Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[ainsworth74]

My worry is there's no-one leading the charge amongst Dems ranks. They look truly rudderless. AOC is strident and vocal but too young, Newsom is sharp but utterly divisive, Buttigieg is fantastic but I fear a huge swathe of American voters just aren't ready. The party's reliance on a 'it's the economy, stupid' message may have worked wonders in the 90s but I'm not sure it neatly applies to 2026's electorate. The polarised nature of modern politics and the absolutely baffling cult of personality that inspires the adoration of Trump's supporters suggest to me the midterm results will be very close, nefarious factors not withstanding*





*My optimism may return when it's not cold, dark and wet outside and I get some vitamin D!

Well yes, you've wandered onto one of the key issues with the US system is that that the opposition is often rudderless because there isn't really the concept of an "Official Opposition" in the way there is in the UK. Trump, as is always the way, is quite the outlier in the way that he still felt like the "leader" of the Republicans between 2021 and 2025. Outside of that usually there isn't a leader as such until there's a nominee for President.

Go back to say the 00s and early 2010s. When Bush or Obama was in power there was no real "leader" in the ranks of either party until very close to the relevant Presidential elections. Having the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader does give you some national platform but even then you're not really the "leader" of the party. You're in charge of the relevant group in the House or Senate but that's about it.

It's no surprise that there is no figure leading the charge for the Dems. That is the nature of the US system!

 

[JonathanH]

Whichever way the mid-terms go

Does Trump and his support base have some scope, ruse or plan for the mid-term elections to be postponed or cancelled in some way? Clearly it would go against the previous history of democracy in the US but that is the path that the movement seems to be taking the country down.

 

[Gloster]

Does Trump and his support base have some scope, ruse or plan for the mid-term elections to be postponed or cancelled in some way? Clearly it would go against the previous history of democracy in the US but that is the path that the movement seems to be taking the country down.

I looked it up a while ago and the answer is a bit unclear: I don’t think that the founding fathers envisaged the current situation even in their worst nightmares. I think that neither the President nor the House can cancel elections, but it is possible that individual states can cancel the elections in their state. As it is unclear, they could always cancel and keep the existing members in place knowing that legal challenges would give the ill-intentioned ones time to prepare the way for real election fixing. However, I am not clear who might possibly have the power to cancel, and how this and existing seats are divided between Democrat and Republican. That is the best that I can do.

 

[JonathanH]

I looked it up a while ago and the answer is a bit unclear: I don’t think that the founding fathers envisaged the current situation even in their worst nightmares. I think that neither the President nor the House can cancel elections, but it is possible that individual states can cancel the elections in their state. As it is unclear, they could always cancel and keep the existing members in place knowing that legal challenges would give the ill-intentioned ones time to prepare the way for real election fixing. However, I am not clear who might possibly have the power to cancel, and how this and existing seats are divided between Democrat and Republican. That is the best that I can do.

OK, thanks, that is interesting commentary. Sounds like it isn't immediately feasible.

 

[najaB]

.I think that neither the President nor the House can cancel elections, but it is possible that individual states can cancel the elections in their state.

That Is correct. It's entirely up to the states to select their representatives and senators.

That said, I'm pretty sure that every state has formalised the election process in their constitution, which would mean that they would have to go through the constitutional amendment process.

Typically that requires 2/3 of the state representatives to agree or a referendum.

 

[sor]

I think the concern is over what he can do, eg stationing ICE near polling stations and questioning anyone who isn't paper white or is speaking a language other than English

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the concern is over what he can do, eg stationing ICE near polling stations and questioning anyone who isn't paper white or is speaking a language other than English

I've just been using Co-pilot to see what, if anything Trump could do to stall or even cancel elections. It seems on a Federal level he cannot, at least as far as the constitution is concerned, although it would not surprise me if his administration wasn't searching for a way to do this. So for example he can't legally call a state of emergency to halt the Mid-Terms because, oh I don't know, they find themselves at war with another country say Venezuela....

However, at State level he might find some leverage to at least stall things next year as states of emergency can lead to state specific postponements. This is what Co-Pilot says on the matter:

"Can the united states call a state of emergency to cancel an election?"

No, the President of the United States cannot use a state of emergency to cancel or postpone a federal election, as the Constitution and federal law grant Congress authority over election timing, not the President, and elections have continued through major conflicts like the Civil War and World Wars. While states have emergency powers to manage their specific election procedures (like polling places), they cannot cancel the national election, and federal law sets the date for the presidential election, which only Congress can change.
Why the President Can't Cancel an Election

• Constitutional Authority: The U.S. Constitution sets the four-year term for President and Vice President and gives Congress the power to set the date for federal elections.
• Federal Law: Congress passed a law (3 U.S.C. § 2) setting the election date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date that has never been changed for a presidential election.
• No Emergency Override: A presidential declaration of a national emergency unlocks specific powers, but none allow the President to control election dates or supersede the Constitution and federal statutes.

What About State-Level Emergencies?

• State Authority: Individual states have laws allowing governors or election officials to postpone specific state or local elections due to emergencies (like natural disasters or pandemics).
• Not Federal Elections: These state powers apply to state-level races or primaries and do not extend to canceling the national presidential election or appointing presidential electors.

So along with all the other possible nefarious tactics that Trump might try to employ, he might try to throw a spanner into the works using state emergencies, especially ones where his political opponents reside / vote, or where the GOP is in danger of losing. It shouldn't stop Federal elections, but I think he would simply try to throw the system into chaos, arguing that if state elections have to be suspended so should Federal.

Normally I'd read all that back and think to myself what a load of Wibble I've come up with. But I can seriously see this being something he will try, Trump wants to be King and I'm sure he'll stop at nothing to get there. Even if it means a complete breakdown of state & federal affairs whilst the courts fight amongst themselves to sort out the legal standings.

 

[Harpo]

Normally I'd read all that back and think to myself what a load of Wibble I've come up with.

There’s no longer any ‘normally’ with Trump. Who would have predicted a US president appeasing Russia, berating Europe, publicly humiliating another nations leader, denigrating one of the US’s finest movie directors immediately after his murder, etc..?

We are in extraordinary times, there and here.

 

[najaB]

So along with all the other possible nefarious tactics that Trump might try to employ, he might try to throw a spanner into the works using state emergencies, especially ones where his political opponents reside / vote, or where the GOP is in danger of losing. It shouldn't stop Federal elections, but I think he would simply try to throw the system into chaos, arguing that if state elections have to be suspended so should Federal.

That requires an appetite to take the MAGA fight to the state government level. I'm not sure that exists in enough of the swing states for it to actually work.

 

[martin butler]

As i understand it, senators, and representatives' terms are governed by the time limit of the elections, and after the midterms, their office expires, so both houses will have no power, and the US will have no effective government, until a new house is sworn in,

Let's assume Trump instructs Johnson to refuse to seat new senators, there are ways round that, and their first action, will be to impeach the speaker, then, they will turn their eyes to the president, who will thereafter have every move stopped by congress, as well as being impeached for ordering the speaker to not do his duty, at that point its literally game over,

Trump will try to engineer some excuse to ensure he holds power, most likely by presidential decree, ignoring congress, but that's a high-risk move, because the senators will have to be seated eventually, and there are mechanisms that allow that to be done without governmental accord
and once seated, power returns to the senate and house.

 

[Pete_uk]

Its Epstein Venezuela day on Friday, no?

 

[dosxuk]

Removed

 

[styles]

Feels like there's been an avalanche of stories from the white house today...

• Renaming the Kennedy Center o the Trump-Kennedy Centre
• Adding plaques to his predecessors portraits in the White House
• Reclassifying cannabis to make it more widely available

It's almost like there's another story floating around they don't want people to notice

To be fair, with this administration, there is always another story they want to bury.

It's hard to tell what is intended to bury a story, what is just to cause shock and awe, what is to appease the socially authoritarian side of the Republican Party, and what is just Trump being the child he is.

 

[brad465]

"Trump-Kennedy centre" is peak narcissism*

*Until the next narcist thing he des.

 

[Gloster]

Feels like there's been an avalanche of stories from the white house today...

• Renaming the Kennedy Center o the Trump-Kennedy Centre
• Adding plaques to his predecessors portraits in the White House
• Reclassifying cannabis to make it more widely available

It's almost like there's another story floating around they don't want people to notice

It has passed beyond ‘every day a new low’. He is now managing several a day.

 

[ainsworth74]

As i understand it, senators, and representatives' terms are governed by the time limit of the elections, and after the midterms, their office expires, so both houses will have no power, and the US will have no effective government, until a new house is sworn in.

Not quite. The term of a member of the House of Representatives or Senate (though only 1/3 of the Senate is elected at a time) ends at noon on the 3rd of January and their replacements (elected the previous November) begin their terms of office. There is a so called "lame duck" period from the November election until noon on January 3rd where the outgoing members of Congress are still in office as they're seeing out the end of their terms that they were previously elected to. By custom not much is usually done during this period as obviously the make-up of the House and Senate may well have changed so it would, in times gone by, be unseemly for a "lame duck" Congress to pass controversial legislation which an incoming Congress would not itself pass. This is similar to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. By operation of the Constitution their terms of office automatically end on 20 January at noon and their successors begins immediately. Until the Twentieth Amendment was passed in 1933 it was even worse as terms of office didn't begin/end until March following the November election!

Much like the UK, the US doesn't have a period where there is no Government. It's just that they have a specific period of time where the old Congress (or President) remain in office after the election for a couple of months whilst in our system the new guys take their seats and positions immediately.

Let's assume Trump instructs Johnson to refuse to seat new senators, there are ways round that, and their first action, will be to impeach the speaker, then, they will turn their eyes to the president, who will thereafter have every move stopped by congress, as well as being impeached for ordering the speaker to not do his duty, at that point its literally game over,

Trump will try to engineer some excuse to ensure he holds power, most likely by presidential decree, ignoring congress, but that's a high-risk move, because the senators will have to be seated eventually, and there are mechanisms that allow that to be done without governmental accord and once seated, power returns to the senate and house.

It is worth noting that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election in 2026 only the House of Representatives is re-elected in full every two years. Also Johnson is the Speaker of the House so isn't responsible for the seating of Senators that would be the Vice-President (who is President of the Senate) who deals with that.

Assuming that the Democrats retake the House of Representatives in 2026 then on January 3 2027 at noon Johnson's time as Speaker of the House will come to end by operation of the Constitution so he wouldn't be in a position to block anyone being sworn in for the new term. This is really getting into the weeds of US Congressional procedure (and I'm really really not an expert!) but my understanding is that before anyone is sworn in they would elect a Speaker, the Speaker is then sworn in by the longest serving member (though that seems to be custom and practice, in reality any member could do it), and the Speaker then swears in the rest of the House. So it simply isn't possible without an outright coup (not ruling it out) for the new House not to take their seats in January 2027.

There's more room for shenanigans in the Senate as there JD Vance is in charge of wearing in new members but it's worth noting that 2/3rds of the Senators would still be in the middle of their terms so have plenty of power to act.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Not knowing much, if anything, about US electoral law I wonder if Trump has scope to delay elected House or Senate members taking their seats by invoking electoral fraud claims.

 

[najaB]

Not knowing much, if anything, about US electoral law I wonder if Trump has scope to delay elected House or Senate members taking their seats by invoking electoral fraud claims.

He doesn't no. The legislature is a co-equal branch of Government so the Executive (the President) has no direct control over their proceedings. If, however, enough members of Congress go along with it then that's a different matter.

 

[Gloster]

Not knowing much, if anything, about US electoral law I wonder if Trump has scope to delay elected House or Senate members taking their seats by invoking electoral fraud claims.

I have found something on .congress.gov : Procedures for Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives. It seems that only a losing candidate can challenge, but wouldn’t they just. What would happen if there is a refusal of an official to ratify the result or straightforward malfeasance by an official is not clear, but the state legislature might get involved.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I have found something on .congress.gov : Procedures for Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives. It seems that only a losing candidate can challenge, but wouldn’t they just. What would happen if there is a refusal of an official to ratify the result or straightforward malfeasance by an official is not clear, but the state legislature might get involved.

These are the kind things I was wondering about. Trump personally might not have the constitutional right to challenge but he could certainly apply pressure anyway.
I can see a whole range of things being done to affect the midterms.
ICE agents being deployed in, shall we say less white neighbourhoods.
Vote count watchers making claims of discrepancies.
Officials not ratifying results because of claimed discrepancies and irregularities.
Legal challenges over the results.
I am sure there will be other things as well.

 

[brad465]

The first batch of Epstein files have officially been released (although it will take time for them all to be analysed):

Live: Thousands of long-awaited Epstein files released by US justice department

It faced a legal deadline of today to publish the material, following months of pressure on the Trump administration.

www.bbc.co.uk

The US justice department has just released a tranche of files related to its investigations into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

It's not yet clear whether this is a full or partial release of the files held by the justice department.

We're looking through them now – we'll bring you more as soon as we can.

 

[Gloster]

Reading the BBC’s coverage, I wonder if the strategy is to completely overwhelm readers with information that lacks cross-referencing, indexing and context. They won’t be able to cover everything up, but with a bit of luck they will confuse, protect the ones who have the power and distract. (I do realise that thoroughly organising all the papers and photos would probably never be possible in the time available, but it all depends on what you do do.)

 

[Tezza1978]

All going to go legal (as expected) because the orange one has directed only some of the (redacted) files to be released on time, behind a raft load of excuses......

 

[Gloster]

The Epstein Files Transparency Act does permit names and other details to be redacted if they relate to an active criminal investigation, identify victims or contain images of abuse. That is all quite reasonable, but it depends on who does the redacting and whether the redactions are independently scrutinised. With the way the Department of Justice, and just about every other part of the US government, is now run, one cannot have confidence that they will not be selective in the details that are released, unless they go to very great lengths to prove the impartiality of the selection process. I very much doubt that they will, although I concede that it would have been very difficult to do in the time.

 

[generalnerd]

Reading the BBC’s coverage, I wonder if the strategy is to completely overwhelm readers with information that lacks cross-referencing, indexing and context. They won’t be able to cover everything up, but with a bit of luck they will confuse, protect the ones who have the power and distract. (I do realise that thoroughly organising all the papers and photos would probably never be possible in the time available, but it all depends on what you do do.)

I’m sure a newsroom with a few decent journalists could organise it

 

[Gloster]

I wonder if whoever is handling this for Trump has misjudged the situation and the gullibility of the MAGA-faithful. By redacting so much they leave the public wondering if there really is something there, even if there might not be anything. Some of the GOP in the House may now be examining their consciences/looking at their majorities and considering distancing themselves from Trump and his gang. The faithful have previously been prepared to blame anyone else for what has been going on, but this time they may feel that Trump is, at least, partially at fault for the excessive amount of redactions. They won’t defect to the Democrats, but their willingness to accept his every word and deed as gospel may falter.

We shall have to see what the immediate effects are, but I suspect that Trump’s handlers are prepared to push ahead with their agenda anyway. They have a year to change the face of the country.

 

[martin butler]

It's almost transparent isn't it, so how come so much of the Epstein files has had to be redacted, even if he wasn't, Trump with every blacked out line, looks more guilty than before, and if he did nothing wrong, why hide even his name, that's just something that makes a mockery of it.

 

[JamesT]

It's almost transparent isn't it, so how come so much of the Epstein files has had to be redacted, even if he wasn't, Trump with every blacked out line, looks more guilty than before, and if he did nothing wrong, why hide even his name, that's just something that makes a mockery of it.

Trump’s name is not hidden, he does appear briefly in the files released so far. Details of victims or ongoing criminal cases are what has been redacted.
It seems odd that Trump tried to prevent the release, as there really isn’t anything of any substance relating to him in the files so far.

 

[Tester]

Trump’s name is not hidden, he does appear briefly in the files released so far. Details of victims or ongoing criminal cases are what has been redacted.
It seems odd that Trump tried to prevent the release, as there really isn’t anything of any substance relating to him in the files so far.

If Trump knew for certain that there couldn't be anything incriminating there (because he knew that he hadn't done anything dodgy) he would have no reason to prevent the release.

If, on the other hand.....

 

[87electric]

Why did the Democrats, when in office, not release these files if Trump was implicated in wrongdoing?