How authoritarian radical right Federalist Society elites see themselves

A great place to look at the rise of radical right American authoritarianism is Yale. That is where the shockingly powerful Federalist Society (FS) was founded and spreads its radical right authoritarian ideology from. A Yale Daily News article makes it clear that members of the FS see themselves as patriotic conservatives or libertarians, not radical right authoritarians:

How the Federalist Society shaped America’s judiciary

The Federalist Society, a conservative organization founded at Yale Law School, built a pipeline between law schools and top judgeships and influenced the selection of the past three Supreme Court justices

When former President Donald Trump began the review process for nominating a Supreme Court justice in 2017, Leonard Leo — the former vice president and current co-chairman of the Federalist Society — worked with the Trump administration and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to propose potential candidates.

Under Leo’s guidance in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh ’87 LAW ’90, who has been connected with the Federalist Society for at least 24 years. In 2017 and 2020, Leo’s creation of a list of potential Supreme Court nominees for Trump helped to advise the appointment of two other Federalist Society affiliates, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

By 2024, six of the nine Supreme Court justices considered themselves members or affiliates of the Federalist Society — the culmination of a longstanding pipeline connecting members of Federalist Society chapters at America’s top law schools to high-level judgeships and political offices.

The Federalist Society, a debating organization that hosts political events and acts as a network for conservative and libertarian students and professionals, was founded at Yale Law School in 1982 by three Yale alumni: Steven Calabresi ’80 LAW ’83, David McIntosh ’80 and Lee Liberman Otis ’79. Today, the Society is represented at all 204 ABA-accredited law schools in the country, has established communities of affiliated lawyers in 60 cities and has over 70,000 members.

The Federalist Society has since defined itself as a “group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order,” according to its website. According to its three founders, the Federalist Society’s original goal was to provide a space on law school campuses for debating ideas across the political spectrum.

With six of the nine current Supreme Court justices serving as members or affiliates of the Federalist Society — Clarence Thomas LAW ’74, Samuel Alito LAW ’75, John Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch — the group’s impact on the national judiciary is notably more significant than its founders anticipated.  

In the past, the Federalist Society was committed to the three elements of modern legal conservatism: textualism in statutory interpretation, originalism in constitutional interpretation and judicial restraint. .... However, [politically liberal, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman] sees this shared interpretation as being at risk. He cited examples of how justices associated with the society, like Alito and Gorsuch, have begun to deviate from textualism, contrary to the society’s stated goals.  

According to Feldman, should Trump win the 2024 election, Trump’s close ties to the Federalist Society’s network would ensure that any judge appointments within the next four years are members of the tight-knit society.

Two judges — Thomas, 72, and Alito, 74 — are approaching the age of retirement, and politicians expect a Supreme Court vacancy to open during the upcoming 60th presidency. 

Alongside the presidential election, 305 appellate court seats are on the ballot in 2024, including 69 state supreme court seats this November. 32 of the candidates running for state supreme court positions are affiliated with the Federalist Society.  (emphases added)

The power of the FS is undeniable. But what evidence is there that radical right authoritarianism is dominant over conservatism and libertarianism? In my opinion there is a plenty of evidence to support that opinion. So much so that it arguably amounts to a fact, not mere opinion. And of course, there are some Federalist Society members who really are old-fashioned conservatives or libertarians, but they are now on the fringes.

The open question now is whether Trump will keep taking FS picks, some of whom were ranked as unqualified by the American Bar Association, or will he ignore the FS off and pick judges purely on the basis of loyalty to him and their corruptibility.

Regardless, under DJT we can reasonably expect the federal judiciary to be significantly more radical right authoritarian and noticeably more corrupt than it already is. The rule if law, such as it is now, will be significantly or largely converted to the rule of Trump. Arguably, that has already happened with the two 2024 USSC decisions to (i) immunize Trump against crimes committed while in office, and (ii) legalize bribery of federal politicians and judges. 

Heck, DJT could appoint another USSC judge if Sonia Sotomayor, in her poor health, pulls a Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and has to be replaced. That would give Republican authoritarian judges an overwhelming 7-2 majority. 

Blog note: The dam holding back radical right authoritarianism has fallen

Since the election, the topics for posting here has exploded. My limited bandwidth cannot come close to dealing with all of it. Dozens of articles are coming out daily and I just cannot keep up. The pent-up RRA (radical right authoritarian) dam has collapsed after decades of increasingly weak resistance. Democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and honest governance are now facing their final assault.  Just one tiny example from today:

President-elect Trump is testing the loyalty of Senate Republicans, calling on them to allow him to make recess appointments to the executive and judicial branches without the advice and consent of the Senate.  

But Senate Republicans are extremely reluctant to publicly criticize Trump after he won a resounding victory on Election Day.

How much clearer can this be? That is a direct assault on the rule of law and respect for it. Are there any Republicans in congress willing to stand up to Trump? Probably not. And if they do, can they be re-elected? No, not under current circumstances. 

At this point, I am now confident that almost all or all of the predictions I posted on 11/6/24 about future events from the election to 1/11/26 will turn out to be right. As far as I am concerned some of them have already turned out to be right.

My current estimate: If the House falls to the Republican Party, there's about a 60% chance our democracy will have fallen by 11/1/26 to radical right authoritarianism. right now, it looks like there is ~85% chance of that happening. But, don't trust me. Here's the data as of a few minutes ago (posted 12:14 PST, 11/12/24):

Harris' messaging, mostly positive, negative or ambiguous?: Thinking about thinking

My recollection of Harris' campaign speeches and rhetoric was that it was mostly more or less positive messaging on policy, uniting the country and etc., and most of the rest was negative messaging about Trump. A lot of people assert the opposite. Not knowing how to go about trying to answer that, I asked Perplexity:

Q: Can you search several hundred news items and estimate how much of Harris' campaign speech dealt with attacking Trump and how much dealt with other things. A lot of people say that Harris mostly vilified Trump and did not articulate her own policies. But my recollection is that she directed most of her rhetoric to policy and positive messaging. I know you cannot come up with a precise answer, but at least sample enough to have some reasonable estimate.

A: Based on the available information, a rough estimate of Harris' campaign speech content might break down as follows:

1. 40-50% focused on policy proposals and positive messaging

2. 30-40% dedicated to criticizing Trump and contrasting her vision with his

3. 10-20% addressing other campaign-related topics and responding to current events

It's important to note that this is an approximation based on the limited information available in the search results. The actual balance likely varied from speech to speech and evolved over the course of the campaign. However, the evidence suggests that Harris' campaign was not solely focused on vilifying Trump, but rather used criticism of him as part of a broader strategy to articulate her own vision and policies for the country.

Based on that answer, my personal recollection-based intuition now is ~60% positive and policy, ~30% negative on Trump and ~10% other. Before the Perplexity estimate, my intuition was that the content of Harris' speeches were mostly positive and policy, and most of the rest negative on Trump, i.e., not very precise. 

And, just for the halibut 🐟:

Q2: Please do the same analysis and estimate for Trump's messaging.

A2: Approximately 50-60% of his messaging was devoted to criticizing opponents and painting a bleak picture of the country under Democratic leadership. His use of violent language and imagery increased significantly, reaching levels higher than most other U.S. politicians analyzed.

While Trump did discuss some policy proposals, they appeared to take up a smaller portion of his speeches compared to attacks: Roughly 20-30% of his rhetoric focused on his own policy proposals and vision for the country.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Below the lines 

For the wonks:

Thinking about thinking and belief formation

Also just for the halibut regarding matters of critical thinking, reasoning and personal biases, at Q3 & A3, also in the search link I posted above, I asked Perplexity if my revised estimate based on its analysis and estimate was being Bayesian. Perplexity said yes, that is Bayesian reasoning. Then at Q4 & A4 and Q5 & A5, I got more wonky about what being Bayesian means. Those last two Q&As reflect my style of reasoning as applied to politics and they partly get at why politics is usually rather messed up. 

I learned about the importance of being Bayesian about politics mostly from social scientist Philip Tetlock's two books, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? and Superforecasting: The Art And Science Of Prediction. Before I became aware of Tetlock, updating beliefs in view of new evidence was intuitive but not prominent in my mindset. 

Also, the latter book Superforecasting, was the first time I was exposed to ways to measure the outer limits of the human capacity to predict future events. A very few people are quite good at it. They are not perfect, but fairly accurate to about 12-16 months in the future. And, they are not trained professionals. They are just regular people with the right mindset, which includes naturally being Bayesian and having several other mental traits. For what it's worth, probably most people actually can learn to be more Bayesian than they are, but it is a very hard thing to be consistent about. 

Regarding my conception of radical right authoritarianism

I generally refer to DJT and his MAGA wealth and power movement by the label "radical right authoritarian" (RRA). But exactly what does RRA mean as I intend it? This is not an argument for anyone to accept my description or definition of RRA. Instead, it is an explanation so that people better understand what I mean by RRA and why I apply that label. This post is prompted by constant criticisms of me using the labels like authoritarian and radical right authoritarianism to apply to MAGA elites. I leave what the MAGA rank and file are for a separate post because that topic is complicated. 

Radical: Wikipedia describes radical politics like this:

Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform. The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalization.

By radical I mean politics, policies and tactics that arguably fall in Wikipedia's description of radical politics. I firmly believe that the Republican Party radicalized a great deal since ~1980, especially since ~2000. Some major fundamental principles that most GOP elites apparently want to significantly change are secularism in society and government, civil liberties, the nature of the rule of law and democracy, and the distribution of power within the federal government and between the federal government, commerce, religion and the states.

Right: That refers to policies most people would consider to be politically more or less traditional or right-wing on the left-right political spectrum. Obviously that can be and often is contested. American society has become more right-wing than in recent decades.

Authoritarian: To some people, this is a contentious concept. To me it is messy, but pretty clear. Note that I do not use the terms fascism or Nazism. Authoritarianism is a genus, that includes fascism, Nazism and other forms that authoritarianism can include, e.g., theocracy. As one can imagine, authoritarianism is a messy concept, because two or more of the various species can and often do overlap. To start off, this definition although narrower than mine, might help.

Authoritarianism: The concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people who act in ways that are not constitutionally accountable to the people they are meant to represent and serve.

Perplexity gives a more expansive description of authoritarianism -- this is how I see the concept:

Q: What is the most authoritative definition or description of authoritarianism?

A: Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by several key traits:

1. Concentration of power: Power is centralized in the hands of a single leader, party, or small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

2. Limited political pluralism: There is restricted or no political competition and opposition.

3. Suppression of civil liberties: Individual freedoms, civil rights, and political freedoms are curtailed.

4. Rejection of democratic norms: Democratic rules and institutions are undermined or ignored.

5. Use of repression: The regime often employs political repression, censorship, and force to maintain control.

6. Lack of accountability: Leaders are not answerable to the public through free elections or other democratic mechanisms.

7. Arbitrary exercise of power: The government often operates outside established legal frameworks.

8. Personality cult: There may be an emphasis on the leader's authority and charisma.

9. Limited ideology: Unlike totalitarian regimes, authoritarian systems often lack a comprehensive guiding ideology.

10. Control of institutions: The regime seeks to dominate key societal institutions like the media, military, and judiciary.

Authoritarianism exists on a spectrum, with some regimes displaying more extreme characteristics than others. It stands in contrast to democracy, which emphasizes individual rights, political pluralism, and government accountability to the people.

I want to emphasize this: Authoritarianism exists on a spectrum, with some regimes displaying more extreme characteristics than others. That is why I do not currently consider the radical right authoritarianism I believe dominates the American MAGA movement to be fascism or Nazism. We are not very close that point yet. MAGA wants to move us in that direction. But how much authoritarianism the movement can impose in the next 4 years is still an open question.

Regarding being radical right, MAGA arguably is radical, not merely conservative, but it is definitely right-wing. 

My assessment of the ten traits of where American radical right authoritarianism, i.e., the MAGA power and wealth movement, stands at present. Future events can alter this analysis.

1. Concentration of power: Within the MAGA movement itself, power is highly concentrated in DJT. On this trait, MAGA itself is full-blown authoritarian. If the Republicans take the House overwhelming federal power will be concentrated with the party, but with DJT still being the main power. MAGA intends to limit the NLRB, basically abandoning labor to the tender mercies of employers. The CFPB, already severely weakened by MAGA, will be further weakened, if not obliterated, leaving consumers to the tender mercies of banks, credit card companies and huge financial institutions. Power is already flowing from US citizen protections and government institutions that defend them.

2. Limited political pluralism: At this point, MAGA has made it clear that it will try to restricted political competition and opposition, including muzzling the mainstream media. The MAGA media will become more open about its sympathies, e.g., Faux News openly calling for execution of the federal prosecutor Jack Smith. We all saw what MAGA did to Jeff Bezos at the WaPo, i.e., scared him into refusing to endorse Harris. Trump's and MAGA's threats against pluralism are explicit and undeniable.

3. Suppression of civil liberties: The MAGA movement already has significantly damaged  civil liberties. Both abortion rights and voting rights have been reduced. Other rights, such as same-sex marriage and LGBQT rights are now under direct attack or threatened.   

4. Rejection of democratic norms: MAGA is openly contemptuous of democratic rules, norms and institutions. That is a matter of public record, not rational debate. Laws, ethics and norms already have been undermined or ignored, and that currently ongoing trend will continue. MAGA will sweep away whatever significant norms are left, if any, a process that is underway right now.

5. Use of repression: Trump and MAGA have made clear and beyond the point of rational debate that political repression, censorship, and force to expand authoritarianism at the expense of democracy is on the agenda. Trump himself publicly made threats over 100 times to go after his enemies that he calls “the enemy from within”, “radical left lunatics”, and other slanderous insults.

6. Lack of accountability: Leaders are not answerable to the public through free elections or other democratic mechanisms. Recent USSC decisions (radical right authoritarian decisions) have already made huge strides in attacking and neutering mechanisms of accountability. Two USSC decisions are front and center here. First and foremost is the decision that makes a sitting president immune from criminal prosecution for crimes if they are not “official acts”, a term that is undefined. Second, and at least as frighteningly authoritarian and powerful, is the June 2024 USSC decision to almost completely legalize bribery of elected federal politicians and sitting federal judges.

7. Arbitrary exercise of power: The USSC has already started to ignore established legal frameworks, allowing Virginia to purge a voter roll in the face of federal law that prohibited the purge. The MAGA movement seems to be on board with at least sometimes blowing off the rule of law when the law gets in the way.

8. Personality cult: The MAGA movement undeniably relies on the Trump. He is the MAGA cult leader. People will bicker over whether MAGA is a cult or not. Regardless, DJT is the driving personality.

9. Limited ideology: MAGA authoritarianism lacks a comprehensive guiding ideology. 

10. Control of institutions: MAGA authoritarianism seeks to dominate the media and judiciary. The military is an open question. There are good reasons to believe that Trump will try to install loyalists to senior military positions, especially the Secretary of Defense. What the MAGA movement will try to do is to flip the military from loyalty to the constitution to loyalty to Trump himself. Doing that seems to be unlikely to succeed at present, but time will tell how that authoritarianism v. democracy battle plays out.

All of the foregoing is why I refer to Trump, the MAGA power and wealth movement and its elites as radical right authoritarian. Christian nationalist dogma looks to me to be clearly radical right authoritarian, just as Trump himself and most of the MAGA elites are. 

Q1: Is it unwarranted hyperbole to consider Trump, MAGA elites and the MAGA power and wealth movement to be a lot more radical right authoritarian than merely conservative?

Q2: Even if MAGA and Trump are radical right authoritarian, is it counterproductive to defense of democracy to so say so, and instead better to use a softer label like “conservative”?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Past posts on authoritarianism:

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2024/10/regarding-authoritarian-playbook.html https://dispol.blogspot.com/2024/09/germaines-war-on-incorrect-language.html https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-science-of-measuring-morality.html https://dispol.blogspot.com/2024/05/ignorance-in-america-analyzing.html https://dispol.blogspot.com/2021/02/authoritarianism-heritable-or.html   

Checking under the hood: Exploring the limits of AI or artificial intelligence

After several months of use I learned enough about the AI program called Perplexity to start asking important questions about its own limitations, i.e., the limitations of AI. Some commenters here have pointed out that AI has significant limitations that makes it unreliable. That is a valid criticism. To address that, I asked:

Q: I have been searching on Perplexity for several months now, mostly related to politics, political issues and the biological/social sciences of politics. What I see as key weaknesses is AI's inability to exert human judgment and necessary context to analysis of complex questions about politics and the influences of cognitive biology and social behavior on political reasoning, belief formation and behavior. Do you concur with that assessment? Is that assessment reasonably complete, or am I missing other known problem areas for AI?

A: Your assessment of AI's limitations in analyzing complex political and social issues is astute and aligns with many expert opinions on the current state of AI technology. You are correct in identifying AI's inability to exert human judgment as a key weakness. AI systems, including those used in search and analysis, are fundamentally based on algorithms and data processing. They lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human judgment provides, especially in complex domains like politics and social behavior.

Your point about AI's struggle with necessary context is also well-founded. Political and social issues often require a deep understanding of historical, cultural, and situational contexts that AI systems currently struggle to fully grasp. 

While your assessment is reasonably complete, there are a few other known problem areas worth considering:

Bias and Discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing biases present in their training data, leading to skewed analyses or unfair conclusions in political and social contexts.

Lack of Transparency: The "black box" nature of many AI algorithms makes it difficult to understand how they arrive at certain conclusions, which is particularly problematic in sensitive political analyses.

Difficulty with Abstraction and Generalization: AI often struggles with abstract thinking and generalizing concepts across different contexts, which are crucial skills in political and social analysis.

Inability to Capture Human Subjectivity: AI systems may miss the subjective experiences, feelings, and empathy that often play a significant role in political and social dynamics.

Overreliance on Historical Data: AI's reliance on historical data can lead to a perpetuation of past patterns and biases, potentially missing emerging trends or novel situations in the political landscape.

The other question I posed in that same search is this:

Q2: As far as I can tell, there is only one mostly objective factor that is, or should be, important in politics, namely empirical facts. Although a fact is a mostly (completely?) objective thing, facts in politics are often bitterly and intractably disputed. How does AI deal with those disputes? Is there anything else important in politics that is mostly or completely objective, e.g., pure logic. And how does AI deal with the gray area between fact and opinion or belief, i.e., the point at which facts alone are insufficient to arrive at a belief and one has to extrapolate from facts to form a fact-based belief. An example would be a belief that Trump is a deeply corrupt authoritarian based on what is known about him so far. Obviously, that belief is bitterly and intractably contested,. Nonetheless, I firmly believe it is true, or at least more true than false, based on all the evidence available to the public so far.

A2: Your observation about the centrality of empirical facts in politics and the challenges surrounding them is astute. .... AI systems, including those used for political analysis, face significant challenges when dealing with disputed facts:

1. Data Dependency: AI models are trained on available data, which may include conflicting information on disputed facts. This can lead to inconsistent or biased outputs.

2. Lack of Real-Time Fact-Checking: Most AI systems don't have the capability to independently verify facts in real-time, relying instead on their training data.

3. Difficulty in Contextual Understanding: AI often struggles to fully grasp the nuanced context surrounding disputed facts in politics.

4. Amplification of Existing Biases: AI systems can inadvertently amplify biases present in their training data, potentially exacerbating factual disputes.

Other Objective Factors in Politics

While empirical facts are indeed crucial, there are other elements in politics that can be considered relatively objective:

1. Logical Consistency: The internal consistency of arguments and policies can be objectively assessed using formal logic.

2. Statistical Data: Quantitative data, when properly collected and analyzed, can provide objective insights into political issues.

3. Legal Frameworks: Constitutional and legal structures provide an objective framework for political processes.

4. Historical Precedents: While interpretations may vary, historical events and precedents offer a factual basis for political discourse.

Perplexity goes on to address how AI navigates the gray area between fact and opinion, commenting that "it is particularly challenging for AI." That's what I figured. Regarding my example of asking if calling Trump a deeply corrupt authoritarian is true, that too is particularly challenging. Specifically, Perplexity can't get the job done. It cites problems of (i) data interpretation, (ii) an evolving information landscape, (iii) subjectivity in definitions, i.e., "Terms like "deeply corrupt" or "authoritarian" can be subjectively defined, making it difficult for AI to make definitive assessments", and (iv) bias in training data.

I also did a 3rd Q&A about doing politics in good faith, which I claimed I do. Perplexity said I was engaged in good faith politics, but of course it had to rely on the reasons I gave for my belief that I do politics in good faith. But again, AI has trouble with good faith on its own, just as I expected. AI isn't human. Good faith, along with judgment and nuanced assessment of context are uniquely human things in politics. At least least for now.

In conclusion, AI does have serious limits. No doubt about it. I am aware of those limits and openly admit they exist. Interestingly, it turns out that the approach that AI takes to try to deal with politics and the messy human condition turns out to be about the same approach I adhere to in the framework of pragmatic rationalism. Specifically, (1) heavy emphasis on the criticality of empirical facts, (2) sticking with logical consistency as best I can, which isn't always possible, (3) reliance on statistics and poll data when they are available, knowing that they could be in error, (4) looking for human mental and social factor context in historical precedents, e.g., Hitler's 1923 putsch in Munich compared to Trump's 1/6/21 coup attempt. 

In the latter case, I got Perplexity to go from saying that Hitler in Munich was generally not comparable to Trump in DC in 2021, to saying it generally was comparable. I got the revised answer by telling Perplexity to take into account the mindsets and political goals and tactics of Hitler and Trump. That flipped the AI analysis. But I made Perplexity flip like that in good faith because I hold a strong good faith that both Hitler and Trump operated with frighteningly similar authoritarian mindsets, goals and tactics despite major historical differences between the two events. 

A useful historical precedent or not?

Q: Is it credible to believe that Germaine acts in good faith, or is he just a practiced manipulator of facts, reasoning and/or whatever else might put him in the category of acting bad faith?

One view of the election; Documenting DJT's performance: ethics & the rule law

I share Jon Meacham's view of the election. Now is the time to step back and watch how DJT performs from now until the next elections in Nov. 2026 and 2028. He is willing to let DJT prove him wrong about how it will turn out. Meacham fears chaos and constitutional problems. I fear one or more forms of deeply corrupt authoritarianism. We both hope we are wrong.

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Going forward, it seems reasonable to document what I expect will be significant erosion and decline of democracy, with a corresponding rise of radical right authoritarianism. In short, I predict that the US will be significantly less democratic and significantly more authoritarian.

One area of change I anticipated was further weakening of already weak ethics norms and laws and respect for the rule of law generally. Apparently, that process of erosion is already well underway (not paywalled):

Trump Holds Up Transition Process Over Ethics Code

President-elect Donald J. Trump has not yet submitted a legally required ethics pledge stating that he will avoid conflicts of interest and other ethical concerns while in office, raising concerns that his refusal to do so will hamper the smooth transition to power.

Mr. Trump’s transition team was required to submit the ethics plan by Oct. 1, according to the Presidential Transition Act.

While the transition team’s leadership has privately drafted an ethics code and a conflict-of-interest statement governing its staff, those documents do not include language, required under the law, that explains how Mr. Trump himself will address conflicts of interest during his presidency.

Since Mr. Trump created his transition team in August, it has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, which typically begins months before the election.

It has missed multiple deadlines for signing required agreements governing the process. That has prevented Mr. Trump’s transition team from participating in national security briefings or gaining access to federal agencies to begin the complicated work of preparing to take control of the government on Jan. 20, 2025.  

In 2019, Congress amended that law to require candidates to create and publicly post an ethics plan before the election and to “include information on how eligible presidential candidates will address their own conflicts of interest during a presidential term.”  That bipartisan law was born in part out of concerns about ethical issues during the first Trump administration.

While Mr. Trump’s appointees were required to comply with ethical codes, Mr. Trump declared shortly before taking office that he would not divest his assets, nor would he place them in a blind trust.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, has since identified more than 3,400 conflicts of interest tied to Mr. Trump during his first administration, among them holding political events and hosting foreign dignitaries at hotels and resorts owned by his company.  

As part of their own transition efforts, both Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris submitted and posted ethics agreements, pledging to “avoid both actual and apparent conflicts of interest.” They also signed the memorandums of understanding in a timely manner.

The Trump transition’s ethics documents are silent on the question of Mr. Trump’s ethical conduct.  

Until the Trump transition signs that document, the Biden administration is legally barred from providing it with the security clearances needed to share classified intelligence and national defense briefings, Mr. Stier said. It also cannot give transition employees physical access to the 438 different federal agencies that they will soon control, and it cannot allow them to review their files.

But by law, that agreement cannot be signed until an ethics plan that conforms to federal statute is submitted to the White House and posted online, creating something of a game of chicken between the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump transition.

So, some of my predictions for 2026 are well on the way to becoming correct, or are already correct. Bummer. I really wanted to be wrong about ethics and the rule of law.

One day 1, DJT will not be ready to govern, but that does not faze him or his enablers.