Trump, Tariffs, and the EU’s Dirty Little Secret

An existential crisis in the making.

By Mark Angelides | May 27, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

On Sunday (May 25), President Donald Trump granted the European Union a brief lifeline in his quest for reciprocity on tariffs, extending the proposed 50% burden imposition to early July. “Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively,” declared EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shortly after the hiatus was announced. However, her situation, and that of the 27 participating member states, is far more precarious than one might initially assume.

Mighty Markets, Many Tariffs

Without doubt, the EU bloc is a big and valuable trading partner to the United States. Indeed, America purchased more than $600 billion worth of goods and services from the Union in 2024, with members, in return, buying around $370 billion. Princely sums, but uneven – especially considering that there are more potential consumers in the EU market than the US one (450 million souls compared with 347 million).

There’s a unique reason for this trade imbalance, however. Consider that the EU is little more than a protectionist market with multiple layers of government attached. It was founded on the idea that nations with close economic ties would not go to war (as they had done in both 1914 and 1939). As trade became more globalized, the project morphed into a series of mechanisms and institutions that could ultimately impose political will on its members.

In fact, currently, the European Union is considering stripping Hungary of its voting rights within the EU parliament for attempting to implement a law on transparency in its own parliament. This supranational behemoth has gone well beyond scripting rules on single-market access. But therein lies the issue with negotiating a tariff deal with the Trump administration: If the EU is not a protectionist market for its members, it serves no real purpose.

Single Market? Time to Update Your Status

The EU describes its “single market” like this:

“The EU aims to enable EU citizens to study, live, shop, work and retire in any EU country and enjoy products from all over Europe. To do this, it ensures free movement of goods, services, capital and persons in a single EU internal market. By removing technical, legal and bureaucratic barriers, the EU also allows citizens to trade and do business freely.”

Sounds fine, but such boilerplate is strictly for the tourists. In reality, the EU commission enacts rules and regulations in a highly partisan manner for each country in order to support and protect certain industries.

Your News – How You Like It!

For example, the champagne industry – comprising some 16,000 producers in the region – gets subsidies from the EU courtesy of taxpayers in all 27 countries in the bloc. Or how about the German car industry? As a special carve-out, manufacturers no longer have to hit their global emissions deadlines by this year and can instead average emissions over a number of years, putting other carmakers at a serious disadvantage. Such climate-forgiving largesse will not be extended to foreign producers, naturally.

But if the European Union wants to avoid the fast-approaching 50% tariffs, it may have to do the unthinkable.

Remember Brexit?

In the run-up to the 2016 Brexit vote that saw Britain leave the EU, doom-mongers predicted economic turmoil for the tiny UK as it would not have specialized access to the single market that comes only with membership in the bloc. Almost a decade later,  Trump is trying to do just that.

If the EU cannot offer intimate protections for specialized markets that tip the scales in favor of bloc members, why should such industries support the Union at all? After all, its sole purpose is trade protectionism within member states to the exclusion (and cost) of those outside its hallowed markets. The days of European Union exclusivity are surely coming to an end and, with it, the false sense of Pax Romana that globalists worldwide have long sought to emulate.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

 

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

Congressional Democrats and the Double-Edged Polling Sword

You either trust the polls or you don’t.

By Mark Angelides | May 8, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags Articles, Opinion, Politics

He who lives by the poll dies by the poll. As President Donald Trump moves beyond the first 100 days of his second term, Democrats in the upper and lower chambers of Congress are keen to highlight his slipping approval ratings. Indeed, these polling numbers are delivered as concrete proof that the end is finally nigh for The Donald. Why then – if such confidence in these surveys is to be believed – do the same politicos not see warning signs for their own desultory satisfaction levels?

Schumer’s Polling Paradox

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently took the opportunity to highlight Trump’s falling numbers, gleefully stating that “Trump has the lowest 100-day approval rating since they started polling 80 years ago.” CNN – in a retort that must have had viewers checking to see if they were on the right channel – asked why the senator’s own approval was sitting at just 17%. The gentleman from New York grumbled and insisted that “polls come and go.”

In terms of destroying one’s own argument, this effort ranks pretty high on the list of political pratfalls. And yet, it has not stopped other leading Democratic figures from employing the same lack of logic.

When asked about the level of focus his party is devoting to El Salvador, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (also a New Yorker) responded, “Our reaction is that Donald Trump has the lowest public approval rating of any president in modern American history.” Again, this is a superb headline with the advantage of using the near-clickbait term “history.” Perhaps Jeffries would do well to examine the plank in his eye before beholding the speck in Trump’s.

After all, NBC’s polling has the Democratic Party at just 27% – a record low. CNN rates the party at 29%, its lowest approval rating in “history.” Despite the obvious hypocrisy, one has to wonder at the thought process behind believing only in polling that is favorable to one’s worldview.

A Cognitive Conundrum

Like beauty, polling reliability is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, you hear what you want to hear. However, the real issue might be that most surveys examine the full range of American attitudes rather than the subsection relevant to the current political leadership.

For example, Schumer comes across a series of polls that show Trump’s disapproval rating fluttering around 51.2% – as it is now according to the RealClear Politics average. That means that more people disapprove of the president than approve, right? Not so fast. A keen observer – notably not one looking solely to reinforce an inbuilt bias – may look at the last time Trump’s numbers were at 51.2% and then extrapolate from there. In fact, The Donald was suffering under the weight of this exact same negative approval in late October 2024, just days before he won the popular vote, the Electoral College, and all seven swing states.

A party cannot win if its base abandons it. Schumer and others in Democratic congressional leadership should be looking not at Trump’s approval across the entire country, but rather the approval of the Democratic Party by its voters.

To receive consecutive polls that put one’s party at a miserable 27% and 29% is not simply a case of “polls come and go.” It is a warning shot from the party faithful that you have lost your way.

Doc, I’m Sick! Don’t Give Me Medicine!

Since Trump won the White House in 2016, the Democratic Party has employed a single tool in its efforts to thwart his political rise: Hate Donald Trump. This may have seemed a successful tactic in November 2020, but surely such a notion should have been retired four years later when Trump sealed his triumphant return to Washington, DC.

Your News – How You Like It!

Republican voters are unlikely to flip to support Democratic politicians, so the party in question needs to ensure that its base is locked in and then fight for the growing contingent of independent voters. According to NBC’s March polling, the collapse in approval was driven by Registered Democratic voters – 20% of whom had an unfavorable view of their team.

The voters seem to realize that being nothing but anti-Donald is not the best strategy for winning elections and does not inspire Americans to support the party. Why can’t Schumer and his congressional cohorts see this? Perhaps they can, but they are just stuck on a path that will lead them further into obscurity. Or could it be that they have spent so long listening to their legacy media allies that the Kool-Aid has started to taste just too good?

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

American Political Thermometer: Is the United States MAGA Country?

The polls and passions of the USA. 

By Mark Angelides | Apr 21, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Since the 2024 election, a coordinated refrain from leading Democrats – despite President Donald Trump’s return to the White House – has been that the public no longer supports his “extreme” agenda. It’s a bold claim and, if focusing on a small percentage of policy issues, could be technically correct. However, when taken as a whole, it seems the country is getting redder and redder. More notable is that a significant chunk of these GOP supporters considers themselves MAGA-minded.

What the Polls Say

An NBC survey released this month found “thirty-six percent of registered voters identified themselves as MAGA supporters.” That’s not just Republicans – 71% of whom claim that appellation – but voters from all three parties, even independents, who generally shun the other two. It’s a stark increase from January 2024, when this figure was just 20%.

Looking wider, there is a general turn toward the GOP that seems to be solidifying around Trump’s second term. Napolitan News Service released a poll last week that showed “in March, 46% of voters considered themselves Republicans or leaned Republican, while 41% considered themselves Democrats or leaned Democrat.” That’s a five-point difference, which has become more fixed since Trump returned to the White House.

These findings fall perfectly in line with polling by Gallup, which found:

“Overall, 46% of Americans identified as Republicans or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party, compared with 45% who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Prior to 2022, Republicans only had a slight edge once before, in 1991.”

Support for the Democratic Party is on the slide after 30 years of inbuilt advantage. So, with more people identifying as Republicans and more Republicans identifying as MAGA supporters, it seems that the United States really is on its way to becoming a MAGA country.

Looking to the MAGA Future

Conventional wisdom has long held that the youth vote for the left, as they age and become more experienced, gradually shift to the right. However, another survey – this one by the Yale Youth Poll suggests a wild backlash against the woke left. Of the elder cohort (22 to 29), the Yale poll found support for the Democratic Party was just six points ahead of GOP support. It’s a win for the left, certainly, yet not a seismic one. Then comes the 18-to-21 cohort.

This group opted for Republicans by an enormous 12-point margin, suggesting there is a visceral – almost reactive – swing away from the traditional position. In fact, while Vice President JD Vance is popular with these right-leaning youngsters, the survey discovered if Trump were in a hypothetical third-term primary, “the incumbent president dominates” with 56% support.

Polls and Policy Highlights

A range of policy-based polls were published last week, going beyond popularity for individuals and parties. Here are some of the more interesting results from those:

• 64% believe people should have to prove they are citizens before registering to vote, with 26% against.  (Rasmussen Reports)
• 61% of Americans think a recession will occur within the next year, compared to 24% who believe the economic outlook is positive. (Ipsos)

Lastly, it seems the betting markets are gearing up for 2028 already. The current favorites for the next POTUS are:

• Vice President JD Vance – 11/4 or a 26.7% probability.
• Gavin Newsom (D-CA) – 10/1 or a 9.1% probability.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) – 11/1 or an 8.3% probability.
• Josh Shapiro (D-PA) – 11/1 or an 8.3% probability.
• Pete Buttigieg – 12/1 or a 7.7% probability.
• Donald Trump Jr. – 12/1 or a 7.7% probability.
• Stephen A. Smith – 40/1 or a 2.1% probability.

We are still years away from the presidential election, so much can – and will – change, but tracking the momentum of the betting markets rarely proves a futile move.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

Is Le Pen Mightier Than the Sword?

Lessons on lawfare in the wake of Trump.

By Mark Angelides | Apr 1, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, International, Opinion 

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right-wing National Rally (NR) party, was, on Monday, March 31, convicted of embezzlement and barred from running for office for the next five years. While headlines across Europe and the United States were written with barely constrained joy at her political demise, Le Pen’s story is far from over. And if 2024 delivered any lessons at all in the repercussions of prosecuting populist leaders, the French judiciary may have made a huge miscalculation.

Embezzlement?

Along with a $108,000 fine and a suspended prison sentence, Le Pen is now banned from contesting the 2027 presidential election, in which she was highly likely to succeed. President Emmanuel Macron is term-limited and will not be able to seek a third term; after coming second in those two contests, the NR leader had improved her polling and looked set to redefine French politics come election day.

But the five-year ban is more than a little curious.

Consider the facts. Le Pen’s party in the European Parliament received EU funds; prosecutors claim that these funds were stolen, and the verdict declared her crimes a “democratic bypass.” And that is pretty much the limit of US reporting on the matter. But what did she spend the cash on? Here’s where things get a little murkier.

Le Pen represents her party in the European Union parliament and, as such, is entitled to funds for political enterprises. She also represents her party nationally in France as leader. Did she treat herself to lavish gifts, fancy meals, and designer clothing? No. Indeed, the funds to which she was legally entitled to spend were apparently – to some degree – commingled between her EU and national administration party activities. Simply put, she spent money designated for political activity on political activity.

Rules are rules, some might say. However, in 2025, French staple Le Monde reported that fully one-quarter of all members of the European parliament were involved in some type of scandal. While these range from the undoubtedly criminal to the more Kafkaesque foibles inherent in an overly bureaucratic apparatus, a great many are accused of precisely the same act as Le Pen.

So, why single out the leader of the party that could well form the next government? The clue is in the punishments.

See You on Monday, Le Pen

Le Pen’s sentence will undoubtedly be appealed – although French appeals courts are notoriously slow. As such, the verdict declares that her suspended prison term will not commence, nor will she have to pay the fine straight away – both of these will be on hold until all avenues of appeal are exhausted. But the ban on running for office has already started, meaning that even if she successfully appeals, she will almost certainly not be eligible to appear on the ballot in time for the 2027 election.

Your News – How You Like It!

Even more surprising is that this ban applies only to seeking new office. She is currently the leader of the NR party in the EU and sits in its Parliament – she remains welcome to serve out her term in office. How curious.

Here’s an example. Let’s say Mr. X worked for a bank. Over a period of years, he stole money from the bank, was eventually caught, and then went to trial. After being sentenced, the owner of the bank catches up to him and says, “You thief! You stole from us! You deserve the prison sentence and the punishment. By the way, don’t be late for work on Monday.”

With this scenario in place, one wonders just how political the whole operation was.

Where Enemies Fear to Tread

As expected, Le Pen railed against the sentence, even storming out of the court as it was being delivered. Her deputy and likely contender for the election, should Le Pen fail to earn a reprieve, Jordan Bardella, said that Le Pen “is being unjustly condemned” and that French democracy “is being executed.” But her political opponents also had reservations regarding the outcome. Conservative politician Laurent Wauquiez wrote on X (translated):

“The decision to convict Marine Le Pen is both weighty and exceptional. In a democracy, it is unhealthy for an elected official to be barred from running for office. Political debates must be decided at the ballot box, by the French people.”

Monsieur Wauquiez has a point.

There are two aspects to consider in the sentencing of Le Pen. The first is that when Macron came back to power, he begged for help from all comers to defeat NR, resulting in a French parliament that could function only with Le Pen walking the moderate path. The ragtag collection of Greens, Communists, and the like have already resulted in losing four prime ministers in 2024 alone. With Le Pen unleashed, the French government can no longer rely on her to help battle the more radical elements invited in by a desperate president. Votes of “no confidence” are sure to begin mounting now that Le Pen has likely been denied a path to direct power.

For keen political observers, another possibility is on the not-too-distant horizon. Democrats, the American judicial system, and the Fourth Estate were all aligned in their efforts to send Donald Trump to the Big House rather than the White House. In fact, there’s a solid argument to be made that the multiple prosecutions backfired and added fuel to the campaign fire, thrusting him back to the presidency. It is no coincidence that his mugshot became one of several now-iconic images of that 2024 race.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban posted along with the verdict: “Je Suis Marine” (I am Marine). Whether her second-in-command, Bardella, or she herself is on the ballot in 2027, her treatment by the state and the judiciary will be the looming shadow under which all campaigns are measured. The French voters may feel that they too, in at least some small way, are “Marine.”

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief div>

A Salacious Signal – Media in Search of a Scandal

For lack of a fire, Fourth Estate hunts for smoke.

By Mark Angelides | Mar 27, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News,  Articles, Media, Opinion

When it was revealed this week that high-ranking members of the Trump administration had shared messages on the Signal app, chaos and recrimination ensued. And yet, as further details emerge, the left-leaning Fourth Estate appears desperate to keep animated a corpse of a story that is beginning to rot.

While inviting The Atlantic’s top editor to the group chat was a spectacular faux pas by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his team, Democrats’ calls for all those involved to resign are more than merely hyperbolic; they are massively ignorant.

Misinterpreted Smoke Signal

Let’s lay out a few of the basics. The initial uproar from the media and the political left was that these Trump officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, should never have used Signal in the first place. It was widely described as “amateur hour” in terms of operational security. Indeed, in congressional hearings throughout the day (Tuesday, March 25), the refrain of security lapses was repeated ad nauseam. But the facts don’t match the fiction.

As Scott Jennings – a conservative strategist and perennial guest on CNN – pointed out in the wake of the manufactured fury, the Signal app was already “preloaded” and “in use” when the new administration moved in.

In fact, as Fox News reported, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recommended that high-ranking administrators and politicians use “end-to-end encryption” software, specifically citing Signal as an example. The CISA guidelines read:

“Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps.”

This recommendation was updated in December 2024 while Team Biden was at the helm. So it’s easy to make the case that the anger at Trump officials for using Signal should be equally directed at the Biden agencies that crafted the recommendations. But that, of course, would be a stretch too far for those hellbent on damaging President Donald Trump.

Media Overload

So, keeping in mind that the use of Signal was actively encouraged by the federal agency responsible for cybersecurity during the Biden administration, that leaves one point of contention: that a reporter was inadvertently added to the group. A big mistake, for sure, but was it worthy of calls for resignation and the domination of the entire news cycle?

Here’s the sheer amount of coverage dedicated to it two days after the story broke:

• CNN’s March 26 digital homepage (above the fold) contained 17 articles, six of which were devoted to the Signal story – that’s 35%.
• On Politico, 7 out of 11 above-the-fold digital stories covered this topic – 63%.
• The New York Times had 8 out of 17 top-of-page stories devoted to the Signal saga – 47%.
• The Washington Post takes the crown, with 6 out of 9 stories focusing on the Signal events – that’s 66%.

It feels as though journalists are actively encouraging each other to coin the phrase “SignalGate.”*

Your News – How You Like It!

It is not as though no other worthy news stories are taking place. After all, the Supreme Court ruled on so-called “ghost guns”; Trump is challenging judges in courts; Greenpeace suffered a loss in a $600 million lawsuit – the list goes on. Yet the Signal saga has become the dominant trend.

When there is such close coordination among media outlets, the reason is either that the biggest story of the year just dropped or the new messaging strategy for the Democratic Party is underway. It seems quite clear which one this is.

*Notably, today, March 27, Politico’s homepage has EIGHT uses of the word “SignalGate.”

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

The Full Facts on DOGE – Part 3

A time-sensitive endeavor.

by Mark Angelides | Feb 19, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Editor’s note: In part one of Liberty Nation News’ DOGE series, we discussed how the USDS was created by President Barack Obama and has been funded by Congress for the last ten years. In part two, we tackled the tsunami of legal cases and rhetoric. In the third part, we examine the future of the department.

“The final step of @DOGE is to delete itself,” wrote Elon Musk on Dec. 2 last year. That’s not an ambition – it’s a built-in feature of the executive order that turned the United States Digital Service into the United States DOGE Service. In fact, come Independence Day next year, it will be lights out for President Donald Trump’s efficiency machine, regardless of whether it has accomplished its goal. This self-imposed deadline, however, is far more than just a random expiration date.

Beyond Symbolism

July 4, 2026, is the 250th anniversary of when the Declaration of Independence was signed – America’s birthday. There is little doubt that, come that day, the president will speak to all Americans, setting forth the nation’s achievements and those of his administration. Almost one and half years of DOGE efforts – if the current trajectory holds – indicate a potential saving of $1.8 trillion ($100 billion per month).

Coupled with the current congressional efforts to create a budget reconciliation package that limits the pork – and the effective elimination of federal departments through defunding – Trump will be focused on the bragging rights that come with massive savings. This appears to be a whole-of-government approach, and such movements tend to create momentum once they get started.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the midterm elections fall in 2026, and the qualifying date for candidates lands around the end of July. The Republican Party will be defending 22 of the 35 Senate seats that are up for grabs (20 class 2 seats and two class 3 seats to finish out JD Vance’s Ohio term and Marco Rubio’s Florida term). This is almost the precise opposite of the 2024 election, which had an inbuilt disadvantage for Democrats.

This congressional equation brings some heavy baggage.

It’s Now or Never, DOGE

Should the GOP lose control of either the Senate or the House (or both), DOGE’s mission is essentially dead in the water. Legislation could potentially halt all operations and efforts. Trump has given the outfit roughly 18 months to finish its work because it may not have the option once midterm voting starts.

Your News – How You Like It!

With the congressional elections in mind, it would be a major boost to all Republican candidates if Trump and Musk can demonstrate with hard, cold numbers that they have reversed the trend of profligate spending, which has been a hallmark of the federal government. Candidates can take to the streets with the message that they are cutting waste, minimizing costs, removing pork, and being good stewards of those precious tax dollars.

And, of course, continued majorities in either chamber would prevent the indignity of Trump becoming a lame-duck president two years into his last term.

A Future in DC?

Multiple challenges to the actions and existence of DOGE are underway in American courts. These kinds of lawsuits may be, at best, stopgaps. The president and his Republican majority in Congress are preparing to pass next year’s federal budget, which could codify the spending cuts that Trump is trying to impose unilaterally. Yet the barrage of suits provides a sense of urgency in light of the agency’s fast-approaching expiration date.

What remains is whether DOGE will be brought back after Independence Day 2026. If it proves successful and, more importantly, politically popular with the electorate, it could make a comeback. After Trump’s first victory back in 2016, Wired asked: “Even if the new administration continues the programs, would idealistic coders and designers come to Washington to work for Donald Trump?”

That question has been answered. Not only have the coders come, but they appear obsessed with completing the mission assigned. As Silicon Valley tries to wrestle free of the onerous Californian guardrails, the nation’s capital has a chance to become the new tech-centric city on the hill – but only if there’s an appetite for innovation from those who run the motherboard.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

The Full Facts on DOGE – Part 2

The legal longshots mount.

by Mark Angelides | Feb 18, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

Editor’s note: In part one of Liberty Nation News’ DOGE series, we examined how the USDS was created by President Barack Obama and has been funded by Congress for the last ten years, putting the lie to the argument that the agency is unconstitutional. In this second part, we tackle the tsunami of legal cases and rhetoric being levied currently.

If you can’t beat them, litigate them. It was a process of legal warfare that failed so spectacularly against Donald Trump’s bid for re-election, and yet the bevy of claims presently surrounding DOGE and its efforts to reduce government waste appear cut from the same cloth. What challenges are being made, and will they pass judicial muster?

Defeating the Beast

The broadest cases and accusations being leveled against the US DOGE Service (USDS) claim that its existence is fundamentally illegal. As discussed at length in part one of this series, if it were illegal, it would have been illegal for the last ten years without a whisper of complaint. However, it seems critics are falling into a trap that Milton Friedman warned of: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

So are critics making that mistake? Consider the words of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who said, “This administration stands for corruption. And what Elon Musk is doing in Washington is all about expanding corruption. He’s not the enemy of corruption. He’s the agent of corruption.” And then there is Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), who spoke many words without nailing down what he saw the issue as:

“I think we need to be doing a lot more oversight in terms of what DOGE is doing. And that’s part of the reason that a lot of my Democratic colleagues and I actually had to go to a lot of these institutions and departments over the past week. We’ve been to USAID, we’ve been to the Department of Education, The Department of Treasury, because as we reach out to the administration, what we’re getting back is crickets.”

He continued stirring the pot without naming specifics, saying, “We should all be concerned about the fact that Elon Musk and his small team of, uh, DOGE, uh, you know, coders have absolutely zero oversight. There’s no one looking over the work they’re doing to make sure that, of course, there’s no conflict of interest, but that it’s also being done in the right way.”

Frost concluded, “The president needs to cease this entire DOGE operation. If he wants to make drastic cuts to the federal government, if he wants to move forward with this project 2025 agenda, he needs to come to the United States Congress.”

And, finally, here is the rub: oversight and congressional involvement. Opponents of DOGE appear to be coalescing around one grand argument that it has become a “rogue agency.” And naturally, as per Raskin’s screed, this is because Trump and Musk are the epitome of corruption. But does the accusation hold water?

Biden and DOGE

Natalie Alms of NextGov/FWC wrote an in-depth article in November last year about the uncertain future USDS faces and described the many transitions it has undergone. She highlighted:

“When the Biden administration took over at the start of 2021, they switched the USDS leadership position to a presidential appointee role, as it was during the Obama administration. The White House also added some new political roles to USDS — dubbed senior advisors for delivery — to detail to White House policy councils, such as the Domestic Policy Council.”

So, if the USDS is overtly political and free from the very specific oversight that the Democrat lawmakers now demand, it is because President Joe Biden changed it. There was a deafening silence from the same politicos at the time and certainly no lawsuits to demand congressional involvement.

Attacks Mount

Among the many actions taken against the president’s agenda since his inauguration are:

• A 14-state suit alleging the power given to Musk by Trump is unconstitutional.
• A federal judge ordering that the foreign aid freeze put in place be lifted.
• A district court judge extending a previous order barring Trump from placing more than 2,000 USAID employees on leave.

These and two dozen other actions against the cost-cutting endeavors of the administration are currently being argued or prepared. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, Congress is also seeking to get in on the circus.

Kick Back and Ditch the Matrix

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hosted a protest against DOGE in which he declared, “We cannot allow Elon Musk and a small group of people to secretly, behind closed doors, take away our privacy, take away our dollars, take away everything we have.” One could be mistaken for thinking he was discussing the usual business of government. But a protest rally from one of DC’s most powerful figures hints at a lack of confidence in a positive legal outcome.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.”

For all the heated discussion that Trump will potentially defy court rulings against him, what’s missing is that — in a similar manner to former President Joe Biden’s efforts at student loan forgiveness — these orders present a road map for how to work with – or around – legal issues, to strengthen the initial action. While there may be hurdles, each challenge provides a compass reading for where DOGE will head next and how the organization will avoid similar blocks.

~

Part 3 in this DOGE series will look to the future of DOGE and what happens when it expires.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

The Full Facts on DOGE – Part 1

Past is most certainly prologue. 

By Mark Angelides | @ Liberty Nation News, Feb 17, 2025, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Editor’s note: This three-part series on the legality of DOGE focuses on the past, present and future of the agency.

A president created an agency out of thin air with a mission to use high-tech tools to deliver a “better government experience.” Relying on a small team of tech experts, this agency would streamline, solve, and enhance efficiency. And shockingly, no Democrats in Congress had public meltdowns. No, this is not Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency – or DOGE – but rather, President Barack Obama back in 2013 laying the groundwork for the United States Digital Service. If the former commander-in-chief’s venture at streamlining the federal government went unchallenged, why does Elon Musk’s pet project get a tough rap?

Legal/Illegal – It Depends What Is Is

The United States Digital Service (USDS) is more than just a precursor to DOGE; it is DOGE. In President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order, he (or his scribe) was very precise in the “creation” of this government efficiency project. His order stated:

“Sec. 3.  DOGE Structure.  (a)  Reorganization and Renaming of the United States Digital Service.  The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS)”

As you can see, it even kept the initials. The agency has received funding from Congress and has, in its own words, partnered with more than “30 federal agencies” to deliver streamlined tech services across government. Indeed, in a self-congratulatory tenth anniversary post, USDS outlined some of the deliverables it has achieved during its decade-long existence.

“USDS has brought more than 700 top-tier technologists into government,” the post reads. More than 100 of these technologists went on to permanent positions across agencies. Further, the missive outlines the work it has done across multiple agencies with a specific focus on the work it has done to improve Social Security and the IRS.

DOGE is the same agency under a slightly different moniker, and as such, falls entirely in line with current laws. So, it is not the existence of DOGE that is at question – it was created by a former president and funded through Congress – but rather the parameters by which it is operating. And here, things get a little murkier.

In-House DOGE

As per the president’s order:

“In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order. Agency Heads shall select the DOGE Team members in consultation with the USDS Administrator.  Each DOGE Team will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney.”

This has been a bone of contention for Trump’s critics in Washington, DC, and the Fourth Estate. We have been granted endless column inches and soundbites decrying the fact that a band of young technologists have been setting up camp within agencies. To reiterate, this appears entirely within the law and consistent with what has been happening for the last ten years. So, where’s the beef?

Much of the political ire and fire is aimed at Elon Musk. Accusations range from him being the “shadow president” to not being authorized to oversee the USDS. However, a brief perusal of the agency’s history demonstrates that the critics perhaps protest too much.

A Leader by Any Other Name …

Matt Cutts, an uber wealthy Google tech pro was given the top spot at the agency under Barack Obama, a position he held until 2021. Notably, this position did not require Senate approval. His mission was, as he described it to his staff across the various agencies, to “go where the work is.” Translation: Find the problems, fix the problems.

The Washingtonian described a staff conference taking place in the USDS building just across from the White House, writing:

“That the scene is more Silicon Valley than West Wing is no accident. USDS was created in part to demonstrate how official Washington might look if it were run like a start-up. Its ranks are filled with people who, by government standards, might as well belong to an invasive species: software engineers, web designers, product managers, and other veterans of the technology industry. ‘A ragged band of 180 geeks,’ as Cutts puts it.”

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Washingtonian’s description could well be detailing Elon Musk (the start-up king), and his team of tech disruptors. In fact, for anyone who cares to read just about any article written regarding the agency before the 2024 election, one might assume that – as Dragnet was wont to mention – “the names have been changed to protect the innocent.” What is different though, is the scope of what the USDS, now ubiquitously called DOGE, is doing. And it is here, in these thick bureaucratic weeds, that the legal challenges have begun to take root.

~

Part 2 in this DOGE series will examine the various legal challenges that have so far been made against DOGE, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

Trump’s Gambit on Federal Workers

Making an offer that many won’t refuse. 

By Mark Angelides | Jan 30, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

 When Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the media airwaves were suddenly infused with a raft of stories regarding the federal workers who were distraught over the possibility of working under a Trump administration. Pearls were dutifully clutched, and a woe-is-me cacophony drowned out the sound of cooler heads arguing that such employees should approach their work in a nonpartisan manner. But perhaps taking a prompt from Mario Puzo’s Don Corleone, the president made an offer that could prove difficult to refuse.

A Dear John for Federal Workers

On Jan. 28, an estimated 2 million federal employees received an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPR), which oversees the civilian workforce. Titled “A Fork in the Road,” the mailer presented a set of options:

“If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program.”

The message asked them to reply with the word “resign” if they wanted to take advantage of retaining all pay and benefits until Sept. 30 and be “exempt” from the in-person work requirement – at which point they would no longer be employed. The federal workers have until Feb. 6 to decide. But what happens if they choose to stick around?

First, it will not be business as usual. Under a Four Pillars rubric, employees will be required to return to the office (for a five-day week), work in a performance culture, meet enhanced standards, and be aware a streamlined approach is incoming. And while a number of workers may believe that they can coast under the radar and just get by, the email attempts to remove that possibility.

No Safe Haven

For federal workers who decide to tough it out, the future is not set in stone. The email continued:

“At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.”

So even if they refuse to take the “resign” option, their roles could still be cut, changed, or redeployed. It seems likely that Trump’s plan here is to root out those who are not fully committed to working under his administration. But this is just the beginning of the president’s efforts to cut the bloated bureaucracy.

In the waning days of Trump’s first term, he implemented Schedule F –  which was immediately overturned by Joe Biden when he became president and is now poised to make a comeback. Liberty Nation News’ senior political analyst Tim Donner explained:

“It will empower massive changes in the bureaucracy, re-classifying thousands of careerists as political appointees. It refers to a section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, exempting some federal employees from civil service protections, specifically those ‘whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.’ Under Trump’s plan, the number of such employees would jump from roughly 4,000 to about 50,000, signaling a sea change in the way Washington does business.”

It is the ultimate Swamp-draining tactic. And the plan goes further.

Get Outta Town!

An additional flank of Trump’s cutting agenda seems likely to be moving federal agencies out of Washington, DC. He has a track record of making this work. In 2020, he authorized moving the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from DC to Grand Junction, CO. LNN’s Jim Fite detailed the results:

“Of the 176 BLM staff told to relocate, only 41 did. The others either retired early, moved into other government positions, or just quit and looked for alternative kinds of work. The number of vacancies went from 121 in July 2019 to 326 in March 2020.”

This three-pronged approach to cutting the size of the federal workforce – the “resign” email, Schedule F, and moving agencies out of DC – will almost certainly have the desired effect. What remains will be a streamlined government filled with only workers willing to do the job required under the rules set by the new boss.

The New York Times called it a “frontal assault on the federal bureaucracy.” And the authors may be correct. However, it is not an assault on people but on a workplace culture that has allowed bureaucracy and bloat to thrive and become the goal rather than the enemy of efficiency. And who knows? Perhaps the American taxpayer will discover that – much like when Elon Musk bought Twitter and cut 90% of the staff – trimming the fat sometimes makes for a better meal.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

The Fourth Estate and the Road Not Taken

Giving up the anti-Trump stance may be too heavy a lift.

By Mark Angelides Jan 22, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Media, Opinion

Poet Robert Frost wrote of the choices we face and the paths that ultimately define us; it is a concept that must surely be occupying editorial meetings across the nation as each particular outlet of the Fourth Estate determines whether it will opt for the path less traveled or the comfortable, familiar path.

Since legacy media have so avidly aligned themselves against President Donald Trump from 2015 onward, his return to the White House poses a conundrum: continue to be part of the unofficial “resistance” or play a straight hand?

Splitting the Fourth Estate Deck

There is evidence that some media outlets are attempting to go cold turkey on the Trump bashing. On the morning of Jan. 21 – one day after Trump’s inauguration – the top stories were a mixed bag. Here is a selection of the leading headlines that graced America over morning coffee:

Politico: “Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying to Be a Good One.”

The Washington Post: “Trump takes sweeping actions on Day 1”

New York Times: “A Determined Trump Vows Not to Be Thwarted at Home or Abroad”

CNN: “Trump wields huge power to kick start his new ‘Golden Age’”

Most would agree that there is a measure of balance here. In fact, one might argue that these are the straight news headlines that have been missing from much of the media landscape over the last decade. They inform and entice – as every good headline should.

But what of the rest of the pack? A number of well-known outlets opted to take the well-lit and clearly marked freeway that has been their hallmark during Trump’s time in politics.

MSNBC: “Trump’s first executive orders preview his second administration’s chaos and cruelty”

AP: “Beneath a veneer of calm, Trump’s inauguration holds warning signs for US democracy”

And not to be outdone, HuffPost went for a full house: “TRUMP TAKEOVER / SHOCK MASS JAN. 6 PARDONS / WAR ON AMERICA’S GOV’T WORKERS / FRONTAL ATTACK ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP”

It seems clear that the denizens of pro-Democrat newsrooms have made very different choices.

Another Golden Age?

Does this mean those in the first list will resist the temptation to engage in the Trump-bashing that so defined them during Joe Biden’s presidency? Probably not. However, it does appear they have seen the writing on the wall – it’s black and red.

It is no secret that big box media have been struggling financially. DC’s most prominent newspaper – owned by Jeff Bezos – lost a whopping $100 million last year. This debacle was foreshadowed by its fast-receding digital audience. According to data shared with Semafor, when Biden took office in 2021, the site boasted 22.5 million daily users. After four years of playing for only the home team, that number was a mere 2.5-3 million last summer.

LN News: Now on Roku and Fire

And just last week, the paper noted that it would be laying off 4% of its workforce – that’s about 100 people.

The Associated Press also released news that it was cutting back on 8% of its staff due to restructuring. Notably, this “transformation” came after two major newspaper chains decided to ditch the AP.

Media is a business, and the numbers don’t lie. As alternative boutique news outlets see their audiences rise, legacy outlets suffer the hit, and it seems the reason is that they are simply not trusted to deliver honest news. As Liberty Nation News’ Corey Smith reported just before the November election:

“Only 54% of Democrats, 27% of independents, and 12% of Republicans trust ‘mass media,’ defined by Gallup as ‘newspapers, TV and radio,’ when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly.”

Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote in his book Hate, Inc.: “Your team either won or lost, and you felt devastated or vindicated accordingly. We were training rooters instead of readers.” And here’s the rub: This partisanship was cultivated. It seems that if the legacy media are to survive another four years of Trump, a new business model might be required.

Are we about to witness a resurgence of political parity? Don’t hold your breath. While some outlets may be attempting to thread the needle and retain readership amid the slings and arrows of outrageous partisanship, it’s not likely to last. Eventually, they will choose the road well-traveled, and that will make all the difference.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

 

Trump’s Message to America

Disruption and destiny ahead.

by Mark Angelides | Jan 21, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

 

To chants of “USA! USA!” in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States. Delivering his inaugural speech, the newly minted commander-in-chief made abundantly clear that in his second (and last) term, he would be taking no prisoners and dealing with no subtleties. Trump meant business.

In what must have been one of the most uncomfortable dressing-downs in political history, former President Joe Biden sat beside the podium as Trump excoriated his administration and the state of the nation under his watch. But this was just the beginning of his message to the American people.

Trump Ready for Change

“The Golden Age of America begins right now,” were the opening remarks. Striking an optimistic and hopeful pose, the president sought to crush the past and salt the earth Biden walked. He continued:

“We are confronting a crisis of trust. Our citizens have had their wealth extracted. Our government cannot manage a simple crisis at home, and stumbles into catastrophic events abroad. It fails to protect law-abiding citizens, but provide sanctuary for dangerous criminals who illegally entered. It has given unlimited funding for foreign borders, but refuses to defend American borders.”

Biden managed to keep a calm composure while former Vice President Kamal Harris attempted to cover a scowl. Watching Trump trash their four years at the helm must surely have been a bitter pill. But there was not a hint of mercy in Trump’s delivery. Whether it was trashing border policy or foreign escapades, Trump took his shots. For his supporters, it was a vindication of their beliefs, dealt out by their chosen champion.

Red Meat for the Base

In what appeared more like a State of the Union address than an inaugural speech, Trump declared that “From this moment on, America’s decline is over.” He continued by delivering a series of policy positions that echoed closely those made on the campaign trail. “I will declare a national emergency at our southern border… All illegal entry will be immediately halted,” he said. Further, he noted, “We will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.”

Many of his statements during the address were then put into action when he signed a slew of Executive Orders, some of which were signed in front of crowds at the Capitol One Arena in Washington, DC.

Perhaps the most contentious of his orders was the pardoning or commuting of sentences imposed on the January 6 prisoners. What would likely have been the biggest furor of his first day in office was blunted by the news that with just 20 minutes to go in his presidency, Joe Biden offered pre-emptive pardons to his family members. This last-minute move blunted attacks by partisan critics who would otherwise have had a field day exclaiming that Trump was abusing the power of the presidency.

A Note on the Costumes

Beneath the words, there was a great deal of messaging taking place. President Trump opted to wear a tie that was both red and blue, giving the appearance of purple – a clear signal that he wanted to convey a sense of unity between the warring parties. Jill Biden also opted for the purple motif, perhaps suggesting an olive branch of sorts.

Kick Back and Ditch the Matrix

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, wore all black – with Doug Emhoff sporting a black tie. It appeared to be a subtle dig and invoked a sense of mourning for either her personal loss in the November contest or a smoke signal that the nation should be saddened by the return of Trump.

First Lady Melania Trump dressed lavishly in an outfit by New York designer Adam Lippes with a wide-brimmed hat by Eric Javits.

All About the Message

While Donald Trump avoided personal attacks on regular Americans who voted against him, he was blunt and brutal in his assessment of the 46th president and his legacy. He did not talk of revenge but rather of hope and the American destiny. Certainly, half of the nation will likely be distressed that much of Biden’s four years of work is in the crosshairs, and yet, there was a lot to create excitement. Trump said:

“…each day under our administration of American patriots, we will be working to meet every crisis with dignity and power and strength. We will move with purpose and speed to bring back hope, prosperity, safety and peace for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed. For American citizens, Jan. 20, 2025, is Liberation Day.”

For those concerned that Donald Trump will use the next four years to get revenge on his political opponents, no such indication was given during his speech. Indeed, as the 17th-century English poet and priest George Herbert wrote, “Living well is the best revenge.” It seems that President Trump is going to be focused on living his best life and allowing Americans to live theirs.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief