Jun. 5, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Republicans forced the Trump administration to at least temporarily drop its agenda to create an astonishingly corrupt $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund this week. The showdown served as a reminder of how the GOP has the ability to foil President Donald Trump’s plans when it wants to, but rarely chooses to exercise that power. And that’s why our current political crisis can’t solely be laid at the feet of Trump. The feckless party he leads rarely exerts its own agency, and that’s a choice.

Republican senators recently showed Trump that there are limits to their patience with his pet projects. A plan to pass a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding bill right before Memorial Day weekend was derailed after, as MS NOW reported“several Senate Republicans spoke out” against the anti-weaponization fund and “appeared ready to support Democratic-led amendments to block the proposal.”

Things got heated. Reuters reported that “nearly half” of the GOP Senate majority “balked at the issue during a heated two-hour meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, afterward described it on his podcast as “one of the roughest meetings I’ve seen in my entire time in the Senate.”

These objections forced Senate Republican leaders to pull the vote and send lawmakers home early for a recess. The message was clear: Rank-and-file senate Republicans can reject Trump’s demands by refusing to pass the legislation he wants to pass. And the Trump administration appeared to receive that message. On Tuesday, Blanche said“We’re not moving forward with the fund. Period.” That came a day after the Justice Department announced it would comply with a court ruling temporarily blocking the fund.

It’s not hard to see why lawmakers from a party would push back against a fund whose sole discernible function would be to reward the president’s friends and political allies — potentially including those who tried to violently overthrow the government. Which raises the question, why doesn’t the GOP act like this more often?

Trump is wildly unpopularhostile to addressing the country’s affordability crisis, mired in a war that he began on a whim, and fixated on turning Washington into an autocrats’ paradise. Even if I were a sincere MAGA ideologue, I would be angry that my egoistic party leader was clearly making policy decisions that hurt voters and the party’s chances in the coming midterm elections.

Sure, Trump’s track record of successfully backing primary challengers against the handful of lawmakers who dare to criticize him is a real source of intimidation. And he is unrivaled by any other figure in the party in terms of his grip on the base. But ultimately, his domination of the party can be resolved by collective action: If enough of the party rallies together and credibly threatens to freeze his agenda, as they just did, they can force him to retreat; Trump can’t launch a primary against his entire party. Refusing to fund Trump’s policy agenda would be a way for the GOP to push back against his authoritarian power grabs, dismantling of federal agencies, tariff extremism and casual “excursions” into other countries.

Yet on Thursday, Senate Republicans showed they’re still capable of failing a test they previously proved they can pass, rejecting multiple efforts to formally kill Trump’s weaponization fund effort. (Trump hasn’t ruled out the possibility of reviving it, but Republicans balked at the chance to ensure he cannot.)

Republican lawmakers aren’t held hostage by Trump’s power. They choose to enable it by refusing to take a stand collectively. Whether they’ve come to this position through approval of his behavior or acclimating to it, their choice shows they are full participants in American decline.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

Jun. 5, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” goes the old saying. In the case of the Trump administration, the standard is not so much “good” as “barely competent.”

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump appointed Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Two days later he told reporters that Pulte’s appointment is “not going to be permanent” and he will “just take it over a little while.” That is cold comfort, given the position’s responsibilities.

Pulte was – and remains – the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, hardly the background one would expect for the leader of America’s 18 intelligence agencies. That’s particularly true during a time when America is at war with Iran, a hostile foreign adversary whom the US government considers a state sponsor of terrorism.

I was serving as a federal national security prosecutor when Congress created the position of director of national intelligence following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The goal was to help members of the intelligence community “connect the dots.” Congress passed theIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004 to break down intelligence community silos and more effectively facilitate information sharing. The provision creating “a Director of National Intelligence” included the legal requirement that he or she “have extensive national security expertise.”

Pulte replaces Tulsi Gabbardwho resigned from the post last month amid disagreements over the threat posed by Iran. Gabbard’s resume was thin, but at least she had experience in the military and in Congress. Pulte appears to lack any national security expertise at all. In fact, his only apparent qualification is unflinching loyalty to the president and an eagerness to weaponize the government against Trump’s perceived foes. After all, it was Pulte who has made accusations of mortgage fraud against some of Trump’s perceived enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and Senator Adam Schiff. Pulte also called for the removal of Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve, supporting Trump’s efforts to pressure Powell to lower interest rates.

There’s a reason Congress required the DNI to have national security experience. The director of national intelligence oversees the nation’s collection, analysis, and dissemination of information relating to terrorist plots, cyber attacks, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and malign foreign influence, an incredibly sensitive portfolio. The job’s responsibilities including conducting the president’s daily brief, the meeting at which a president is advised each morning of overnight developments and the most urgent threats to American interests.

Why would a president want to fill such a sensitive and important position with someone who lacks any bona fide credentials? Perhaps the appointment reflects what historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls “engineered incompetence.” When a leader appoints an individual to an office that is above their station, the official becomes beholden to the leader, who, in turn, gains absolute control. Knowing they are in over their head, the official is less likely to assert independent judgment or to object when the leader acts in his self-interest instead of the public good.

Engineered incompetence explains how a Fox News host gets appointed Secretary of Defense and promptly shares sensitive attack plans over a Signal chat. When subservience is favored over expertise, the leader gains power, but institutions become less effective, to the detriment of the people. Russian President Vladimir Putin is believed to have miscalculated a quick victory in his war with Ukraine because of the overly optimistic assessments of his advisers, who tell Putin only what he wants to hear. Four years later, the war rages on.  After the way Gabbard was isolated, don’t expect Pulte to disagree with Trump over the threat posed by Iran, no matter the stakes.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Pulte can serve in an acting capacity for up to 210 days without Senate confirmation. Democrats in Congress warn they will block the extension of the government’s warrantless surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless Pulte’s appointment is reversed. Even some Republicans have denounced the appointment. “We don’t need a weaponized DNI.,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.  “We need professionals there.”

Effective leaders value candid advice, even when it means hearing things that conflict with their policy preferences. A leader who ignores unpleasant news is one who is unprepared to make clear-eyed choices on behalf of the people he was elected to serve. With a loyalist like Pulte leading the president’s daily intelligence brief, the engineered incompetence itself poses a grave risk to our national security.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.