A Year and a Week of Trump

Many posts have discussed the presidency.

 My article in La Tercera (original English):

The first year of President Trump's second term was full of action. He got Congress to pack much of his domestic agenda into what he called "One Big Beautiful Bill." The legislation cut taxes, with the benefits flowing mainly to the wealthiest Americans. It partly offset the tax reductions by cutting programs for the poor.

Trump assigned billionaire Elon Musk to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the government. The effort failed. The young staffers who worked for Musk did not know what they were doing. They disrupted government operations and fired experienced employees without finding much waste. Their actions led to lawsuits and required expensive remedial measures. In the end, Musk cost American taxpayers more money than he saved. By the end of 2025, the federal government's debt had risen to $38 trillion.

On the positive side, the economy grew, and inflation remained modest, continuing trends that had begun during the Biden administration. Additionally, Trump's tariffs did not lead to the immediate price spikes that many had feared. Nevertheless, economists warned that tariffs could drive up prices in 2026.


Trump's record on foreign policy was also mixed. His administration helped broker a cease-fire in Gaza and carried out a military strike that set back Iran's nuclear program. The abduction of Nicolas Maduro possibly opened long-term opportunities for American oil companies, but it was not clear how the Venezuelan people would fare.


During his 2024 reelection campaign, Trump repeatedly promised that he would end the war in Ukraine in the first 24 hours of his term. But despite his courtship of Vladimir Putin, the war dragged on. He was no more successful in his quest to gain ownership of Greenland.


All in all, it was a year to remember, though not necessarily for the reasons that Trump wanted.

Since I wrote that piece, things have gotten worse for Trump.  Tricia Escobedo at CNN:

President Donald Trump showed his first signs of retreat since surging federal immigration agents in Minnesota late last year — replacing the leader of the crackdown on the ground and signaling a new willingness to cooperate with the state’s Democratic elected officials. Top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino and some of his agents are expected to leave Minneapolis today and return to their respective sectors, according to three sources, sidelining a key player in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The move comes after Trump announced he was dispatching White House border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis in the wake of the fatal shooting of US citizen Alex Pretti. The White House has said Homan is expected to manage ICE operations in the city.

Invading Greenland Would Be Illegal

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military.

Alberto J. Mora at Just Security:

Unfortunately for Trump’s imperial ambitions – but fortunately for the rule of law, the U.S. national interest, and international stability – Trump’s ability to execute any act of military aggression against Greenland is constrained by an additional statute: 22 U.S.C. 1928f. This statute – which was not applicable to Venezuela because it is not a NATO member — was adopted by Congress pursuant to Section 1250A of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act and was designed to prohibit the president from materially altering the U.S. government’s relationship with NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty (the diplomatic instrument that gave rise to NATO) without prior congressional approval.

In addition to its consultation and notification requirements, the statute – which is titled “Limitation on Withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization” – contains two principal provisions: first, as the title implies, a broad prohibition against withdrawal from NATO or taking other analogous steps that would materially damage the U.S. relationship with the organization and, second (and critically), a limitation on the use of appropriated funds such that the president would be precluded from using such funds to implement the actions prohibited by the statute.

...

The applicability of this statute stems from Greenland’s status as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark’s status as a member of NATO. As Mike Schmitt has explained, “[i]t is clear that Greenland falls within the geographical coverage of Article 5.”

While the administration will undoubtedly claim that, because it has no intent to formally “withdraw” from the North Atlantic Treaty, the statute is not applicable to the current situation, this assertion would be false. A U.S. attempt to seize Greenland militarily would constitute an attack on Denmark and, through the operation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on each of the other 30 NATO members (excluding of course the U.S.). Not only would this attack instantaneously breach, either directly or constructively, each of the four prohibitions in clause (a) of Sec. 1928f (meaning it would invariably constitute or lead to the suspension, termination, denunciation, and withdrawal of the U.S. from the Treaty), it would necessarily also lead to the destruction of the organization in its current form as the U.S. wages war on our former allies.

Because these consequences are inevitable, any order by President Trump to launch an attack on Greenland necessarily triggers the automatic cutoff of authorized or appropriated funds that would be required to execute the assault. In addition, because the administration has clearly not only engaged in “deliberation” about taking military action against Denmark and NATO, but, indeed, has reportedly already ordered that military planning be initiated, the consultation and notification requirements of Sec.1928f have already been triggered.

US Boundaries

Alex J. Pollock at R Street:

Theo Vermaelen’s ironic letter about the idea of purchasing Greenland ... was fun, but ended with a serious point: “The current frontiers of countries are mainly the result of wars.” However, the frontiers of the United States were heavily influenced by purchases: the 1803 Louisiana Purchase of 827,000 square miles, the 1854 Gadsden Purchase of 30,000 square miles, and the 1867 Alaska Purchase of 586,000 square miles. In this context, one cannot help noticing similarities between Alaska and Greenland.