Editorials from Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

Jan. 29- The Washington Post on Trump’s OMB pick

The White House memo announcing a federal spending freeze, rescinded Wednesday afternoon amid chaos and backlash, was the brainchild of Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's pick to direct the Office of Management and Budget. Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, explained on CNN that Vought felt that the freeze was needed. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at her first briefing that Vought asked her to convey that "the line to his office is open" if agency heads "feel that programs are necessary."

Both comments were striking because Vought hasn't yet been confirmed for the OMB job. The Senate Budget Committee is set to convene Thursday to consider his nomination. Unless he's rejected, this week's muddle will become merely the opening salvo in a broader push to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislative branch - and the rule of law. "We are living in a post-Constitutional time," Vought wrote in 2022.

Presidents deserve significant deference in staffing their administrations. But Vought is not acceptable, given his combative disdain for Congress's constitutional power of the purse and his refusal to abide by a vital reform enacted after Watergate to check the president's authority.

Vought wants more than to temporarily pause some government spending. He aims to invoke a power known as impoundment that would allow the president to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated. This could enable a president to zero out entire funding categories. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was meant to prevent presidents from abusing the appropriations process after President Richard M. Nixon refused to spend billions of dollars on programs he opposed.

Based on a radical interpretation of Article II, Vought claims that the 1974 law is unconstitutional, and he hopes the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will strike it down. Impoundment might wind up as the first big case from Trump's second term that reaches the court. A 1988 opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that "arguments in favor of an inherent impoundment power, carried to their logical conclusion, would render congressional directions to spend merely advisory."

Vought's track record as head of the OMB during Trump's first term demonstrates he cannot be trusted. In early 2020, the budget office diverted billions of dollars from the Pentagon's military construction budget toward building a border wall - even though Congress had deliberately refused to appropriate the funds. Vought's office also held up approved military aid to Ukraine while Trump sought to coerce Ukrainian leaders into opening an investigation into Joe Biden. Vought then defied a congressional subpoena, and he was cited by name in one of the articles of impeachment against Trump that passed the House. The Government Accountability Office concluded that Vought's office broke the law, though he denied it.

During his first tour as budget chief, Vought also advocated cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid and other programs on which low-income families depend. He sought huge cuts to education, the Interior Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. At his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, Vought repeatedly declined to commit to distributing congressionally approved funds if he got the job back. He also wouldn't answer when pressed specifically on whether he would distribute $3.8 billion in remaining aid for Ukraine.

Vought was an architect of Project 2025 and wrote the chapter on how to better wield executive power. He describes himself as a Christian nationalist and has advocated outlawing the drugs used in medical abortions. He has referred to Jan. 6 rioters as "political prisoners" and has maintained, as recently as last week, that the 2020 election was "rigged."

Another reason to oppose is his fixation on purging the federal workforce: During Trump's first term, Vought was the mastermind behind Schedule F, which aimed to reclassify workers to make them easier to fire. Biden unraveled it, but Trump is reviving it. "We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected," Vought said in a 2023 speech. "When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. ... We want to put them in trauma."

Running the OMB is one of the most powerful jobs in government. Four years ago, Biden's highly qualified first pick, Neera Tanden, was compelled to withdraw because of some mean tweets she'd once posted about senators whose votes she needed. In comparison, Vought's record and paper trail are bursting with red flags. Laws passed by Congress aren't suggestions. Senators who back Vought are choosing to undermine their own institution and give away their power of the purse.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/29/omb-russ-vought-impoundment/

___

Feb. 1 – The New York Times says Trump is testing the Constitution

After nightfall on Jan. 24, President Trump summarily dismissed as many as 17 of the most important guardians of integrity in the federal government - the inspectors general who search for fraud and abuse in each major executive department, who assure taxpayers that their money is being properly spent, and whose rigor reduces the temptation of corruption. Mr. Trump's action was in overt defiance of a law requiring that Congress get 30 days' notice when an inspector general is fired, along with the detailed reasons for the termination, but it was very much in keeping with the president's imperious resistance to any form of accountability, oversight or sharing of power.

No compelling reasons for the firings were given other than a vague reference to the " changing priorities " of the new administration. Asked about the action on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said " it is the belief of this White House" that there are no limits on the president's ability to terminate employees in his branch of government. "He is the executive of the executive branch, and therefore he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch that he wishes to," she said.

That's flatly wrong. In addition to the inspectors general law, there are strong Civil Service protections in place for more than two-thirds of all federal workers, preventing arbitrary or political firings and requiring cause.

American voters gave President Trump and his party the right to push forward the agenda he campaigned on. If the president wants to shrink the federal work force, end programs he disagrees with or revamp oversight, he has the license to pursue those efforts. Yet he must do so legally and by operating inside the system of checks and balances that has guided the country since its founding.

The first two weeks into his second tour in the White House have seen so many lines crossed in the pursuit of his agenda that anyone who believes in the Constitution and honest governance should be worried: Many of Mr. Trump's first assertions of executive power blatantly exceed what is legally granted. He and his supporters have sought to undermine those best positioned to check his overreaches of power. And he is moving to eliminate the tools of accountability in government in quick order. After nightfall on Jan. 24, President Trump summarily dismissed as many as 17 of the most important guardians of integrity in the federal government - the inspectors general who search for fraud and abuse in each major executive department, who assure taxpayers that their money is being properly spent, and whose rigor reduces the temptation of corruption. Mr. Trump's action was in overt defiance of a law requiring that Congress get 30 days' notice when an inspector general is fired, along with the detailed reasons for the termination, but it was very much in keeping with the president's imperious resistance to any form of accountability, oversight or sharing of power.

No compelling reasons for the firings were given other than a vague reference to the " changing priorities " of the new administration. Asked about the action on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said " it is the belief of this White House" that there are no limits on the president's ability to terminate employees in his branch of government. "He is the executive of the executive branch, and therefore he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch that he wishes to," she said.

That's flatly wrong. In addition to the inspectors general law, there are strong Civil Service protections in place for more than two-thirds of all federal workers, preventing arbitrary or political firings and requiring cause.

American voters gave President Trump and his party the right to push forward the agenda he campaigned on. If the president wants to shrink the federal work force, end programs he disagrees with or revamp oversight, he has the license to pursue those efforts. Yet he must do so legally and by operating inside the system of checks and balances that has guided the country since its founding.

The first two weeks into his second tour in the White House have seen so many lines crossed in the pursuit of his agenda that anyone who believes in the Constitution and honest governance should be worried: Many of Mr. Trump's first assertions of executive power blatantly exceed what is legally granted. He and his supporters have sought to undermine those best positioned to check his overreaches of power. And he is moving to eliminate the tools of accountability in government in quick order.

It's not just that he sees the U.S. government work force as his personal employees who should be loyal servants; he appears ready to suppress any critique or even allow anyone to bear witness to what his administration is really doing. Mr. Trump has an unusual gift for evading criticism: The Democrats are just the angry opposition. Republicans who stand up to him are just RINOs. Journalists who expose misconduct are purveyors of fake news. Government officials who warn of his actions are part of the "deep state."

It's much harder to dodge accountability for his actions when concerns or opposition come from roles that are legally or constitutionally protected in order to preserve their independence, such as judges, prosecutors and inspectors general - the parts of the government that he now hopes to circumvent, remove or bend to his wishes.

Civil servants are expected to carry out the directives from the legislative, judicial and executive branches, but Mr. Trump wants them to be subservient to him. He is trying to fundamentally ignore the constitutional checks and balances carefully built into the American system of government by its founders, and he is unwilling to follow or obey the rules of accountability and oversight that past presidents of both parties have adhered to.

And Americans are already getting a glimpse of what Mr. Trump and his administration would do with fewer guardrails: By unilaterally declaring the end of birthright citizenship, for example, he is expressing disdain for the decades of judicial precedent that have supported the clear wording of the 14th Amendment; he is trying to make his opinion the law of the land. By refusing to spend money already appropriated by Congress, as his administration did on Monday, he is telling the legislative branch that its constitutional power of the purse can be set aside at whim. And all those in a position to question his arrogation of authority and hold him to account will find themselves unemployed or under fire.

Late on Monday night, for example, the White House fired two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, describing them as " far-left appointees with radical records." These officials, who would almost certainly be strong critics of the administration's attempts to reduce civil rights and labor protections, do not work for Mr. Trump; they are board members of independent agencies, approved by the Senate, and their terms are not up. The Supreme Court ruled in 1935 that presidents cannot dismiss members of independent agencies like these simply over policy differences, and the court declined a chance to overrule that precedent last year.

The administration also fired more than a dozen prosecutors in the Justice Department simply because they had worked on the criminal investigations of Mr. Trump, a particularly egregious example of his determination to combine personal retribution with future deterrence. Beyond the trampling of Civil Service rules for career employees - the termination notices cited no improper conduct or poor performance - the firings sent an unmistakable message to law enforcement authorities throughout the government: Ignore any malfeasance or corruption you may come across in Trump world, and do not even think of starting an investigation or a prosecution, because we will find a way to fire you and stop your work.

Mr. Trump's steamrolling of all official scrutiny is beginning to draw criticism even from within his own party, which has largely stood by as he has undermined norms and values that used to be considered bipartisan. Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, along with his Democratic counterpart, Richard Durbin, sent a letter on Tuesday to the president demanding a detailed and case-specific explanation for the firing of each inspector general. "This is a matter of public and congressional accountability and ensuring the public's confidence in the inspector general community, a sentiment shared more broadly by other members of Congress," the two senators wrote.

It's vital that those members of Congress, from both parties, stand up to Mr. Trump's early moves. Their branch of government is no less in danger of losing its autonomy than the executive watchdogs are. Several Republican senators have already been coerced into abandoning their better judgment on some of Mr. Trump's most unqualified cabinet nominees, as Joni Ernst of Iowa learned when she first voiced reservations about Pete Hegseth after he was nominated for defense secretary. The pressure campaign directed toward her by the MAGA world and the Iowa Republican Party is a principal reason she changed course and Mr. Hegseth is now running the Pentagon. The president has repeatedly threatened to use recess appointments to bypass the Senate entirely if it rejects his choices.

But it is not just the power to advise and consent that Mr. Trump has put at risk. In the last few days, he has also made it clear that he is prepared to override the most fundamental power given to Congress by the Constitution: the ability to appropriate tax money and determine how it is spent. On Monday the White House announced a freeze on "all federal financial assistance" like grants and loans to state agencies and nonprofit social service organizations, many of which said they were immediately locked out of the federal payment system. The week before he eliminated federal diversity and inclusion programs and halted most foreign aid spending.

After a federal judge temporarily blocked Mr. Trump's order, the White House retreated and said the freeze was no longer in place. But there was no retreat from the administration's misguided notion that it can rescind at will any spending authorized by Congress, which officials made it clear they still intend to pursue in different ways.

If Mr. Trump doesn't like the way federal money is being spent, he can do what every other president has done: negotiate new spending priorities with Congress as part of the budget and appropriations process. Federal law clearly prohibits him from making that decision unilaterally. But that would mean playing by the rules and sharing power with another branch of government, a practice Mr. Trump appears to consider unnecessary.

Mr. Trump's party, after all, controls both houses of Congress, but even Republican leaders were given no voice or even advance notice about the precipitate decisions to rescind this authorized spending. Democratic and independent members correctly said Mr. Trump was provoking a constitutional crisis and helped force the retreat by standing up to the White House. Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, said Monday's actions were "the most direct assault on the authority of Congress" in the nation's history. In contrast, a few Republicans expressed mild concern and many were openly supportive, willing to cede their oversight of the nation's purse to Mr. Trump to avoid becoming the victim of his intimidation tactics. "It's a pretty major test of separation of powers," acknowledged Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota.

Mr. Trump is indeed testing Washington and the American people to see how far he can go in accumulating authority and in marginalizing anyone in a position to question his actions. It is a test the Constitution cannot afford to lose.

ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/opinion/trump-fired-accountability.html

___

Feb. 2 – The Wall Street Journal on the fallout from the trade war

President Trump conceded Sunday that there may be "some pain" from his sweeping tariffs on Mexico and Canada, but they will eventually lead to a new "GOLDEN AGE." Nice of him to promise a glorious future because the pain is already unfolding, and the tariffs won't even take effect until Tuesday.

"WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID," Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday morning. He also included a blast at these columns for leading the "Tariff Lobby" after our Saturday editorial called his 25% across-the-board tariffs on our friends and neighbors "the dumbest trade war in history."

We appreciate Mr. Trump's attention, though we're anti-tariff and not lobbyists. But bad policy has damaging consequences, whether or not Mr. Trump chooses to admit it. Mr. Trump can't repeal the laws of economics any more than Joe Biden could on inflation.

Tariffs are taxes, and when you tax something you get less of it. Who pays the tariff depends on the elasticity of supply and demand for the specific goods. But Mr. Trump wants American workers and employers to take one for the team. Hope you don't lose your job or business before the golden age arrives.

The economic fallout began Saturday evening as Canada said it will retaliate with a 25% tariff on $30 billion (Canadian dollars) of U.S. goods, with another C$125 billion to follow in three weeks. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also promised to retaliate.

Canada's new border taxes will hit orange juice, whiskey and peanut butter-all from states with GOP Senators. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Ottawa's tariff list would also include beer, wine, vegetables, perfume, clothing, shoes, household appliances, furniture and much more. He said Canada could also withhold critical minerals.

Note that Canada's Conservative opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, also called for retaliation. Mr. Poilievre is the favorite to be the next Prime Minister and he rightly said the trade war will damage both countries. But he said Canada had to stand up for its "sovereignty" and protect its economic interests.

Mr. Trump's tariffs are already roiling North America's energy markets, which are highly integrated. The President implicitly recognized the risk by hitting Canada's energy exports to the U.S. with a lower 10% tariff. But that will still hurt Midwestern refiners that rely on Canadian oil. Canada and Mexico could send more of their oil elsewhere for refining, perhaps even China.

Canada's expanded Trans Mountain pipeline runs from Alberta to the West Coast and has spare capacity. It could be used to increase tariff-free oil shipments to Asia that would hurt California refineries that now import oil from Trans Mountain. California could have to import more oil from the Middle East.

Mr. Trump says the tariffs will revive U.S. manufacturing. But Jay Timmons, CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement that "a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally."

He added that, while his members understand the need to reduce fentanyl flows to the U.S., "the ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers or absorb skyrocketing energy costs."

Many more trade groups have criticized the tariffs, including even U.S. aluminum makers who benefited from tariffs in the first term. Canada accounts for more than half of U.S. aluminum imports (owing to its cheap hydropower) that secondary and downstream manufacturers use.

None of this means the Trump tariffs will tip the U.S. economy into recession. U.S. growth may be strong enough to absorb the blow from tariffs, as it was after Mr. Trump's more modest levies in the first term. But the same can't be said about Mexico and Canada, where growth is weak and which depend on U.S. markets for much of their GDP.

The tariffs may also not cause a surge in the general U.S. price level. Overall inflation depends far more on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. But prices will increase for most tariffed goods, which will be painful enough.

The tariff broadside also adds new policy risk and uncertainty that could dampen business animal spirits. Markets have been pricing in an assumption that Mr. Trump would step back from his most florid tariff threats, or limit tariffs to China.

The hammer blow to Mexico and Canada shows that no country or industry is safe. Mr. Trump believes tariffs aren't merely useful as a diplomatic tool but are economically virtuous by themselves. This will cause friends and foes to recalibrate their dependence on America's market, with consequences that are hard to predict. How this helps the U.S. isn't apparent, so, yes, "dumbest trade war" sounds right, if it isn't an understatement.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-trump-tariff-fallout-begins-canada-mexico-vow-retaliation-economic-uncertainty-da522b44?mod=editorials_article_pos1

___

Feb. 3 – The Guardian says Trump is hijacking the government

Donald Trump is provoking a US constitutional crisis, claiming sweeping powers to override or bypass Congress's control over spending in a brazen attempt to centralise financial power in the executive branch. If he succeeds, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman warns, it would be a 21st-century coup - with power slipping from elected officials' hands. The real story hidden behind the president's trade war, he says, is the hijacking of government. And Mr Krugman's right.

By usurping the authority to shut down government programmes at will - even those funded by Congress - Mr Trump could slash federal spending and taxes while pretending to balance the books. In reality, he'd be robbing the poor to enrich the wealthy. In a world where economic jargon has been corrupted to depict exploitation as "wealth creation", the audacity of Mr Trump - and his lackeys - to personally profit is breathtaking. Mr Trump's philosophy is simple: let the uber-rich do whatever they want, with little or no oversight. The result will be vast wealth for a select few while life grows nastier and shorter for the many.

His plan took shape last weekend when Mr Trump removed a top-ranking Treasury official who had been blocking his billionaire crony, Elon Musk, from accessing the federal payment system - exposing the sensitive personal data of millions of Americans, as well as details of public contractors who compete directly with Mr Musk's businesses. The system disburses over $5tn annually, and Mr Musk and his allies, wrote analyst Nathan Tankus, are "clearly aiming to redesign" it to serve the Trumpian agenda - opening the door for the US president to seek retribution against his political opponents.

To see the impact, look no further than one of Mr Trump's first moves: freezing trillions in federal spending - particularly on foreign aid, nongovernmental organisations, "DEI initiatives", "woke gender ideology" and the "Green New Deal". The courts blocked the measure as unconstitutional - but not before it wreaked havoc on government agencies and nonprofits, especially those aiding vulnerable groups like homeless veterans. Mr Musk claims he will close the US agency for international aid (USAid) - but this remains moot as a federal body is legally required to administer aid.

Just like his trade war, Mr Trump's claim to " impoundment " authority - the supposed right to unilaterally halt spending - exposes the core contradiction of his power grab: he postures like a monarch because he's too weak to govern as a president. He wields tariffs at will, bypassing Congress with "national security" claims - yet cut a deal with Mexico that both sides spun as victory.

In his first term, Mr Trump's protectionist crusade - tariffs on China, a Nafta shake-up and attacking allies' trade policies - was sold as a revolution. Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. His administration slapped $80bn in new "taxes" on Americans through tariffs, only to see supply chains reroute to Vietnam and Indonesia rather than bring jobs back home. The real cost? A 0.2% hit to GDP and 142,000 jobs lost, according to the Tax Foundation. Without serious investment in domestic industry, the America First trade strategy didn't rebuild US manufacturing - it just drove up costs. Mr Trump's chaos isn't confidence - it's desperation. He's trying to conjure power he doesn't actually have. He is manufacturing a perception of dominance in the hope that Americans will simply accept it. The real danger is letting his illusion of power become reality.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/03/the-guardian-view-on-donald-trumps-power-grab-a-coup-veiled-by-chaos

___

Jan. 31 – The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the hazards of RFK Jr. as DSHS head

If and when the full Senate votes on whether to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the federal government's top health agency, it will say as much about the senators who are voting as about Kennedy himself.

The central question is this: Are Senate Republicans willing to put their duty to the nation above their fealty to a president whose appointment in this case is so intentionally irresponsible as to barely rise above the level of a fraternity prank? The indications aren't good.

Of all of President Donald Trump's unqualified and in some cases toxic cabinet nominees, his pick to head the Department of Health & Human Services has the potential, more than any of the others, to cost significant numbers of American lives. As we've noted here before, the fact that America is currently in the midst of a potentially deadly anti-vaccination trend makes it especially important to have a strong supporter of vaccines at the helm of the country's health care system.

Senators are granted - no, tasked with - the constitutional power to reject presidential nominees for this very kind of scenario. That is, stopping the appointment of a fundamentally dangerous appointee.

Notwithstanding Kennedy's deeply dishonest attempts to rewrite his personal history while testifying before senators this week, his role as arguably America's most prominent conveyor of anti-vaccination tripe and other dangerous conspiracy theories is undebatable.

"There's no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective," Kennedy said during a July 2023 podcast interview, dressing up that completely false, potentially deadly nonsense as reasonable debate.

"Did (the polio vaccine) cause more death than it averted? I would say I don't know because we don't have the data on that," Kennedy went on to say in the same interview - again, promoting an utterly baseless narrative that flies in the face of generations of data.

In July 2020, on a show for the anti-vaccination nonprofit Children's Health Defense (for which RFK was a chairman) he offered this: "(T)he current state of the science that shows clearly that vaccination is causing autism." And this: "According to those data, your chance of dying from the (HPV) vaccine is 10 times the chance of you dying from cervical cancer. What kind of bargain is that?" Both assertions are flat-out false.

Then there was Kennedy's cheerleading role in a tragic measles outbreak in Samoa that killed more than 80 people, mostly children. The tragedy was caused in large part by public rejection of vaccines there that Kennedy encouraged just months earlier with a highly publicized visit to anti-vax activists prior to the outbreak.

He later characterized that outbreak as "mild." Is this the kind of health care leadership Americans have to look forward to as our country experiences its own ominous trend toward public distrust of vaccines?

These are just a few examples of what, according to a recent Washington Post count, has been more than 100 instances in which Kennedy has promoted dangerous lies about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Yet Kennedy had the gall on Wednesday to tell members of the Senate Finance Committee that his reputation as a fervent anti-vaxxer is incorrect.

That means it's not only his anti-vax garbage that senators should take into consideration, but his willingness to lie to their faces about his promotion of that garbage.

Despite all of this, it appears at this writing that Kennedy has the votes, if barely, to win Senate approval, with perhaps three GOP votes at most against him.

It's a foregone conclusion that Missouri Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt will, out of blind loyalty to this president, cast "yes" votes. Before they do, we would urge them to do one thing: Ask their personal physicians what they think about putting RFK in charge of the nation's health care system.

We would urge all readers to do the same. Most Americans trust their own doctors. Listen to what they will almost certainly tell you: RFK is hazardous to America's health.

ONLINE: https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-rfk-is-hazardous-to-americas-health/article_9235d40a-df33-11ef-bc2e-5f9ed2ff7410.html