The Dictatorship

DOGE is a trap, and Democrats can’t afford to fall for it

Published

1 year ago

November 26, 2024

DOGE is a trap, and Democrats can’t afford to fall for it

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will head a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has met with plenty of scorn from Democrats. That’s not surprising: We live in polarized times. Whatever the issue, the partisan instinct is to take a position antithetical to the opposition, and the combination of Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy only intensifies that compulsion.

But when it comes to efficiency, Democrats must refuse to take the bait. Democrats cannot be cornered into defending harmful and unnecessary bureaucracy, red tape and wasteful spending. Instead, the party should fight for a very different vision of efficiency: government dedicated to swiftly and dramatically improve the lives of ordinary people and protect them from corporate profiteers — in other words, from exactly the kind of people who will lead the DOGE initiative and populate the incoming Trump administration.

Musk and Ramaswamy are nothing if not ambitious. They want to “cut the federal government down to size” and have set their sights on slashing up to $2 trillion, or about 30% of the federal budget. Their proposals for how to do this include cutting funding for scientific research, laying off federal employees at random, and trimming defense spending.

More likely than not, DOGE’s proposals will align with the goals of Project 2025.

Given that the military budget grew substantially under President Trump’s first term, the Pentagon will probably be safe. But we can’t say the same for other areas that make up the majority of government spending, including entitlements such as Medicaid. More likely than not, DOGE’s proposals will align with the goals of Project 2025, the conservative plan to radically remake the government by privatizing essential public services and concentrating power in the executive branch. After months of denying any knowledge of Project 2025, Trump has proposed one of its architects, Russell Vought, to head the Office of Management and Budget. This means things like replacing career civil service workers with Trump loyalists, gutting regulations, rolling back civil rights and labor protections, abolishing the Department of Education, and more.

Of course, Republicans salivating over the chance to slash government isn’t new. Remember anti-tax activist Grover Norquist saying he wanted to “reduce government to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”? What’s new is how the Department of Government Efficiency repackages cruel and unpopular conservative ideology in meme-covered bottles, rebranding austerity, corporate deregulation, and cuts to public welfare as hip and edgy. Even the acronym DOGE is a reference to Dogecoin, a jokey, dog-themed cryptocurrency. Indeed, it isn’t even a real government department, but an advisory committee. DOGE, in other words, is a fake department named after a fake form of money.

And despite Musk and Ramaswamy’s images as men of bold new ideas, DOGE isn’t even a novel proposal. In 1982, Ronald Reagan created the Grace Commission, run by businessman Peter Grace, who vowed to “root out inefficiency” with the help of a counsel of corporate executives. Reagan promised to “drain the swamp” (a phrase Trump would adopt), but government bureaucracy has only grown in the decades since. Much of it, ironically, has been put in place by Republicans because they abhor the idea of the “undeserving” getting public assistance — think poor single mothers receiving food stamps or the sick and disabled not having to worry about deductibles or co-pays.

Ordinary people, however, are hardly as hostile to government or worried about “free riders” as the right-wing ideologues about to take power in Washington. What most folks want is for the government to work well and to work for them. Plenty of polls show that majorities of voters want the state to be more involved in health care education protecting the planet regulating businessand more.

Americans like big government when it delivers. Much of my family lives in Buncombe County, North Carolina, the epicenter of Hurricane Helene’s recent destruction. No one complained when public officials managed to repair the storm-damaged water infrastructure in record time, condensing a job that would normally take a year or more into less than two monthsby working around the clock and finding creative ways to problem-solve. That’s one model of what truly efficient government looks like, and it’s the kind of government efficiency that Democrats should stand for.

Means-testing programs have been shown to waste people’s time and drive up costs.

Imagine public transportation that is clean, fast, on time, and free. Or being able to quickly and seamlessly e-file your taxes in a matter of minutes, based on employer-submitted earnings, the way people in many industrialized countries do. Or what about the efficiency of knowing your kids could go to excellent public colleges without having to fill out broken FAFSA forms or rely on impossible-to-pay student loans? Why should being able to apply for unemployment benefits or emergency disaster relief through functioning websites, and receiving swift and adequate assistance, seem like a pipe dream?

Efficient government programs should be high quality and, whenever possible, universal. Means-testing programs have been shown to waste people’s time and drive up costs by adding layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. Our byzantine profit-driven health care system, for example, would be much more efficient if it was replaced by a well-funded public option, one that would free patients from having to file claims or fight to have life-saving treatments covered. Today, administrative costs make up around a third of all U.S. health care expenditures. Americans spend nearly five times more per person on administration than Canadians pay.

This type of wasteful spending should be reallocated. That is what anti-war and racial justice advocates have been saying for years. Why not trim bloated military and police budgets and reinvest money saved in revenue-starved schools, mental health services, libraries, jobs and more? We need the government to build green housing, high speed rail, renewable energy infrastructure, and we need it done fast — not bogged down by proceduralism, paperwork and pointless delays.

Sadly, improving government isn’t what DOGE is about. Consider Musk’s legacy at Twitter. Sure, he eliminated six letters when he changed the name to X (talk about efficiency!) but he also laid off about 80% of the staffincluding those who worked in vital areas like security and fraud. He even cut the janitorial service, reportedly forcing at least one employee to bring their own toilet paper to work and rig it up using a coat hanger. Today the company is worth roughly 20% of what Musk paid for it. X may still be semi-functional, but it’s a social media site, not an essential service. Unlike the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration, we’d all be fine if X collapsed.

In the end, when Trump and his buddies say “efficiency” what they really mean is “boondoggle.” As Musk puts other people’s jobs on the chopping block, his net worth has ballooned to over $300 billion. With improved access to federal funding for his vehicles and spaceships — and less pesky government oversight from his enemies at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Trade Commission — he’s poised to become even wealthier.

Every American, no matter who they voted for, deserves better than DOGE. Democrats don’t need to pretend to be for small government, but they certainly shouldn’t embrace inefficient government. What they need is a clear, compelling vision of how government can and should efficiently be used for good.

The Dictatorship

Trump says Iran deal should include additional countries joining Abraham Accords

Published

4 hours ago

May 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump says Iran deal should include additional countries joining Abraham Accords

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military said Monday that it carried out “self-defense” strikes in southern Iran, including on missile launch sites and boats placing mines, even as President Donald Trump said on social media that negotiations with Tehran were “proceeding nicely.”

The strikes were done “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces,” but the military was “using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire,” Capt. Tim Hawkins, the spokesman for the U.S. military’s Central Command, said in a statement.

Further details were not immediately available, including more specifics on the threats from Iran and what this means for negotiations. There was no official response from Iran, which had sent its parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf to Qatar for negotiations over the possible deal with the U.S.

Qatar, which faced intense attacks from Iran during the war, holds billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

In Iran, the news website Tabnak, believed to be close to former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei, identified four dead Guard troops it said had been killed in American strikes on boats. Iranian state television separately reported blasts around Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz home to a military port and a dual-use airport.

The strikes were the latest attacks to shake the weekslong ceasefire in the war. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of all crude oil and natural gas traded once passed, remains effectively in Iran’s chokehold, disrupting global energy markets.

Trump brings up recognition of Israel

Earlier, Trump said any agreement to end the Iran war should include a requirement for several additional countries, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to join the Abraham Accordsthe U.S.-brokered agreements from Trump’s first term aimed at normalizing relations with Israel.

The proposal came as the emerging Iran deal faced criticism from fellow Republicans who favor a harder line on Iran, and it could add new diplomatic complications to the negotiations.

Trump pointed to Saudi Arabia and Qatar as countries that should “immediately” sign on. Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates became the first countries to join in 2020, diplomatically recognizing Israel.

He wrote that “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords.”

Trump has long hoped Saudi Arabia would join. Saudi Arabia in particular has for decades called on Israel to return to its 1967 borders and allow the formation of a Palestinian nation with east Jerusalem as its capital. Israel’s conduct in the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip also has alienated Gulf Arab states and the wider Muslim world as well.

Pakistan remains key mediator

Recognition of a Palestinian state also remains key for Pakistan, which is among the countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

Islamabad-based analyst Syed Mohammad Ali said Pakistan’s position on Israel remains unchanged despite Trump’s latest proposal.

The president said he brought up the Abraham Accords plan with leaders during negotiations on Saturday. He said he would accept “one or two” countries declining to sign, but said most should be willing. Egypt and Jordan already formally recognize Israel and have long-standing peace treaties. Turkey first recognized Israel in 1949.

Masood Khan, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, said it remains to be seen how workable the proposal might be for the countries on Trump’s list.

“The invocation of the Abraham Accords at this stage gives an altogether new dimension to the diplomatic and mediatory processes because this issue was not on the agenda,” he said, pointing to the domestic pressure Trump is facing to strike a favorable deal.

Still, Khan said, “the diplomatic track is still working, and I believe Pakistan is very much at the center of it, supported by regional countries.”

It remains unclear when or how any deal with Iran might be completed. Trump suggested even Iran could eventually sign on to the accords, if an agreement is reached.

The accords are a series of diplomatic, economic and security agreements created with U.S. influence during Trump’s first term, which also saw Sudan, Morocco, and, more recently, Kazakhstanjoin.

___

Ahmed reported from Islamabad. Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

Rep. Menefee defeats longtime Rep. Green in Texas Democratic House runoff shaped by redistricting

Published

7 hours ago

May 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Menefee defeats longtime Rep. Green in Texas Democratic House runoff shaped by redistricting

May. 26, 2026, 8:40 PM EDT

Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, defeated veteran Democratic Rep. Al Green in Tuesday’s runofffor Texas’ 18th Congressional District, according to the Associated Press.

Menefee, 37, prevailed in a high-profile incumbent versus incumbent showdown created by Republican-led redistricting that placed the two Democrats in the same heavily Democratic Houston-area district.

The runoff was forced after neither Green nor Menefee secured more than 50% of the vote in the March Democratic primary. Menefee’s victory ends Green’s more than two decades in Congress and signals a generational shift in Houston-area Democratic politics.

Menefee emerged as one of Texas Democrats’ rising stars before launching his congressional bid. He became Harris County attorney in 2021, making history as the youngest person and first Black person elected to the position.

As county attorney, Menefee gained attention for legal battles against Republican state officials and outspoken opposition to conservative policies advanced by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Menefee first won the congressional seat earlier this year in a special election held after the death of former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who briefly represented the district following the death of longtime Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in 2024.

The race was largely viewed as a test of whether younger Democratic voters were ready to move on from longtime party figures.

Green, 78, represented the Houston-based 9th Congressional District for more than two decades. He built a national profile as one of Congress’ most outspoken liberals and an early advocate for impeaching President Donald Trump during his first presidential term. Before Congress, Green spent years as a Harris County justice of the peace and became a prominent figure in Houston civil rights and Democratic politics.

But Menefee capitalized on growing calls for generational change and strong support among younger demographics and newer Democratic activists in the Houston area.

The race exposed generational divides within Houston-area Democratic politics. Menefee performed strongly with younger voters and in parts of Harris County during the March primary, while Green maintained support among older Black voters and longtime Democratic constituencies.

Polling leading into the runoff suggested a highly competitive race, with Menefee appearing to gain momentumin the final weeks.

Menefee is expected to easily hold the safely Democratic seat in November.

The contest marked the latest chapter in a turbulent period for the district, which has seen multiple elections in less than a year following the deaths of Jackson Leeand her successor, Turner.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

The Dictatorship

Trump wants to expand the Abraham Accords. It could sink a deal to end the Iran war.

Published

7 hours ago

May 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 26, 2026, 8:13 PM EDT

ByDaniel R. DePetris

For President Trump, negotiating an end to the war with Iran has proven to be the most difficult endeavor of his second term. U.S. and Iranian officials continue to work to clinch an agreement that would trade a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for an end to the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports and a suspension of the war over a 60-day time period, during which detailed talks on Tehran’s nuclear program could be hashed out.

While the overall concept of a framework agreement is soundthe details, including how much of Iran’s frozen assets will be unblocked and when they will be released, remain sources of contention. The U.S. defensive strikes against Iranian boats and missile batteries — in what the Trump administration has called retaliation for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ attempted mining of the strategic chokepoint — have only added to the complications.

Trump, however, is keen to make the entire diplomatic process even more laborious. He wants a more historic outcome: ending the conflict, severely constraining Iran’s nuclear capabilities and expanding the Abraham Accordshis first-term project that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. In a May 25 Truth Social postTrump made those ambitions clear. After speaking with the leaders of the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, Trump wrote, “It should be mandatory” for all these countries to sign on to an updated version of the accords.

When Trump brought up the idea during his conference call, an uncomfortable silencelingered in the air. Saudi Arabia reaffirmed its position that normalization with Israel was impossible until the Palestinians were offered an “irreversible pathway” to statehood. The Pakistanis were even more empathic in their resistanceto the proposal. Qatar, which was on the receiving end of an Israeli airstrike last September, rejected it as well.

Surely none of this should be a surprise to Trump. The Middle East of 2026 is a lot different than the Middle East of 2020, when the accords were consummated. Back then, a growing number of Gulf Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were not actively exploring the prospect of normalization. Israel was viewed not only as an established power in its own right, but also a beacon of entrepreneurship and the epitome of a startup nation. Israel also shared a mutual adversary in Iran, whose regional proxies militias and nuclear program were a constant cause for concern.

The Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks against Israel, and Israel’s subsequent two-year military campaign in Gaza, changed those calculations virtually overnight.

The Middle East of 2026 is a lot different than the Middle East of 2020, when the accords were consummated.

Before Oct. 7, Israeli and Saudi officials were working through the United States, then led by the Biden administration, to establish formal relations with each other. Then-President Joe Biden was so enamored about a possible Israel-Saudi normalization pact that he was willing to offer Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman — the very man he called a pariah during the 2020 presidential campaign — the kinds of U.S. defense guarantees that past Saudi royals could only dream of.

Once the war in Gaza was underway, however, the Saudis changed their tune. The Saudi political and security establishment increasingly viewed formal relations with Israel as not only inappropriate at a time when Israeli bombs were killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians every week, but also potentially dangerous to the Saudis’ internal stability. They may very well have been right: the Saudi public was highly opposed to normalization, and the fact that Gaza was becoming a wasteland of despair and destitution appeared to dissuade the crown prince from being willing to manage the negative domestic politics associated with such a move. Plus, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, coupled with Hezbollah’s growing weakness in Lebanon, Bashar Assad’s collapse in Syria a year earlier and Riyadh’s decision to explore detente with Tehran meant the Saudi government no longer saw Iran the same way it did years earlier.

As long as Israel continues to occupy more than half of Gaza and a significant portion of southern Lebanon, it is highly likely Saudi Arabia will continue to brush Trump’s requests aside. And as long as the Saudis don’t move, it’s unlikely other states — be they Pakistan, Qatar or Kuwait — will move either.

Why, then, is Trump harping on the Abraham Accords?

The first motivation is political. As talks toward a framework with Iran continue, Trump wants to cover his bases on the homefront and ensure the hawkish wing of his party is satisfied. Despite Trump’s stronghold over the Republican Party, there is a vocal faction that considers any agreement short of full Iranian surrender as the epitome of Neville Chamberlain-esque appeasement. Senior Republican lawmakers were aghast over the weekend when nuggets of the framework deal were presented in the press, with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas and Roger Wicker of Mississippi all coming out to pan it.

In an ideal world, Trump wouldn’t listen to any of them. These are the same people, after all, who lobbied Trump to authorize a military campaign against Iran in the expectation that the regime would either collapse entirely or respond to the pressure by suing for peace on Washington’s terms. Those terms, presumably, would include a total ban on Iranian enrichment, the removal of Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and a 180-degree change in Iran’s foreign policy. This was naive at best, yet Trump bought the argument and was poorly served by doing so.

Even so, Trump wants unanimous support from his party for any agreement he strikes — and appears to have concluded it will take some honey to get there. By tying the Abraham Accords to an Iran framework, the thinking goes, the administration will be able to attract lawmakers, like the Lindsey Grahams of the worldwho would otherwise be disgusted by the idea of conceding anything to the Iranians.

The other motivation is about legacy. The last thing Trump wants is to sign an agreement with Iran that is perceived to be boring or noninnovative.

Currently, that’s precisely what’s occurring.

As long as Israel continues to occupy more than half of Gaza and a significant portion of southern Lebanon, it is highly likely Saudi Arabia will continue to brush Trump’s requests aside.

The U.S. and Iran are seeking to return the region to the pre-February status quo, when 150 or so vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz every day, the U.S. Navy didn’t have to expend limited resources on enforcing a blockade and the two sides could get back to the business of negotiating a final-status arrangement on Tehran’s nuclear program without missiles flying between them. That’s probably the best Trump can do, at this point, because the alternative, which would entail bringing the nuclear question into the framework, risks jeopardizing the entire diplomatic effort.

Still, if the preliminary deal currently on offer simply rewinds the clock by three months and gets us to the same position we were in before the war started, how exactly could Trump sell this as a groundbreaking win? The straightforward answer is that he can’t. Use the time to pad the Abraham Accords, though, and he would have a stronger foundation to celebrate.

In the end, all of this might be irrelevant. Even if the war in Iran concludes, Trump will be hard pressed to transform the Middle East into one big, happy family.