Renaming: Suggestions for the Trump Administration

After the American Century

Trump has decided to rename the Department of Defense, as the Department of War.  

Presumably, other parts of the government also will be renamed, hence the following suggestions

Present name                                Proposed change

President                                               Godfather

FBI                                                        Federal Bureau of Intimidation

Department of Justice                           Department of Payback and Reprisal

Supreme Court                                      Court of Presidential Rubber Stamping  

ICE                                                        American Gestapo

State Department                                  Department of America First

Treasury Department                            Department of Deficit Spending  

Department of the Interior                    Department of Resource Exploitation

Department of Agriculture                    Department of AgriBusiness

Department of Labor                             Department of Wonderful Statistics

Department of Health                           Department of Just Say No to Science

Center for Disease Control                   Center for Home Cures and Quackery 

Department of Energy                          Department Promoting Fossil Fuels

Homeland Security                               Department of Urban Occupation 

Department of Education                     Department of Mythology

Department of Transportation              Department of Gasoline 

    

Foundation for Humanities                  Foundation for Prejudice, Pride & Patriotism

Federal Trade Commission                  Arbitrary Tariffs Commission

Civil Service Commission                   Employee Termination Service

National Science Foundation               Department of University Shakedowns

Social Security                                     Ephemeral Pensions Administration

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has never been higher than 50%.  In January, 2025,  just 38.8% approved of the Court.  

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflicts of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

The Capricious Rule of Trump

The Capricious Rule of Trump: 

The Flynn case and the destruction of the rule of law

After the American Century


First, the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. This is not a debatable point, as it has been exhaustively established by a special prosecutor investigation.

Second, Michael Flynn had secret conversations with Russian diplomats before the Trump Administration took office. His phone conversations were recorded, because the FBI was tapping the Russian's phone. This also is a fact and not debatable.

Third, Flynn lied about these conversations, first to the Vice President and then to the FBI. This is also undeniably the fact.

Fourth, Flynn confessed that he lied.  He made a legally binding admission of guilt.

Fifth, after years of legal maneuvering, Flynn has just escaped any punishment because the Justice Department suddenly decided to drop the case. The Acting Attorney General, Mr. Barr appears to have interfered in the case in several ways. For details, see the lead story in the New York Times for May 8, 2020.

Sixth, the President of the United States declares that Flynn was innocent, and attacks the Justice Department lawyers who took him to court, calling them "scum." As reported by the Times, his words were “They’re scum — and I say it a lot, they’re scum, they’re human scum."  

The Trump Administration has politicized the Justice Department and turned it into his political tool. How it is possible that Flynn confesses his guilt, agrees to cooperate with the enquiry in exchange for leniency in punishment, but then manages to get the government to DROP the case?

There is no (American) precedent for such a thing. Confess guilt and then have the case dropped? What kind of legal system has Trump created? This resembles the way dictatorships operate.  Get your buddies off unpunished, and attack the Justice Department lawyers for trying to protect the United States from Russian interference.

Trump is not making American great, as he promised, but destroying the rule of law.  As for Mr. Flynn, he confessed that he was guilty of perjury, but that is not the main point. He was involved with the same foreign power that interfered with the 2016 elections, and the American people deserve to know the details of what Flynn's conversations were about. Note, too, that it is highly irregular to conduct foreign policy, if that was what one can call it, before one takes office - apparently in an effort to undermine the Obama Administration's foreign policy.  Some might call that treason.

But instead of getting to the bottom of Flynn's dealings with an enemy of the United States, he is walking away, unpunished.

Instead of the rule of law, we have the capricious rule of Trump.

Can Tillerson still be Secretary of State after Trading with the Enemy?

After the American Century

The Newsletter 538 noted the following about an article that appeared in USA Today.

"Between 2003 and 2005, the oil and gas company Infineum reported $53.2 million in sales to Iran. During that time, Exxon Mobil had a 50 percent stake in Infineum. Also during that time, the U.S. had sanctions on Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Rex Tillerson, a top Exxon executive at the time of the deal and later its CEO, is now President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the State Department."

So the nominee for Secretary of State broke the US sanction on Iran during George Bush's presidency. (Exxon Mobile also did business with Sudan through the same proxy company, but it was a much smaller transaction.) Iran was then well-known to sponsor terrorist and dissident groups in various parts of the Middle East, hence the sanctions, so there it is not possible for Tillerson to claim he didn't know. 

After this revelation, here are the problems with making Rex Tillerson Secretary of State:

1. He has broken the law in order to make a profit. The claim made in defense is that Infineum is based in Europe, and that no Americans were employed in making these transactions. To avoid violating US law, under this Secretary of State it would seem, it is just fine so long as you do it through a proxy. 
2. He has taken sides in the Middle East, trading with Iran during the time of sanctions.
3. He will not be trusted by an important American ally, Israel, which fears the Iranian atomic program.
4. He will not be trusted by Saudi Arabia, a second important ally, who is constantly in conflict with Iran over a great many issues.
5. He will be regarded with suspicion by a third ally, Turkey.
6. The worst suspicions of US critics, that its foreign policy is concerned not with principles but profits, specfically oil profits, will be confirmed.

That is rather a large amount of baggage to be carrying into confirmation hearings. Can his fellow Republicans stomach all that?

It seems the Republicans cannot stay away from making deals with the Iranians. That was their problem during the Reagan years, too. The original Irangate was also about trading with the enemy.  Is that the credential needed to be Trump's Secretary of State?