Trump Watch: A checklist.
A steadily growing batch of links to revealing pieces, continually updated (most recently 4-24-25)
If the shape of the column goes wonky (too narrow, in particular), scroll down and click on one of the headings/links. That should bring the columns back to a readable width.
Sign seen recently: TRUMP FIRED THE WATCHDOGS. PROJECT 2025 IS HAPPENING NOW.
Trump and Musk are tearing down democracy to expedite Project 2025—threatening everything from fair elections to Social Security.
See more about Project 2025 here and check out David A. Graham's The Project 2025 Presidency (The Atlantic, 4-24-25) "The blueprint for Trump 2.0 predicted much of what we’ve seen so far—and much of what’s to come."
• Obamacare would be even harder to kill now, but Trump promises to try anyway (Tami Luhby, CNN, 1-7-24) Nearly 60% of adults had a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act in May 2023, close to the highest share since the law was passed in 2010, according to the KFF Health Tracking Poll. In November 2024, Trump posted on his Truth Social site that Republicans should “never give up” trying to terminate the law and that he would replace it with “MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE.”
• The Resistance Is Not Coming to Save You. It’s Tuning Out. (Michael Schaffer, Politico, 11-15-24)
"The first Trump administration sparked waves of public activism and aggressive media coverage. This time, not so much. Trump returns to office with far more radical ambitions than he had in 2016, and much more coherent plans for achieving them. If you’re against gutting environmental regulations, bulk-firing public servants, doing away with Obamacare or instituting mass deportations, public fury is a way to push back — or at least stiffen the spines of Democrats who might collaborate with the administration. The left will have to wait for actual presidential deeds to drive the backlash. For better or worse, those will happen soon enough.
• One Word Describes Trump: Patrimonialism (Jonathan Rauch, The Atlantic, 2-24-25) "Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones."
"Patrimonialism explains what might otherwise be puzzling. Every policy the president cares about is his personal property. Trump dropped the federal prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams because a pliant big-city mayor is a useful thing to have. He broke with 50 years of practice by treating the Justice Department as “his personal law firm.” He treats the enforcement of duly enacted statutes as optional—and, what’s more, claims the authority to indemnify lawbreakers. He halted proceedings against January 6 thugs and rioters because they are on his side. His agencies screen hires for loyalty to him rather than to the Constitution.
"In Trump’s world, federal agencies are shut down on his say-so without so much as a nod to Congress. Henchmen with no statutory authority barge into agencies and take them over. A loyalist who had only ever managed two small nonprofits is chosen for the hardest management job in government. Conflicts of interest are tolerated if not outright blessed. Prosecutors and inspectors general are fired for doing their job. Thousands of civil servants are converted to employment at the president’s will. Former officials’ security protection is withdrawn because they are disloyal. The presidency itself is treated as a business opportunity."
• There Is a Very Good Reason Why Donald Trump Thinks Everything Is Rigged (David Corn, Mother Jones, 1-24)
In business, he was a master of gaming the system.
"When the US targeted Russia’s oligarchs after the invasion of Ukraine, the trail of assets kept leading to our own backyard. Not only had our nation become a haven for shady foreign money, but we were also incubating a familiar class of yacht-owning, industry-dominating, resource-extracting billionaires. In the January + February 2024 issue of our magazine, we investigate the rise of American Oligarchy—and what it means for the rest of us.
"Donald Trump is not a typical oligarch. Before entering politics, he was not part of the small group of powerful and rich people who buttressed the ruling elite.... But essential to his own rise to wealth and power was a core component of oligarchy: exploiting a rigged system. And during both his private sector career and his time in the White House, he has been friendly to oligarchs, cutting deals with them, cozying up to oligarchic regimes, and stacking his own Cabinet with the superrich. It’s this world of immense wealth and power that Trump wishes to rule."
• Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administrative Actions is part of Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions (Just Security, 4-24-25) Invaluable links.
On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump began his term with presidential actions including 26 executive orders, with more expected to follow. Just Security is covering key developments, including in concise “What Just Happened” expert explainers, legal and policy analysis, and more. Originally published Jan. 21, 2025, and frequently updated.
• Federal worker unions sue to block Trump’s effort to strip them of bargaining rights. (NY Times, 4-4-25) The complaint, filed late one night in federal court in Oakland, Calif., is the latest development in the unions’ escalating battle with the administration over its attempts to slash the federal work force and roll back the protections afforded to the civil service employees. Unions representing government workers have repeatedly sued over the efforts to cut jobs and dismantle offices and agencies, winning at least temporary reprieves in some of those cases.
• The NIH’s Most Reckless Cuts Yet (Katherine J. Wu, The Atlantic, 3-27-25) End a clinical trial early, and researchers might not be able to tell if it worked, leaving participants worse off than when they started. But that is what the Trump administration is asking scientists to do.
• The shame of Columbia University (Robert Reich, 3-21-25)
Columbia University’s president and trustees today surrendered the university’s academic freedom to the Trump regime. Trump threatened to cancel $400 million in federal funding if Columbia didn’t put its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department in “academic receivership.” In surrendering to Trump, it's opening all universities to Trump's tyranny. A cornerstone of academic freedom is that professors can research and teach what they want. Not even during the communist witch hunts of the early 1950s did a university agree to put an entire academic department under special oversight because of what its faculty researched or taught. Trump also demanded that Columbia ban the wearing of face masks, so that protesters can be more easily identified. It’s all about intimidation — not only at Columbia but at every other university in America. Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, and dozens of other schools face federal inquiries and fear similar penalties.
---The Real Takeover of Columbia Was By Those on the Right (Alisa Solomon, The Nation, 5-6-24) Columbia offers a case-study in how right-wing politicians are using exaggerated claims of anti-semitism to advance a conservative agenda.
---The new definition of antisemitism is transforming America – and serving a Christian nationalist plan (Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona, The Guardian, 3-23-25) Redefining antisemitism in the law (equating criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism) "was never about Jewish safety. It is about consolidating authoritarian power under the veneer of minority protection."
• Crimson Courage: Harvard Stands Up to Political Intimidation (Julian Vasquez Heilig, Cloaking Inequity, 4-14-25)
"The April 14 letter from Harvard was more than administrative boilerplate — it was a declaration. The Trump administration had issued sweeping, punitive demands. These included requiring federal approval of admissions data, mandatory plagiarism scans for faculty, shuttering of DEI offices, and the placement of entire departments under third-party oversight for alleged “antisemitism.” The list of demands read less like a compliance memo and more like an authoritarian manifesto.
"But Harvard didn’t flinch. In its official response, the university stated: “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” That one sentence is as radical as it is obvious. Harvard wasn’t just rejecting a policy — it was rejecting the premise that education should be controlled by political whims.
Garber went further: “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.” With that statement, Harvard transformed from a symbol of elite caution to a beacon of institutional defiance.
"The implications are enormous. If Harvard can be threatened, any institution can. And if Harvard can resist, so can others."
Read More