a report arguing that DHS requires immediate congressional attention to improve its internal oversight and accountability mechanisms. In particular, the report called attention to the need for modernized and department-wide guidelines for conducting law enforcement activity, as well as updating the department’s mission, which has become wildly out of sync with its day to day activities.
In short: The extent to which DHS is becoming almost a rogue arm of federal law enforcement should not surprise anyone who has followed the department for the last four years.
But the expanding federal domestic security presence may not be limited to DHS.
In connection with the May protests in the District of Columbia an associate deputy attorney general approved a request from the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the temporary authority to “enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd.”
This memo, first reported and published by Buzzfeed, could be subject to ongoing reauthorization. The policy authorizes DEA to enforce other criminal laws outside of its usual remit of drug enforcement by supplementing law enforcement efforts of other organizations for the purposes of public safety. This expansion alone, under the circumstances, would be unobjectionable. But the memo went further. It also authorizes DEA to “conduct covert surveillance” and “share intelligence” as part of its supplemental activities.
Those provisions open the door to DEA agents conducting physical surveillance without identifying themselves, using technical surveillance techniques over crowds of individuals without suspicion of wrongdoing, and otherwise collecting intelligence—covertly—on individuals purposefully exercising their First Amendment rights.
And this sort of clandestine activity clearly crosses the line into domestic security activities.
Most law enforcement activities do not require covert activity. And when undercover activities are needed, they are performed according to strict rules and procedures and approvals. These approvals are given on a case by case basis.
In the normal course of events, law enforcement activity is conducted openly: agents identify themselves when they conduct interviews, execute searches, or make arrests.
Why should law enforcement need to use covert means to protect public safety in the context of public protests?
Indeed, it is hard to imagine a scenario where covert surveillance would be necessary in such a context. The United States of America is not Colombia and the people protesting the death of George Floyd are not sicarios who track down government agents for retribution.
The DEA memo is also missing an important qualifier: That surveillance or investigative activity would not be permitted solely on the basis of First Amendment activity.
That simple proviso is the key between allowing police or federal authorities to use investigative techniques inside the United States for legitimate reasons versus allowing the creation of an unfettered domestic security apparatus. It’s the key to requiring that there be some other reason—such as an indication of criminal activity or foreign intelligence threat—to apply the weighty powers of the federal government against an individual in contradiction of his or her constitutional rights.
Existing attorney general-approved guidelines include this very proviso, prohibiting conducting investigations solely for the purpose of monitoring First Amendment activity. Congress added a similar requirement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ensuring that surveillance and searches conducted for foreign intelligence purposes could not be based solely on First Amendment activity.
If we were going to take the most generous possible interpretation here, we might suggest the following:
Given Attorney General Bill Barr’s public statements regarding purported violent Antifa activity concurrent with legitimate protest activity—and the president’s public statements about domestic terrorism—that DOJ is increasing its domestic terrorism investigative activity against that or other networks of affiliated individuals who are causing real damage and committing acts of violence.
But even if you took that extremely friendly view, doing so would not require a special order to the DEA. Such activity would appropriately be conducted under the attorney general’s standing guidelines governing FBI domestic operations and would take place in accordance with internal FBI policies and procedures.
It is important to understand that these changes are new. America has never had a purely domestic security service.
After September 11 there was a robust debate in this country over whether or not one should be created. The 9/11 Commission specifically rejected the notion that creating a domestic intelligence agency was a good idea.
Why? The reason here is vitally important: The Report argued that the creation of such an organization could lead to “abuses of civil liberties [that] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence” to combat actual national security threats.
Read that again: Standing up a domestic security service would lead to “abuses of civil liberties [that] could create a backlash that would impair the collection of needed intelligence” to combat actual national security threats.
Instead, Congress provided additional resources to the FBI, and Robert Mueller directed an organizational transformation to strengthen the Bureau’s national security division, especially its counterterrorism activities. The FBI went from prioritizing mobsters to prioritizing terrorists.
The post-9/11 government structure provided for:
A U.S. intelligence community focused on combatting foreign threats to national security
An FBI tasked with domestic counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities, and with investigating domestic terrorism
And a newly created DHS, which was intended to coordinate physical security and a wide array of border, immigration, and transportation security activities. DHS has also been tasked with addressing threats that have developed more substantially since its creation, such as cybersecurity, and presently, election security.
The United States should not feel compelled to stick with the post-9/11 structure without sufficient attention to modernizing the government’s ability to address a changing threat environment. But the changing threat environment does not call for a federalized police force or internal security service.
Yet among the agencies that have been deployed to conduct physical security and law enforcement over the past two months are various components of DHS. Perhaps an unintended consequence, DHS is now the organization with the largest number of federal law enforcement officers of any government department.
It should be obvious, but in case it needs saying out loud:
The reason to not have a domestic security service is rooted in aversion to creating anything that might have the potential to morph into a Stasi-like organization.
Because a domestic security service is incongruous with the exercise of constitutional rights.
But it’s not enough just to avoid the active creation of a dedicated domestic security service. We must also guard against the unintentional authorization of federal domestic security activities due to neglect, or bureaucratic chaos, or the political ambitions of appointees trying to curry favor with a proto-authoritarian president.


thebulwark--2020-07-20--About Trump’s Fox News Interview

About Trump’s Fox News Interview

There have been moments during the last three years when President Donald Trump appeared either to be unwell or not in control of his faculties .
The new Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace is another such example .
Let ’ s leave aside all of the politics—there are plenty of other people writing about those aspects of the interview— and focus instead just on the president ’ s ability to retain information as seen in the opening exchange on the state of the COVID-19 pandemic .
You can watch the video or I can just give you the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start with the surge of the coronavirus across the country in recent months .
You still talk about it as , quote , “ burning embers.
” But I want to put up a chart that shows where we are with the illness over the last four months .
As you can see , we hit a peak here in April , 36,000 cases — WALLACE : Then — then it went down and now since June it has gone up more than double .
One day this week 75,000 new cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s because we have great testing , because we have the best testing in the world .
If we didn ’ t test , you wouldn ’ t be able to show that chart .
If we tested half as much , those numbers would be down .
WALLACE : But — but this isn ’ t burning embers , sir ?
This is a firestorm .
TRUMP : No , no .
But I don ’ t say — I say flames , we ’ ll put out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in some cases just burning embers .
We also have burning embers .
We have embers and we do have flames .
Florida became more flame- like , but it ’ s — it ’ s going to be under control .
And , you know , it ’ s not just this country , it ’ s many countries .
We don ’ t talk about it in the news .
They don ’ t talk about Mexico and Brazil and still parts of Europe , which actually got hit sooner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little ahead of us in that sense .
But you take a look , why don ’ t they talk about Mexico ?
Which is not helping us .
And all I can say is thank God I built most of the wall , because if I didn ’ t have the wall up we would have a much bigger problem with Mexico .
WALLACE : But , sir , we have the seventh highest mortality rate in the world .
Our mortality rate is higher than Brazil , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has us on a travel ban .
TRUMP : Yeah .
I think what we ’ ll do — well , we have them under travel ban , too , Chris .
I closed them off .
If you remember , I was the one that did the European Union very early .
But when you talk about mortality risks , I think it ’ s the opposite .
I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world .
WALLACE : It ’ s not true , sir .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a single day – – TRUMP : We will take a look — TRUMP : Can you please get me the mortality rates ?
I heard we have one of the lowest , maybe the lowest mortality rate anywhere in the world .
Do you have the numbers , please ?
Because I heard we had the best mortality rate .
KAYLEIGH MCENANY , WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY : ( INAUDIBLE ) Dr. Birx points out and this is — I hope you show the scenario because it shows what fake news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OK , OK .
I don ’ t think I ’ m fake news but I will — we ’ ll put — TRUMP : You said we had the worst mortality rate in the world — WALLACE : I said you had — TRUMP : — and we have the best .

There have been moments during the last three years when President Donald Trump appeared either to be unwell or not in control of his faculties.
The new Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace is another such example.
Let’s leave aside all of the politics—there are plenty of other people writing about those aspects of the interview— and focus instead just on the president’s ability to retain information as seen in the opening exchange on the state of the COVID-19 pandemic. You can watch the video or I can just give you the transcript:
WALLACE: Let’s start with the surge of the coronavirus across the country in recent months. You still talk about it as, quote, “burning embers.” But I want to put up a chart that shows where we are with the illness over the last four months.
As you can see, we hit a peak here in April, 36,000 cases —
TRUMP: Cases.
WALLACE: — a day.
TRUMP: Yes, cases.
WALLACE: Then — then it went down and now since June it has gone up more than double. One day this week 75,000 new cases. More than double —
TRUMP: Chris, that’s because we have great testing, because we have the best testing in the world. If we didn’t test, you wouldn’t be able to show that chart. If we tested half as much, those numbers would be down.
WALLACE: But — but this isn’t burning embers, sir? This is a firestorm.
TRUMP: No, no. But I don’t say — I say flames, we’ll put out the flames. And we’ll put out in some cases just burning embers. We also have burning embers. We have embers and we do have flames. Florida became more flame- like, but it’s — it’s going to be under control.
And, you know, it’s not just this country, it’s many countries. We don’t talk about it in the news. They don’t talk about Mexico and Brazil and still parts of Europe, which actually got hit sooner than us, so it’s a little ahead of us in that sense.
But you take a look, why don’t they talk about Mexico? Which is not helping us. And all I can say is thank God I built most of the wall, because if I didn’t have the wall up we would have a much bigger problem with Mexico.
WALLACE: But, sir, we have the seventh highest mortality rate in the world. Our mortality rate is higher than Brazil, it’s higher than Russia and the European Union has us on a travel ban.
TRUMP: Yeah. I think what we’ll do — well, we have them under travel ban, too, Chris. I closed them off. If you remember, I was the one that did the European Union very early.
But when you talk about mortality risks, I think it’s the opposite. I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: It’s not true, sir. We had — we had 900 deaths on a single day – –
TRUMP: We will take a look —
WALLACE: — just this week —
TRUMP: Ready?
WALLACE: (INAUDIBLE).
TRUMP: Can you please get me the mortality rates?
WALLACE: Yes.
TRUMP: Kayleigh’s right here.
I heard we have one of the lowest, maybe the lowest mortality rate anywhere in the world.
Do you have the numbers, please? Because I heard we had the best mortality rate.
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: (INAUDIBLE) Dr. Birx points out and this is —
TRUMP: Number one low mortality fatality rates.
I hope you show the scenario because it shows what fake news is all about – –
WALLACE: OK, OK. I don’t think I’m fake news but I will — we’ll put —
TRUMP: Yeah, you are —
WALLACE: — put our staff on —
TRUMP: You said we had the worst mortality rate in the world —
WALLACE: I said you had —
TRUMP: — and we have the best.


thebulwark--2020-07-20--Trump Can’t Take the Punches

Trump Can’t Take the Punches

Mike Tyson famously said that “ everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
” Well , President Trump had a plan to defeat Sleepy Joe Biden .
It went something like this .
1 ) The MAGA brand would evolve into KAG— “ Keep America Great ” —and Trump would use the period of economic prosperity he was overseeing to make the case to the voters that they shouldn ’ t trade horses midstream .
2 ) Then he ’ d cripple Biden with a Ukrainian pincer attack that would let Trump ’ s campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their successful campaign against Crooked Hillary .
3 ) Finally , a whisper-turned-foghorn campaign about the former vice president ’ s problems with mental acuity and weakness and “ stamina ” would rekindle the atmospherics Trump used to defeat my former boss , Jeb Bush .
It might not have been a perfect plan .
Or even the best plan—after all , it did get Trump impeached .
But it was a plan with a chance at success .
A plan that played to his political strengths .
A plan that would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate .
And most importantly , it was a plan that an erratic president with negligible ability to use the more traditional levers of presidential influence was capable of executing .
In February , the president may not have been on a glide path to victory , but the plan was falling into place .
He was still favored to win by every conventional measurement except those skewed and biased polls .
And even though Operation Burisma had hit a speed bump , the MAGA media industrial complex was happy to will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damned .
But then it happened .
For the first time in his preposterously fortuitous political career , Donald Trump got punched in the mouth .
Sure he ’ s taken plenty of jabs .
Marco implied he had a small dick .
Somebody leaked a tape of him admitting to serial sexual assault .
The fake news had fake newsed him time and again .
But this was different .
This was a haymaker that landed square on his grill .
The kind of roundhouse that would make even Iron Mike shudder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump was taking credit for .
Suddenly , Trump ’ s plans were moot .
No longer did he have merely to run a smear campaign against an opponent who has lost a step , feed red meat to his rabid crowds , and take credit for good things that other people were doing—three tactics that make up his core skill set .
No , now he was going to have to do something completely different and outside his comfort zone : He would have to manage a real-life crisis that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than just a PR crisis .
And he was going to be judged on his performance .
An election that is a referendum on how good of a job he was doing at the presidenting part of being president was not part of the plan .
At all .
The result ?
Trump has been flailing about for a new approach that will let him get his feet back under him .
And the early-round scorecards have not been pretty .
As we near the final 100 days of the campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original plan have been cut from under him .
1 ) With unemployment at 11 percent and over 140,000 Americans dead from the virus , Keep America Great no longer rings true .
So instead he is forced to try to sell Make America Great Again , Again !
The problem with the MAGAA 2020 strategy is that it requires Trump to actually do something to demonstrate we are back on the right path—like , say , to take some action to mitigate the virus—rather than just complain about the bad things other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal already got him impeached and was a massive stretch to begin with , in comparison to an ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton .
In this current news environment , he doesn ’ t even have much of a chance at doing what he does best—manufacturing fake scandals—because it ’ s hard to see a path back to the front pages for Joe Biden ’ s large adult son , no matter what nonsense Trump and the Russkies can drum up .
3 ) Sleepy Joe is starting to sound like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own performance is not bolstering the contrast with Biden on the issue of mental acuity .
So a new approach is necessary .
The Washington Post was the latest to report that Trump is pivoting away from using the “ Sleepy Joe ” moniker , since in a time of crisis and chaos a low-energy establishment politician might not look so bad .
Instead , Trump is endeavoring to turn Biden , a middle-of-the-road Democrat who has been in Washington for 47 years , into an extremist who threatens to “ Abolish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emailed reporters over the weekend arguing that “ You Will Not Be Safe In Biden ’ s America.
” In short , Trump wants to sell the public on the idea that his opponent is both a low-energy establishment swamp creature and a radical who will eliminate the suburbs and bring untold death and destruction ripping apart the very fabric of our Republic .
Or put a different way , Trump 2020 : Continuity with Change .
Trump wants to string these contradictory attacks together by depicting Biden as so riddled with dementia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for The Squad and ANTIFA .
There are two problems with this .
First , Joe Biden is a human who exists and who has repeatedly and successfully avoided giving in to the far left time and again throughout the campaign .
Second , speaking of dementia .
.
.
the president has an elephant-sized problem of his own making on that count .
Yesterday Chris Wallace ran circles around Trump , exposing his lies about the nation ’ s mortality rate and Biden ’ s record while emasculating Trump over his weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most devastating deadpan in the history of presidential interviews .
This comes after the president ’ s weeks-long “ slippery ramp ” saga and an unending stream of blunders during his coronavirus press conferences that finally culminated with their cancellation after he suggested disinfectant injections as a possible cure .
As a result , the mental acuity leg of the stool is starting to get a little wobbly .
And while Trump takes the new Antifa Joe plan out for a test drive , the virus ’ s punches to the mouth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has not set in yet is that—if you will forgive the extension of the metaphor—the only actual option that Trump has to deal with this disruption is to punch the virus back .
He has to defeat it .
But that requires work .
And consistency .
And deferring to experts .
And .
.
.
leadership .
As Ezra Klein wrote about Trump being mugged by reality , he needs to do what successful governors have done : “ Demonstrate empathy and competence at a time when the American people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traits comes naturally to Donald Trump .
So his inner circle of advisers seems happy to let him live in the fantasyland where the new plan doesn ’ t require him to do any of these things .
Instead they just have to ignore the haymakers and Let Donald Be Donald .
The New York Times reported over the weekend that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is “ adamant that the best way forward is to downplay the dangers of the disease ” and that he “ has been particularly forceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should avoid drawing attention to the virus.
” So there you have it .
The president has been punched .
And the new three-point plan is as follows : 1 ) Ignore the thing that is punching you in the mouth over and over again , causing death and economic destruction throughout the country .
2 ) Pray that someone else fixes the problem for you .
3 ) Depict yourself as the law-and-order president by sending federal cops in camo to clash with protesters and convince the world that Average Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , Trump has got just over a hundred days left to get bailed out by the vaccine gods or come up with a new plan .

Mike Tyson famously said that “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
Well, President Trump had a plan to defeat Sleepy Joe Biden. It went something like this.
1) The MAGA brand would evolve into KAG—“Keep America Great”—and Trump would use the period of economic prosperity he was overseeing to make the case to the voters that they shouldn’t trade horses midstream.
2) Then he’d cripple Biden with a Ukrainian pincer attack that would let Trump’s campaign and his Russian allies resuscitate the themes from their successful campaign against Crooked Hillary.
3) Finally, a whisper-turned-foghorn campaign about the former vice president’s problems with mental acuity and weakness and “stamina” would rekindle the atmospherics Trump used to defeat my former boss, Jeb Bush.
It might not have been a perfect plan. Or even the best plan—after all, it did get Trump impeached. But it was a plan with a chance at success. A plan that played to his political strengths. A plan that would have purchase with a significant portion of the electorate. And most importantly, it was a plan that an erratic president with negligible ability to use the more traditional levers of presidential influence was capable of executing.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
In February, the president may not have been on a glide path to victory, but the plan was falling into place. He was still favored to win by every conventional measurement except those skewed and biased polls. And even though Operation Burisma had hit a speed bump, the MAGA media industrial complex was happy to will the Impeachment Hoax to life, truth be damned.
But then it happened. For the first time in his preposterously fortuitous political career, Donald Trump got punched in the mouth.
Sure he’s taken plenty of jabs. Marco implied he had a small dick. Somebody leaked a tape of him admitting to serial sexual assault. The fake news had fake newsed him time and again.
But this was different. This was a haymaker that landed square on his grill. The kind of roundhouse that would make even Iron Mike shudder.
The COVID-19 pandemic crumpled the economy that Trump was taking credit for.
Suddenly, Trump’s plans were moot. No longer did he have merely to run a smear campaign against an opponent who has lost a step, feed red meat to his rabid crowds, and take credit for good things that other people were doing—three tactics that make up his core skill set. No, now he was going to have to do something completely different and outside his comfort zone: He would have to manage a real-life crisis that was directly affecting people’s lives, rather than just a PR crisis. And he was going to be judged on his performance.
An election that is a referendum on how good of a job he was doing at the presidenting part of being president was not part of the plan. At all.
The result? Trump has been flailing about for a new approach that will let him get his feet back under him. And the early-round scorecards have not been pretty.
As we near the final 100 days of the campaign, all three legs of Trump’s original plan have been cut from under him.
1) With unemployment at 11 percent and over 140,000 Americans dead from the virus, Keep America Great no longer rings true. So instead he is forced to try to sell Make America Great Again, Again! The problem with the MAGAA 2020 strategy is that it requires Trump to actually do something to demonstrate we are back on the right path—like, say, to take some action to mitigate the virus—rather than just complain about the bad things other people are doing.
2) The Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal already got him impeached and was a massive stretch to begin with, in comparison to an ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton. In this current news environment, he doesn’t even have much of a chance at doing what he does best—manufacturing fake scandals—because it’s hard to see a path back to the front pages for Joe Biden’s large adult son, no matter what nonsense Trump and the Russkies can drum up.
3) Sleepy Joe is starting to sound like a compliment and President Trump’s own performance is not bolstering the contrast with Biden on the issue of mental acuity.
So a new approach is necessary. The Washington Post was the latest to report that Trump is pivoting away from using the “Sleepy Joe” moniker, since in a time of crisis and chaos a low-energy establishment politician might not look so bad. Instead, Trump is endeavoring to turn Biden, a middle-of-the-road Democrat who has been in Washington for 47 years, into an extremist who threatens to “Abolish the American Way of Life.” The RNC emailed reporters over the weekend arguing that “You Will Not Be Safe In Biden’s America.”
In short, Trump wants to sell the public on the idea that his opponent is both a low-energy establishment swamp creature and a radical who will eliminate the suburbs and bring untold death and destruction ripping apart the very fabric of our Republic.
Or put a different way, Trump 2020: Continuity with Change.
Trump wants to string these contradictory attacks together by depicting Biden as so riddled with dementia that he is simply a Trojan Horse for The Squad and ANTIFA. There are two problems with this.
First, Joe Biden is a human who exists and who has repeatedly and successfully avoided giving in to the far left time and again throughout the campaign.
Second, speaking of dementia . . . the president has an elephant-sized problem of his own making on that count.
Yesterday Chris Wallace ran circles around Trump, exposing his lies about the nation’s mortality rate and Biden’s record while emasculating Trump over his weird flex about a successful dementia test with the most devastating deadpan in the history of presidential interviews. This comes after the president’s weeks-long “slippery ramp” saga and an unending stream of blunders during his coronavirus press conferences that finally culminated with their cancellation after he suggested disinfectant injections as a possible cure.
As a result, the mental acuity leg of the stool is starting to get a little wobbly.
And while Trump takes the new Antifa Joe plan out for a test drive, the virus’s punches to the mouth just keep on coming.
The reality that has not set in yet is that—if you will forgive the extension of the metaphor—the only actual option that Trump has to deal with this disruption is to punch the virus back. He has to defeat it.
But that requires work. And consistency. And deferring to experts. And . . . leadership. As Ezra Klein wrote about Trump being mugged by reality, he needs to do what successful governors have done: “Demonstrate empathy and competence at a time when the American people are desperate for reassurance.”
None of these traits comes naturally to Donald Trump.
So his inner circle of advisers seems happy to let him live in the fantasyland where the new plan doesn’t require him to do any of these things. Instead they just have to ignore the haymakers and Let Donald Be Donald.
The New York Times reported over the weekend that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is “adamant that the best way forward is to downplay the dangers of the disease” and that he “has been particularly forceful in his view that the White House should avoid drawing attention to the virus.”
So there you have it.
The president has been punched. And the new three-point plan is as follows:
1) Ignore the thing that is punching you in the mouth over and over again, causing death and economic destruction throughout the country.
2) Pray that someone else fixes the problem for you.
3) Depict yourself as the law-and-order president by sending federal cops in camo to clash with protesters and convince the world that Average Joe Biden is the leader of MS-13.
In short, Trump has got just over a hundred days left to get bailed out by the vaccine gods or come up with a new plan.
Otherwise it’s gonna be a TKO.


thebulwark--2020-07-21--Donald Trump Is Weak on China

Donald Trump Is Weak on China

One of President Donald Trump ’ s pitches for re-election has been that he is “ tough on China.
” Hugh Hewitt , an ardent Trump admirer , recently wrote a column for the Washington Post on the other side of this calculation : “ Biden is the wrong choice to lead the West through Cold War 2.0.
” Hewitt concluded by saying that “ for those focused on the central issue—the existential threat to the country and indeed the West—the choice of Trump is obvious.
” If Trump were really “ tough on China , ” it would indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue .
But it just isn ’ t true : Trump is weak on China .
What is the nature of China ’ s threat to the West ?
Is it economic , military , ideological , diplomatic , clandestine , political , or moral ?
The correct answer is yes .
And on all of these fronts , the Trump administration has been a failure .
Let ’ s start with the economic .
So far , the “ trade war ” that Trump started with China in 2018 has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The two countries remain among one another ’ s largest trading partners , and while imports from China did fall in 2019 , they only dipped to about the level they were at in 2016 , and the so-called “ trade imbalance ” likewise only dipped to about its 2016 level .
The Trump tariffs have also not had the intended effect of helping U.S. manufacturing ; in fact , according to a study by Federal Reserve economists , the tariffs have harmed manufacturing .
And the tariffs have not significantly shifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the genius behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump abandoned on the first days of his administration : increasing the partnership ’ s members trading with each other to decrease their trade volume with China .
The loss of the deal also meant the loss of an opportunity to draw Malaysia , Vietnam , and other signatories closer to the United States .
And the administration has failed to replace it with a trade agenda for Asia of any kind .
Of course , China is not alone in having been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trading partners also have , including close friends and allies , from the European Union and the United Kingdom to Japan , South Korea , and Vietnam .
This has led those countries to shift toward more trade with China .
And to round out the bleakness of the economic picture , China has long been a hub for investment because of cheap skilled labor .
That is changing .
Yet , the administration has made no attempt to encourage American and non-American businesses to move to other countries for investment to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply chain , even though there are countries who are begging for this policy , most prominently India .
On the military front , the Pentagon has been planning a force to deter China .
And the administration has paid a lot of lip service to the military threat from China .
In reality , however , it has been nothing but lip service .
The U.S. Army has only one brigade ready to deploy if a conflict breaks out with another great power .
This was true when Trump came into office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it gets worse .
One of China ’ s most concerning military developments over the past decade has been its anti-access/area-denial system to prevent foreign penetration .
The United States could respond by bettering our stealth technology , investing in electronic warfare and offensive cyber warfare , increasing the U.S. missile stockpiles , and developing more and better remote-controlled and semiautonomous weapons systems .
So far , the Department of Defense has only emphasized the last one , and the Trump administration efforts in the other areas have been negligible .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible conventional inferiority against China .
In 2018 , the congressionally created Commission on National Defense Strategy offered , in its final report , a number of recommendations to redress that imbalance , but the Trump administration has largely ignored them—and in some cases even gone in the opposite direction .
For instance , the commission called for the size of the U.S. military to significantly increase ; the Trump administration has set forth no plan to do that .
The commission recommended a further forward deployment of troops to Asia .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last Friday , the administration is apparently planning on withdrawing troops from South Korea .
The commission emphasized the importance of alliances ; the Trump administration has pushed away and alienated many allies .
The commission called for the development of submarines for intelligence , surveillance , and reconnaissance purposes ; that recommendation has also been ignored .
And , crucially , the commission noted that winning a war with China “ would likely require a level of U.S. national industrial and public mobilization not experienced since the middle of the last century.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the example of U.S. mobilization before and during the Second World War , but we have failed to remember it ourselves .
The Trump administration has so far been utterly negligent of an industrial mobilization plan .
Beyond the lack of visible policy action , there are other obvious ways to tell that the Trump administration is unserious about building a military that could—beyond any doubt—win a war against China .
For one thing , many of the greatest Republican national security minds have been discouraged , fired , or blacklisted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persons without sufficient knowledge of military affairs .
And many other positions are going unfilled .
The job of under secretary for readiness and personnel , for instance , was vacant from July 2018 until this past March .
The position of comptroller—the Pentagon ’ s chief financial officer—has been vacant for a year now .
In the three and a half years of the administration , there has been an assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific affairs for only two years .
The under secretary for policy , arguably the second most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired for doing abiding by what U.S. law required , and the nominee to replace him is grossly unsuited for the job .
On the diplomatic level , too , the United States has been falling behind .
Beyond the habitual kicking of allies , the America ’ s failure to compete with China ’ s growing foreign investments and aids is boxing us out of the Third World , as well as international organizations , in favor of the Chinese .
The example of the World Health Organization has been widely discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an admission by the Trump administration of its inability to compete with China in such organizations .
But it ’ s not just the WHO .
The leadership of international organization after international organization has fallen into the hands of Sinophiles or Chinese nationals during the Trump administration .
Meanwhile , Trump has failed to grasp the importance of the ideological component of our discord with China .
He keeps praising the Communist Party chairman , Xi Jinping , as a friend whom he can get along with , while he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trading disputes .
Meanwhile , China ’ s moral vulnerabilities could be turned to the strategic advantage of the United States , but the president has made no attempt to shame China and force it to choose between better domestic behavior and international isolation .
The best opportunity for this is China ’ s persecution of Uighur Muslims in the Xinjiang region .
It was just last week that the news of China ’ s eugenic practices in the region broke , as well as leaked drone footage showing Uighurs blindfolded and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead of challenging these horrendous human rights abuses , Trump has—as his former national security advisor John Bolton revealed—encouraged Xi to go ahead with them .
On the matter of Hong Kong autonomy , Trump had over a year to create a deterrence against mainland takeover of the island by threatening punitive action .
He could have created an international coalition—assuming anybody in the world would care to listen to him—to punish China .
He failed , and now it is too late , with the introduction of China ’ s National Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he still can offer refugee status for Hong Kongers , but that would go against his xenophobic policies and impulses .
On the clandestine front , China has been mining U.S. citizens ’ private data .
In September 2017 , Chinese hackers stole 143 million Americans ’ Social Security numbers , credit scores , and other sensitive data .
One suspicion is that they are going to use these data to compromise individuals in key positions in government .
The Trump administration never punished China for this breach .
In addition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are mining Americans ’ data through popular phone apps , most famously TikTok ( don ’ t let your kids download it ! )
but others as well .
Again , the Trump administration has made no meaningful attempt to prevent this .
Finally , while America benefits from spectacular offensive cyber capabilities , our government and private-sector capabilities are very vulnerable .
Again , there has been no policy to address this situation .
Instead , the administration ’ s considerable increase in cyber capabilities have disproportionately and overwhelmingly gone into offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not arguing that the administration ’ s strategy on China is merely weak .
Rather , I ’ m pointing out the obvious : that there is no strategy .
There is no coherence beyond the rhetorical bluster of an imaginary toughness .
As much as Trump ’ s defenders like to say that he is taking the Chinese threat seriously , neither he nor his subordinates are giving much attention to it .
Will Biden be tough on China ?
I hope , but I make no promises .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !

One of President Donald Trump’s pitches for re-election has been that he is “tough on China.” Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Trump admirer, recently wrote a column for the Washington Post on the other side of this calculation: “Biden is the wrong choice to lead the West through Cold War 2.0.” Hewitt concluded by saying that “for those focused on the central issue—the existential threat to the country and indeed the West—the choice of Trump is obvious.”
If Trump were really “tough on China,” it would indeed give him an edge over Biden on this issue. But it just isn’t true: Trump is weak on China.
What is the nature of China’s threat to the West? Is it economic, military, ideological, diplomatic, clandestine, political, or moral? The correct answer is yes. And on all of these fronts, the Trump administration has been a failure.
Let’s start with the economic. So far, the “trade war” that Trump started with China in 2018 has had little effect on the overall trade picture. The two countries remain among one another’s largest trading partners, and while imports from China did fall in 2019, they only dipped to about the level they were at in 2016, and the so-called “trade imbalance” likewise only dipped to about its 2016 level.
The Trump tariffs have also not had the intended effect of helping U.S. manufacturing; in fact, according to a study by Federal Reserve economists, the tariffs have harmed manufacturing. And the tariffs have not significantly shifted American trade to other countries. This was the genius behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump abandoned on the first days of his administration: increasing the partnership’s members trading with each other to decrease their trade volume with China. The loss of the deal also meant the loss of an opportunity to draw Malaysia, Vietnam, and other signatories closer to the United States. And the administration has failed to replace it with a trade agenda for Asia of any kind.
Of course, China is not alone in having been slapped by the Trump administration with tariffs—other trading partners also have, including close friends and allies, from the European Union and the United Kingdom to Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. This has led those countries to shift toward more trade with China.
And to round out the bleakness of the economic picture, China has long been a hub for investment because of cheap skilled labor. That is changing. Yet, the administration has made no attempt to encourage American and non-American businesses to move to other countries for investment to reduce China’s share of the global supply chain, even though there are countries who are begging for this policy, most prominently India.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
On the military front, the Pentagon has been planning a force to deter China. And the administration has paid a lot of lip service to the military threat from China. In reality, however, it has been nothing but lip service. The U.S. Army has only one brigade ready to deploy if a conflict breaks out with another great power. This was true when Trump came into office, and it remains true today. But it gets worse. One of China’s most concerning military developments over the past decade has been its anti-access/area-denial system to prevent foreign penetration. The United States could respond by bettering our stealth technology, investing in electronic warfare and offensive cyber warfare, increasing the U.S. missile stockpiles, and developing more and better remote-controlled and semiautonomous weapons systems. So far, the Department of Defense has only emphasized the last one, and the Trump administration efforts in the other areas have been negligible.
More generally, the U.S. military suffers a terrible conventional inferiority against China. In 2018, the congressionally created Commission on National Defense Strategy offered, in its final report, a number of recommendations to redress that imbalance, but the Trump administration has largely ignored them—and in some cases even gone in the opposite direction. For instance, the commission called for the size of the U.S. military to significantly increase; the Trump administration has set forth no plan to do that. The commission recommended a further forward deployment of troops to Asia. Instead, as the Wall Street Journal reported last Friday, the administration is apparently planning on withdrawing troops from South Korea. The commission emphasized the importance of alliances; the Trump administration has pushed away and alienated many allies. The commission called for the development of submarines for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance purposes; that recommendation has also been ignored.
And, crucially, the commission noted that winning a war with China “would likely require a level of U.S. national industrial and public mobilization not experienced since the middle of the last century.” The Chinese learned this lesson from the example of U.S. mobilization before and during the Second World War, but we have failed to remember it ourselves. The Trump administration has so far been utterly negligent of an industrial mobilization plan.
Beyond the lack of visible policy action, there are other obvious ways to tell that the Trump administration is unserious about building a military that could—beyond any doubt—win a war against China. For one thing, many of the greatest Republican national security minds have been discouraged, fired, or blacklisted by the administration. Senior jobs are going to persons without sufficient knowledge of military affairs. And many other positions are going unfilled. The job of under secretary for readiness and personnel, for instance, was vacant from July 2018 until this past March. The position of comptroller—the Pentagon’s chief financial officer—has been vacant for a year now. In the three and a half years of the administration, there has been an assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific affairs for only two years. The under secretary for policy, arguably the second most important position in the Pentagon, was fired for abiding by U.S. law, and the nominee to replace him is grossly unsuited for the job.
On the diplomatic level, too, the United States has been falling behind. Beyond the habitual kicking of allies, the America’s failure to compete with China’s growing foreign investments and aid is boxing us out of the Third World, as well as international organizations, in favor of the Chinese. The example of the World Health Organization has been widely discussed, and the U.S. withdrawal from it is an admission by the Trump administration of its inability to compete with China in such organizations. But it’s not just the WHO. The leadership of international organization after international organization has fallen into the hands of Sinophiles or Chinese nationals during the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Trump has failed to grasp the importance of the ideological component of our discord with China. He keeps praising the Communist Party chairman, Xi Jinping, as a friend whom he can get along with, while he has yet to mention any Chinese threat beyond trading disputes.
Meanwhile, China’s moral vulnerabilities could be turned to the strategic advantage of the United States, but the president has made no attempt to shame China and force it to choose between better domestic behavior and international isolation. The best opportunity for this is China’s persecution of Uighur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. It was just last week that the news of China’s eugenic practices in the region broke, as well as leaked drone footage showing Uighurs blindfolded and with heads shaved being herded onto trains. Instead of challenging these horrendous human rights abuses, Trump has—as his former national security advisor John Bolton revealed—encouraged Xi to go ahead with them. On the matter of Hong Kong autonomy, Trump had over a year to create a deterrence against mainland takeover of the island by threatening punitive action. He could have created an international coalition—assuming anybody in the world would care to listen to him—to punish China. He failed, and now it is too late, with the introduction of China’s National Security Law for Hong Kong. Even now, he still can offer refugee status for Hong Kongers, but that would go against his xenophobic policies and impulses.
On the clandestine front, China has been mining U.S. citizens’ private data. In September 2017, Chinese hackers stole 143 million Americans’ Social Security numbers, credit scores, and other sensitive data. One suspicion is that they are going to use these data to compromise individuals in key positions in government. The Trump administration never punished China for this breach. In addition, it is widely believed that the Chinese are mining Americans’ data through popular phone apps, most famously TikTok (don’t let your kids download it!) but others as well. Again, the Trump administration has made no meaningful attempt to prevent this. Finally, while America benefits from spectacular offensive cyber capabilities, our government and private-sector capabilities are very vulnerable. Again, there has been no policy to address this situation. Instead, the administration’s considerable increase in cyber capabilities have disproportionately and overwhelmingly gone into offensive capabilities.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that the administration’s strategy on China is merely weak. Rather, I’m pointing out the obvious: that there is no strategy. There is no coherence beyond the rhetorical bluster of an imaginary toughness. As much as Trump’s defenders like to say that he is taking the Chinese threat seriously, neither he nor his subordinates are giving much attention to it.
Will Biden be tough on China? I hope, but I make no promises. Is Trump tough on China? Hell no!


thebulwark--2020-07-21--Where Progressives and the Alt-Right Meet

You would think that the National Museum of African American History and Culture would be dedicated to fighting the scourge of racism , particularly vicious caricatures and stereotypes of African Americans .
Yet toward the end of May the institution posted one of the most racist documents I ’ ve ever seen , as part of a web page about “ whiteness.
” This graphic didn ’ t gain widespread notice until last week , at which point the museum promptly yanked it down .
But the Internet is forever , so here it is : As of this writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its link to the source document on which the infographic was based .
Which just goes to prove my theory that the harder you try to be “ progressive , ” by today ’ s standards , the closer you get to the alt-right .
What does that infographic—and the supposed “ anti-racist ” theory on which it is based—tell us ?
It tells us that the distinctive characteristics of “ whiteness ” and “ white culture ” include : And by implication , it ’ s telling us that black people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I saw this graphic it gave me an immediate , creepy feeling of déjà vu .
Specifically , it brought me back to that period in late 2015 and early 2016 when all of the white nationalists and “ alt-right ” types migrated out of the comments sections at Stormfront and descended upon Twitter .
Do you remember what those people kept insisting ?
Exactly what the National Museum of African American History and Culture is telling us : That all of these desirable characteristics are distinctive and unique to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vividly from that moment four years ago was seeing two new racial slurs : “ dindoo ” and “ gibsmedat.
” That ’ s “ dindoo ” as in “ dindoo nuffin ” — ” I didn ’ t do nothing , ” but rendered in a caricature of a “ black ” dialect .
The same for “ gibsmedat ” —a caricatured version of “ give me that.
” You get the idea .
The crude stereotype that was supposed to lodge in our brains is that black Americans refuse to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of work , and are incapable of speaking grammatical English .
And now we ’ re getting this slime from the dregs of white nationalist Twitter echoed back at us by the Smithsonian Institution .
It should go without saying—though in these confused times I suppose we have to say it—that none of these caricatures is remotely true .
I get why the white nationalists would want to promote them .
For the alt-right , it ’ s a form of unearned self-flattery—an attempt by a bunch of pathetic losers to puff themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility ( which must really take the sting out of living in your mom ’ s basement ) .
What seems incomprehensible is why black museum curators would want to denigrate themselves .
Worse , why would they want to boost the careers of white academics such as Robin DiAngelo and Judith Katz ( the source for that infographic ) to spread these vicious stereotypes in corporate “ anti-racism ” seminars across the country ?
The key to the answer is one item on that list of allegedly “ white ” characteristics : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard part of “ anti-racism ” to describe “ individualism ” and “ universality ” as the key components of racism and “ white supremacy.
” It is really quite a spectacular feat , when you think of it , to so completely invert the meaning of a concept .
In reality , individualism and universality are the opposites of racism .
To view each person as a unique individual is to reject caricatures , stereotypes , and prejudices based on race .
To regard ideas and values as universal is to reject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherent conflict or incompatibility that overrides our shared humanity .
These ideals may be hard to implement fully in practice , but to the extent they are achieved , individualism and universality are anti-racism .
So what is to be gained by turning this on its head ?
Who benefits by promoting a relentless racial collectivization and building up the artificial divisions between people of different skin tones and ancestral origins ?
Sadly , there is political hay to be made out of herding people into separate and irreconcilable interest groups and pitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist put it , while explaining why it is important to capitalize the word “ black , ” the idea is to emphasize that this is “ a specific group of people with a shared political identity.
” How convenient .
For the profiteers of a tribalistic , us-versus-them politics , the worst threat is the person who sees him- or herself as an individual .
But herding people into collectives requires that we invent inherent differences between them , which requires carving up various attributes of human character , ability , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or another .
One of those groups is always going to end up being assigned the least desirable characteristics .
In a way , though , I suppose today ’ s “ progressives ” are going full circle .
Recent debates over the legacy of Woodrow Wilson—the president who brought segregation back to federal hiring—have reminded us all that the first batch of “ progressives ” were barking mad racists obsessed with eugenics and steeped in racial caricatures .
Let ’ s not allow their successors to drag us back to those days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us forward .

You would think that the National Museum of African American History and Culture would be dedicated to fighting the scourge of racism, particularly vicious caricatures and stereotypes of African Americans.
Yet toward the end of May the institution posted one of the most racist documents I’ve ever seen, as part of a web page about “whiteness.” This graphic didn’t gain widespread notice until last week, at which point the museum promptly yanked it down.
But the Internet is forever, so here it is:
As of this writing, the museum has not pulled down its link to the source document on which the infographic was based.
Which just goes to prove my theory that the harder you try to be “progressive,” by today’s standards, the closer you get to the alt-right.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
What does that infographic—and the supposed “anti-racist” theory on which it is based—tell us?
It tells us that the distinctive characteristics of “whiteness” and “white culture” include:
Hard work
“Delayed gratification”
Planning for the future
The “nuclear family”
Rational thinking
Promptness
Politeness
“Decision-making”
Personal responsibility
Speaking standard English
And by implication, it’s telling us that black people are not characterized by any of these traits.
When I saw this graphic it gave me an immediate, creepy feeling of déjà vu. Specifically, it brought me back to that period in late 2015 and early 2016 when all of the white nationalists and “alt-right” types migrated out of the comments sections at Stormfront and descended upon Twitter.
Do you remember what those people kept insisting? Exactly what the National Museum of African American History and Culture is telling us: That all of these desirable characteristics are distinctive and unique to the white race.
What I remember most vividly from that moment four years ago was seeing two new racial slurs: “dindoo” and “gibsmedat.”
That’s “dindoo” as in “dindoo nuffin”—”I didn’t do nothing,” but rendered in a caricature of a “black” dialect. The same for “gibsmedat”—a caricatured version of “give me that.” You get the idea. The crude stereotype that was supposed to lodge in our brains is that black Americans refuse to take personal responsibility, want government handouts instead of work, and are incapable of speaking grammatical English.
And now we’re getting this slime from the dregs of white nationalist Twitter echoed back at us by the Smithsonian Institution.
What the hell happened?
It should go without saying—though in these confused times I suppose we have to say it—that none of these caricatures is remotely true.
I get why the white nationalists would want to promote them. For the alt-right, it’s a form of unearned self-flattery—an attempt by a bunch of pathetic losers to puff themselves up as exemplars of hard work and responsibility (which must really take the sting out of living in your mom’s basement). What seems incomprehensible is why black museum curators would want to denigrate themselves. Worse, why would they want to boost the careers of white academics such as Robin DiAngelo and Judith Katz (the source for that infographic) to spread these vicious stereotypes in corporate “anti-racism” seminars across the country?
The key to the answer is one item on that list of allegedly “white” characteristics: “individualism.”
It is now a standard part of “anti-racism” to describe “individualism” and “universality” as the key components of racism and “white supremacy.”
It is really quite a spectacular feat, when you think of it, to so completely invert the meaning of a concept. In reality, individualism and universality are the opposites of racism. To view each person as a unique individual is to reject caricatures, stereotypes, and prejudices based on race. To regard ideas and values as universal is to reject the claim that physical differences create an inherent conflict or incompatibility that overrides our shared humanity.
These ideals may be hard to implement fully in practice, but to the extent they are achieved, individualism and universality are anti-racism.
So what is to be gained by turning this on its head? Who benefits by promoting a relentless racial collectivization and building up the artificial divisions between people of different skin tones and ancestral origins?
Sadly, there is political hay to be made out of herding people into separate and irreconcilable interest groups and pitting them against each other.
As one activist put it, while explaining why it is important to capitalize the word “black,” the idea is to emphasize that this is “a specific group of people with a shared political identity.” How convenient.
For the profiteers of a tribalistic, us-versus-them politics, the worst threat is the person who sees him- or herself as an individual.
But herding people into collectives requires that we invent inherent differences between them, which requires carving up various attributes of human character, ability, and culture and assigning them to one group or another. One of those groups is always going to end up being assigned the least desirable characteristics.
In a way, though, I suppose today’s “progressives” are going full circle. Recent debates over the legacy of Woodrow Wilson—the president who brought segregation back to federal hiring—have reminded us all that the first batch of “progressives” were barking mad racists obsessed with eugenics and steeped in racial caricatures.
Let’s not allow their successors to drag us back to those days while insisting that they’re moving us forward.