Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[Annetts key]

Thanks Trump. As someone on a smart tariff, my gas rate has gone up almost 2p per kWh. Most energy providers have withdrawn a bunch of tariffs entirely so if you didn't change already then you'll be likely forced onto a standard variable one.

Trump is going to impact a lot of British people already struggling to pay their electric and gas bills.

Some are on fixed electricity and fixed gas tariffs, in which case, they will not be affected until the end of the fixed term.

 

[JamesT]

Some are on fixed electricity and fixed gas tariffs, in which case, they will not be affected until the end of the fixed term.

And those that aren’t are almost certainly on a tariff governed by the price cap. Which is due to fall next month as those were set last week. If this goes on for a while, potentially it might feed into the cap for July onwards.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't recall ever seeing masked armed thugs dragging people out of their cars in the UK for looking a bit brown (regardless of their actual immigration status).

ICE is armed because in most countries law enforcement are armed.

Think about it though

• End to birthright citizenship - UK removed the right in 1983
• Build a wall and make someone else pay for it - This happened in Calais.
• Restricting welfare even for legal migrants - UK introduced it in 1999 with "no recourse to public funds"
• Hotile environment - Infamously introduced by the coalition in 2012 although the original concept I think was from Liam Byrne in 2008.
• Points-based immigration rules - Introduced for non EU migrants in 2008.
• Requiring immigrants to speak English - UK introduced this in 2010.
• Ban on "sanctuary cities" - This has always been the case in the United Kingdom
• Mass deportations - at the moment the Home Office boasts about how many people they deport on social media.
• Deporting foreign criminals - This has been the case since 2008 for those sentenced to 12 months in jail.
• Banning illegal immigrants from having driving licences - This has always been the case but got tougher in 2014.
• Immigration checks on banking - Has been the case in the UK since 2014 but not in the US.
• Immigration checks to rent property - A requirement in the UK since 2016 but not one in the US.
• Requirement to show ID to vote - introduced in 2023 in the UK but not the case in the US.
• DACA - no such policy has ever existed in the UK and those brought here illegally as children remain illegal immigrants as adults.
• Require hospitals to check immigration status - regularly happens in the NHS to ensure those getting NHS treatment are entirled to it.

While there are many headline grabbing stories about Donald Trump's immigration policy and ICE being violent in practice UK immigration laws and UK immigration enforcement are generally a lot tougher.

 

[Krokodil]

ICE is armed because in most countries law enforcement are armed.

And the masks? And the thuggish behaviour exhibited by ICE/CBP, encouraged by its leadership?

The Trump regime has deployed what amounts to a private army on the streets of the US. It doesn't restrict itself to removing "the worst of the worst", it has been beating up and detaining:

Asylum seekers
People with visas
Green card holders
Citizens

The policy of unrestricted warfare on the streets is nothing like the targeted operations conducted by UKBF.

 

[thenorthern]

And the masks? And the thuggish behaviour exhibited by ICE/CBP, encouraged by its leadership?

The Trump regime has deployed what amounts to a private army on the streets of the US. It doesn't restrict itself to removing "the worst of the worst", it has been beating up and detaining:

Asylum seekers
People with visas
Green card holders
Citizens

The policy of unrestricted warfare on the streets is nothing like the targeted operations conducted by UKBF.

Clearly you don't remember the Windrush Scandal which happened under the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition. UKBF has regularly been accused of being militaristic. Can you provide a source to say he has told them to exhibit "thuggish behaviour"?

As I say he is tough on immigration and his rhetoric grabs headlines, but in many way the UK immigration enforcement is much tougher than the US system.

 

[Tester]

Clearly you don't remember the Windrush Scandal which happened under the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition. UKBF has regularly been accused of being militaristic. Can you provide a source to say he has told them to exhibit "thuggish behaviour"?

As I say he is tough on immigration and his rhetoric grabs headlines, but in many way the UK immigration enforcement is much tougher than the US system.

You stick with what works for you, and I'll stick with what works for me

 

[Bantamzen]

ICE is armed because in most countries law enforcement are armed.

Think about it though

• End to birthright citizenship - UK removed the right in 1983
• Build a wall and make someone else pay for it - This happened in Calais.
• Restricting welfare even for legal migrants - UK introduced it in 1999 with "no recourse to public funds"
• Hotile environment - Infamously introduced by the coalition in 2012 although the original concept I think was from Liam Byrne in 2008.
• Points-based immigration rules - Introduced for non EU migrants in 2008.
• Requiring immigrants to speak English - UK introduced this in 2010.
• Ban on "sanctuary cities" - This has always been the case in the United Kingdom
• Mass deportations - at the moment the Home Office boasts about how many people they deport on social media.
• Deporting foreign criminals - This has been the case since 2008 for those sentenced to 12 months in jail.
• Banning illegal immigrants from having driving licences - This has always been the case but got tougher in 2014.
• Immigration checks on banking - Has been the case in the UK since 2014 but not in the US.
• Immigration checks to rent property - A requirement in the UK since 2016 but not one in the US.
• Requirement to show ID to vote - introduced in 2023 in the UK but not the case in the US.
• DACA - no such policy has ever existed in the UK and those brought here illegally as children remain illegal immigrants as adults.
• Require hospitals to check immigration status - regularly happens in the NHS to ensure those getting NHS treatment are entirled to it.

While there are many headline grabbing stories about Donald Trump's immigration policy and ICE being violent in practice UK immigration laws and UK immigration enforcement are generally a lot tougher.

All of which is true, however all of which gets through via due process, i.e. the Houses of Parliament. Then those rules are adhered to without the use of untrained, ill-disciplined hired thugs being promised (if not actually paid yet) large bonuses based on how many people they detain. And those rules are applied equally across the country as and when needed, not deployed just to certain parts because those areas voted for someone else other than the glorious leader. Ask yourself this, where are all the masked ICE agents dragging people out of cars, shops, schools etc in Florida?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't recall ever seeing masked armed thugs dragging people out of their cars in the UK for looking a bit brown (regardless of their actual immigration status).

That's conflating immigration policy and enforcement. Clearly the USA now has a stronger enforcement regime but immigration policy is generally far more permissive in the USA.

 

[Harpo]

I don't recall ever seeing masked armed thugs dragging people out of their cars in the UK for looking a bit brown (regardless of their actual immigration status).

Being polite and English, we have ‘stop and search’ instead.

 

[The exile]

That's conflating immigration policy and enforcement. Clearly the USA now has a stronger enforcement regime but immigration policy is generally far more permissive in the USA.

That makes a heck of a difference between the rule of law (however much you may agree or disagree with that law) and rule by arbitrary whim. The US President is effectively an elected monarch - 18th century style - (hardly surprising considering the time when the system was set up) - we’re now seeing the potential consequences of that!

 

[nw1]

It's genuinely news to me that the USA has a more permissive immigration policy. I am not denying it - as I have read the US vs UK evidence above - but the popular image is that the USA has the most restrictive immigration policy of the western world.

I guess it's more a case of if you do do something not by the book, the consequences are far more severe.

 

[edwin_m]

It's genuinely news to me that the USA has a more permissive immigration policy. I am not denying it - as I have read the US vs UK evidence above - but the popular image is that the USA has the most restrictive immigration policy of the western world.

I guess it's more a case of if you do do something not by the book, the consequences are far more severe.

Trump is trying to roll this back, mostly not by changing the law but by creating a climate of fear which he hopes will deter potential immigrants. Or possibly just wants the base to keep seeing the people they are encouraged to blame for the country's problems being grabbed off the street and thrown out with little to no due process.

 

[AlterEgo]

Trump is trying to roll this back, mostly not by changing the law but by creating a climate of fear which he hopes will deter potential immigrants. Or possibly just wants the base to keep seeing the people they are encouraged to blame for the country's problems being grabbed off the street and thrown out with little to no due process.

The latter, really. "The cruelty is the point" with much of what ICE is doing. America is a violent, frontier-minded anti-civilisation.

 

[jon0844]

Trump is trying to roll this back, mostly not by changing the law but by creating a climate of fear which he hopes will deter potential immigrants. Or possibly just wants the base to keep seeing the people they are encouraged to blame for the country's problems being grabbed off the street and thrown out with little to no due process.

One wonders who gets blamed when all the black and brown people are gone.

 

[The exile]

One wonders who gets blamed when all the black and brown people are gone.

Well - it’ll be a bit difficult to deport Native Americans (the clue’s in the name) - perhaps they’ll do!

 

[thenorthern]

It's genuinely news to me that the USA has a more permissive immigration policy. I am not denying it - as I have read the US vs UK evidence above - but the popular image is that the USA has the most restrictive immigration policy of the western world.

I guess it's more a case of if you do do something not by the book, the consequences are far more severe.

It's largely about how the media portrays it and how the politicians say it.

Under all the stories about Iran, there is a news story that the Home Secretary has announced that the government is no longer going to issue study visas to people from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. It will also not issue skilled work visas to Afghans. Effectively shutting Afghans out of the UK legal immigration system. While not portrayed as a "Muslim Ban" as Trump introduced, it's very similar in practice. The Home Office has threatened other countries with similar policies if they don't start to comply with UK Government demands.

As I say it's all about rhetoric and how it's said.

 

[DarloRich]

The repercussions shouldn't last for much longer though should they? At some point Iran is going to exhaust its stockpile of cruise missiles, or the US will destroy all the launch sites. At the moment Iran is essentially doing what any of us would do if we were being forcibly pummelled to the ground: they're lashing out indiscriminately for as long as they still have strength left.

the problem is not launch sites but mobile drone launchers on the back of flatbeds or pick ups surely? Much harder to pin those down?

 

[Russel]

So, what do we predict the end game is for Trumps war on Iran?

It's all looking rathe rmessy.

 

[Peterthegreat]

So, what do we predict the end game is for Trumps war on Iran?

It's all looking rathe rmessy.

That is a very good question.

 

[Annetts key]

That makes a heck of a difference between the rule of law (however much you may agree or disagree with that law) and rule by arbitrary whim. The US President is effectively an elected monarch - 18th century style - (hardly surprising considering the time when the system was set up) - we’re now seeing the potential consequences of that!

The thing is, not only is Trump or rather his "team" looking to misuse existing laws, but more importantly, he is abusing how the other parts of the system are suppose to work.

Congress is suppose to be independent and effective not just standing by and watching. But Trump has power over most of the GOP members until after the primaries.

Trump is having less success in the courts, where his administration is losing court cases. Plus the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has lost hundreds of lawyers. More than five thousand staff. This is making it difficult for the DOJ to actually defend cases or prosecute cases.

However, who enforces the decisions of the courts if the Federal government state ignores the outcome of the courts?

And executive orders were never intended to be as powerful or used as much as what is occurring under Trumps administration.

The founders never intended the president to have so much power.


Anyway about the DOJ, here is an extract from this web site

Justice Department struggles as thousands exit—and few are replaced

The Justice Department has lost thousands of experienced attorneys since the start of the Trump administration and has backfilled a fraction of the open jobs, with the process snarled by a lack of qualified candidates, bureaucratic delays and hiring freezes, according to people familiar with hirings in the department.

Last year, roughly 10,000 attorneys worked across the Justice Department and its components, including the FBI. Justice Connection, an advocacy group that has been tracking departures, estimates that around 5,500 people—not all of them attorneys—have quit the department, been fired or taken a buyout offered by the Trump administration.

The department did not provide a breakdown of attorney departures, but officials did not deny that widespread vacancies exist.
The department’s struggle to fill vacancies reflects a dramatic shift for a law enforcement agency that has long attracted high-performing alumni from the nation’s top-ranked law schools and law firms.

Multiple people familiar with the student bodies at top-ranked law schools and the department’s hiring process said the share of recent graduates across the political spectrum who are applying for jobs at the Justice Department has plummeted. The department has had difficulty finding qualified candidates for open slots, according to more than a half-dozen people familiar with the process, several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the record.

Across the country, U.S. attorneys’ offices have experienced higher turnovers than they typically see during a change in administrations. In August, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., said on Fox News that her office was down 90 prosecutors and told lawyers to email her if they wanted a job.

In Chicago, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros sent an email in August to former prosecutors that asked them to consider applying for prosecutor jobs in the office—and asked them to forward his email to potentially interested friends.

“I was astonished. I have never seen anything like that. When I came to the U.S. attorney’s office, I had won 13 state murder prosecutions, and I still thought I had such a slim chance of getting a job because it was such an ultracompetitive place,” said Mark Rotert, a retired Chicago-based attorney who worked as a federal prosecutor there in the ’80s and ’90s and received the recruiting email from a friend. “Now it’s like, ‘If you ever threw a pass, do you want to be a quarterback?’”

William Treanor, the former dean of Georgetown University Law Center, said that “it has historically been the case that Department of Justice is one of the most attractive places for our Georgetown graduating class.”

“What we are seeing is a total drop in who is applying,” said Treanor, who stepped down from the law school’s top job this summer and is now a professor there. “It’s very, very dramatic. It’s gone from a good amount of our graduating class to virtually no one applying for jobs at the Justice Department.”

Many attorneys seeking government work are opting to work for state governments, leading to a surge of qualified candidates to state attorneys general offices, people familiar with the hiring process said.

To some, the drop in candidates who have graduated from top law schools like Georgetown, Yale and Harvard is welcome news. Republicans and Democrats have criticized the legal world as too elite. The Trump administration has repeatedly assailed the Justice Department workforce as too liberal and prone to undermining the president. And President Donald Trump and his aides have attacked the nation’s top universities, launching investigations and attempting to punish them for what they have called unjust admissions, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

In February, Ed Martin—who was then the acting top prosecutor in D.C.—wrote a letter to Treanor saying that his office would not consider hiring anyone from a law school that had what the Trump administration considered to be DEI policies. The Justice Department says it has not blacklisted graduates from any specific school.

If the Trump administration were able to fill the bulk of the department’s empty slots, that could dramatically reshape its career workforce. People familiar with the hiring process said that those applying now tend to be more conservative and align ideologically with the president.

Current Justice Department prospective hires are more likely to have political backgrounds than have been typical in the past, coming from Republican congressional offices and advocacy groups, the people familiar with the hiring process said. Others are young attorneys with little relevant experience or mid- to late-career attorneys who have no background in prosecutions.
“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by hiring the best and most qualified individuals to serve the American people—with emphasis on hiring those fulfilling critical law enforcement and public safety missions.” a Justice Department spokesperson said.

Employment law experts said they worry that some Trump officials are finding work-arounds in the hiring process to ensure that new hires for nonpolitical career positions align with the president’s politics.

When prospective Justice Department employees apply for a job, for example, they are asked to detail a Trump executive order or policy that is significant to them and how they would advance that initiative. The question is also asked of people applying to other executive branch agencies.

“Even though that question doesn’t ask if you are Republican, the spirit of that question asks for the job applicant to give their loyalty to the president,” said Raymond Limon, an expert in federal labor laws.

The process of filling career positions is distinct from installing political appointees. Career jobs are governed by federal regulations intended to ensure that politics do not play a role in who is hired. The Trump administration has pushed out many of the Justice Department’s top-ranking career officials and replaced them with political appointees. Many of these appointees came from Republican state solicitors general offices and conservative legal groups. The department has relied on them to argue some of its most high-profile and controversial cases in court.

Still, scores of career attorney positions open across the country need to be filled so that the department can handle its everyday caseload.

The typical Justice Department prosecutor graduated from a top law school, clerked with a federal judge and worked for a big law firm to gain experience. That appears to be changing.

In addition to a shortage of qualified candidates, the hiring process has been slowed by the government shutdown and by requirements for extra approvals before jobs can be filled.

In the meantime, attorneys in divisions that have seen significant departures are stretched thin, unable to keep up with incoming cases or complaints, according to people interviewed for this article.

The vast majority of the 600 employees in the Civil Rights Division, for example, have left. The division has refilled a dozen or so of those career positions, despite its chief, Harmeet K. Dhillon, publicly touting the flood of applications she has been receiving.
After Trump was elected last November, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland encouraged career staffers to remain in their jobs through the next administration, stressing that institutional knowledge is important as new leaders take hold and that they were needed to resist efforts to politicize the department.

Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, top Justice Department officials have pushed out veteran prosecutors across the department who worked on cases during the Biden administration that they viewed as anti-Trump. Employees who prosecuted the hundreds of cases against the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have been especially targeted. Others were given no explanation as to why they were fired. The Washington Post has reported that other prosecutors have been ousted after they refused to bring cases to grand juries that they believed had insufficient evidence.

At least 200 people have been ousted, according to data collected by Justice Connection. Immigration judges employed by the Justice Department accounted for about 80 of those firings. Trump administration officials are struggling to fill those immigration judge vacancies, and the backlog of cases is growing, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Lawyers who work in the government typically earn far less money than they would in the private sector. First-year associates at major law firms can make more than $230,000 even before hefty annual bonuses. By contrast, starting salaries for line prosecutors are around $70,000 in some cities.

The draw of the Justice Department has long been public service and job security. The widespread firings have undermined the job security belief. At the same time, some potential hires fear they could be put in compromising positions in which they would be forced to bring cases they felt would be unethical to present to a grand jury.

“People are looking at firms as an alternative,” said Nathan Peart, executive director of the associate practice group at Major, Lindsey & Africa, a legal executive job search firm. “It’s always been a competitive place, but you have more people now looking for those jobs.”

 

[thenorthern]

So, what do we predict the end game is for Trumps war on Iran?

It's all looking rathe rmessy.

Difficult to say, with Venezuela, he got lucky in that the US removed the socialist government there and the former dictator is now in custody. By Venezuela standards the country is relatively stable (I know that isn't saying much) and the actual operation was over in a matter of hours.

In Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan regime change hasn't worked and they are still fighting decades after the "bad guy" was removed. Often by islamist insurgent groups. Given Iran is an Islamic country I think we could be seeing the same again.

 

[Class73Electro]

Well.. Trump doesn't like the Spanish now...

"Spain has been terrible," Trump said during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday.
"We're going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don't want anything to do with Spain," he added.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93wwq1n542o

This is because Spain didn't allow the US to use Spanish military bases

 

[Annetts key]

the problem is not launch sites but mobile drone launchers on the back of flatbeds or pick ups surely? Much harder to pin those down?

Iran has mobile ballistic missile erector/launchers (TELs) that if moved around are difficult to eliminate compared to fixed launch sites.

So, what do we predict the end game is for Trumps war on Iran?

It's all looking rathe rmessy.

We are not even clear what the objective(s) of the U.S. are...

So how does the U.S. define success?

Also Trump has been talking about weapons levels:

He wrote: “The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better.” and the U.S. has “a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons,” and added “Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies.”

Then, but “are not where we want to be.”

And referred to Joe Biden, alleging that he “spent all of his time, and our Country’s money, GIVING everything to…Zelenskyy of Ukraine,” and didn’t “bother to replace it.”

Does this mean that there are logistics problems in getting enough weapons to the Middle East?

Above quotes are from Forbes.

 

[DarloRich]

Iran has mobile ballistic missile erector/launchers (TELs) that if moved around are difficult to eliminate compared to fixed launch sites.

last time but one we had a bit of a problem like this in the desert we sent the SAS in to find the mobile launchers. The yanks will be on thier own with the scud hunting this time

 

[Annetts key]

Difficult to say, with Venezuela, he got lucky in that the US removed the socialist government there and the former dictator is now in custody. By Venezuela standards the country is relatively stable (I know that isn't saying much) and the actual operation was over in a matter of hours.

In Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan regime change hasn't worked and they are still fighting decades after the "bad guy" was removed. Often by islamist insurgent groups. Given Iran is an Islamic country I think we could be seeing the same again.

Iran though, has plans not only in place, but in operation to deal with a loss of not only the death of the leader, but also to deal with a significant loss of the top level of their administration.

Hence why the Irian administration is still functional even though Ali Khamenei was killed. So if Trump was expecting a collapse, it's not going to be that easy.

As its very unlikely that there will be a ground campaign, Iran may be able to continue resisting for a long time. Will the U.S. be able to outlast this before trouble at home causes Trump problems?

 

[jon0844]

Well - it’ll be a bit difficult to deport Native Americans (the clue’s in the name) - perhaps they’ll do!

You think Trump won't try and deport them to some country they've never even been to? I'm not even joking!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2026 ==

Difficult to say, with Venezuela, he got lucky in that the US removed the socialist government there and the former dictator is now in custody. By Venezuela standards the country is relatively stable (I know that isn't saying much) and the actual operation was over in a matter of hours.

It's now run by the deputy, so what exactly has changed except for Trump being able to say 'do as I say, or the same will happen to you - or worse'?

 

[Krokodil]

Can you provide a source to say he has told them to exhibit "thuggish behaviour"?

For a start, did you see Greg Bovino liberally lobbing tear gas canisters about? He's in charge of this and it took a massive public backlash to get him reassigned. If he was going against the wishes of the administration they'd have sacked him much earlier.

Then there's the response to the blatant murders in Minnesota. The admin were straight in with the lies about the victims ("domestic terrorist"). When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

The administration has also gone out of its way to try to stop congressmen from visiting detention centres to see the conditions inside. Almost as if they have something to hide.

Well - it’ll be a bit difficult to deport Native Americans (the clue’s in the name) - perhaps they’ll do!

They've detained a few in Minnesota. Particularly offensive when you realise that the Whipple building is on the site of a concentration camp once used to intern thousands of Dakota women and children, hundreds of whom died.

Difficult to say, with Venezuela, he got lucky in that the US removed the socialist government there

The US removed one man and his wife. The socialist government is very much still there, under his Vice President.

 

[EYFanatic]

There is a moment in one of the Star Wars books when the Rebels attack Imperial Central that they take out the entire civil and military leadership leading to a problem as to who is in charge to authorise a surrender

I can see this happening in real life if Trump and his Israeli masters and backers strike the Iranian government's top levels - there will be no one left to order a cease fire and conduct talks at this rate

 

[thenorthern]

For a start, did you see Greg Bovino liberally lobbing tear gas canisters about? He's in charge of this and it took a massive public backlash to get him reassigned. If he was going against the wishes of the administration they'd have sacked him much earlier.

Then there's the response to the blatant murders in Minnesota. The admin were straight in with the lies about the victims ("domestic terrorist"). When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

The administration has also gone out of its way to try to stop congressmen from visiting detention centres to see the conditions inside. Almost as if they have something to hide.

So he didn't call for "thuggish behaviour" while I agree his rhetoric and tone is very alarming, he didn't actually call for it.

As I say his rhetoric and tone as very hard line but in practice, the US immigration polices are largely less hardline than what we have in the United Kingdom.

 

[Krokodil]

So he didn't call for "thuggish behaviour" while I agree his rhetoric and tone is very alarming, he didn't actually call for it.

Oh come on. Are you seriously suggesting that just because the admin hasn't said the quiet part out loud it isn't clear what their policy is? If the policy wasn't for thuggish behaviour, officers exhibiting it would have been relieved of their duties.