The Dictatorship

Trump’s foreign policy vision is coming into focus. And it’s worse than we may have imagined.

Published

1 year ago

February 18, 2025

Trump’s foreign policy vision is coming into focus. And it’s worse than we may have imagined.

This is an adapted excerpt from the Feb. 12 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s foreign policy vision is starting to come into focus — and it is worse and more dangerous than you may have imagined. The president and his MAGA allies appear poised to rapidly undo the American-led global, democratic order.

The unraveling began Wednesday with an announcement from Trump’s secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, that America was pulling back from defending its allies.

These institutions and orders were established precisely because of the competitive, conquering aspirations of rising empires and fascist regimes.

“We must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” Hegseth said during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels on Wednesday. “Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”

“The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,” Hegseth added. “We’re also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

On Thursday, Hegseth attempted to walk some of those comments back, telling reporters that “everything is on the table” in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

But part of the reason this type of rhetoric is so dangerous has to do with what NATO stands for and when it was created. These institutions and orders were established after World War II precisely because of the competitive, conquering aspirations of rising empires and fascist regimes throughout the world. NATO was formed by the U.S. 76 years ago to pledge that an attack on one member was an attack on all — what is known as Article 5. It started with 12 countries and now has 32 members.

The only time Article 5 was invoked was when all the allies joined together in one fight: when they all came to the United States’ aid after Sept. 11, 2001, and pledged their troops and materiel to the war in Afghanistan. Canadians, Italians, Danes, Spaniards, Norwegians, Estonians, Latvians and more gave their lives for the U.S.’ war on terror. Because that is how alliances work. Allies are supposed to have each other’s back. At least they were before Wednesday.

Not long after Hegseth spoke, Senate Republicans voted to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as the next director of national intelligence. Gabbard is a policy lightweight whose greatest foreign policy achievement was visiting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, along with his top clericwho threatened suicide bombings in the United States. (Last month, Gabbard told senators she was unaware of the cleric’s threat at the time of their meeting.) She’s also been accused of siding with Russia and President Vladimir Putin over the U.S. intelligence consensus. But all that sat just fine with every Republican in the Senate except Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who joined 47 Democrats and independents in voting against Gabbard.

At almost the same moment Gabbard was being confirmed Wednesday, Trump was getting off the phone with another international leader: Putin. Trump took to social media to break the news about what he called a “highly productive” call with Putin, writingin part:

we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine. President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, ‘COMMON SENSE.’ We both believe very strongly in it. We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations.

The glaring thing here is that the country on the receiving end of Russia’s aggression, Ukraine, did not seem to be looped in on developments relating to their future. Trump even dodged a reporter’s question on whether he considered Ukraine an “equal member” in the negotiation process.

We should be clear about what we’re watching: Trump is disassembling the U.S.-led international order to the benefit of the global authoritarians he envies and admires.

Politically, Trump has succeeded in selling isolationism to a lot of Americans. It is true that our leading role in the world has been largely a product of a bipartisan elite consensus and sometimes it feels pretty removed from democratic majorities, who tend to believe America gives out too much foreign aid and “polices” the world. Believe me, I’ve spent two decades critiquing the many shortcomings and downright cruelties of that same order. But however imperfect that order is, what Trump wants to replace it with is far, far worse.

The current international order was created by the U.S. and its allies to prevent the world from the unthinkable. When there were rising tensions between the victorious nuclear superpowers, institutions like NATO and the United Nations were formed in part to prevent the Cold War from becoming a nuclear holocaust.

But there’s another reason Trump is eager to jettison the old order in favor of an anarchic world in which strong countries do what they want. When you hear Putin’s claim that Ukrainians are really just misguided Russians, you can hear echoes of the Nazis’ claim that Austrians and Czechs were just Germans. What Trump is doing now is sending the message to everyone around the world that not only is territorial acquisition by force OK but the U.S. is interested in pursuing it: from Greenland to the Panama Canal to Canada as the 51st state to envisioning the Gaza Strip as an American-owned development project.

The emerging Trump doctrine appears to be that democracies are weak and soft and that we will side with autocracies over them. It’s disastrous. Not just for America’s place in the world but also for the cause of peace.

The emerging Trump doctrine appears to be that democracies are weak and soft and that we will side with autocracies over them.

The idea that the path to peace is to throw overboard democracies in favor of authoritarian regimes is a dangerous idea. And it’s the fundamental throughline of Trump’s worldview. He seems to hate our allies and to love our enemies, possibly because our enemies see the world as he does: transactional and ripe for the picking.

With loyal, morally flexible subordinates like Hegseth and Gabbard, Trump is essentially reorienting American politics as friendly to dictators and authoritarian regimes and fundamentally hostile to democracies. It is shaping up to be the most radical transformation of America’s role in the world since Franklin D. Roosevelt — and it will likely not end well.

Chris Hayes

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes”at 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday on BLN. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is”A Colony in a Nation” (W. W. Norton).

Allison Detzel

contributed

The Dictatorship

Supreme Court says Fed’s Cook can keep her job for now

Published

2 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Supreme Court says Fed’s Cook can keep her job for now

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding President Donald Trump’s firings of the heads of independent federal agencies with one important exception: the Federal Reserve.

The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights the Republican president’s effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.

But other than at the nation’s central bank, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at will, despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a 91-year-old decision that had limited executive authority.

With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey’s Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agencies’ board members — in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence.

“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Support for Trump’s position

The justices ruled in the case of former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughterwhom Trump fired without cause despite a provision of federal law that requires a reason. The logic of the decision extends to other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump also has fired board members.

Rebecca Slaughter, Federal Trade Commissioner, holds her newborn daughter Hattie, as she testifies via video conference during a Senate committee hearing in 2020. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Trump voiced his approval in a Truth Social post. “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he wrote.

The court already had signaled its support for the Trump administration’s position, over the liberals’ objection, by allowing Slaughter and the board members of other agencies to be removed from their jobs even as their legal challenges continued.

No president before Trump had sought to wrest control of the agencies that regulate wide swaths of American life, including nuclear energy, product safety and labor relations. But at arguments in Slaughter’s case in December, the six conservatives, including three appointed by Trump, seemed more concerned about issuing a ruling that would endure than handing too much power to Trump.

Their rhetoric was reminiscent of the presidential immunity case in 2024 that allowed Trump to avoid prosecution for his efforts to undo his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The court is writing a decision “for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said then.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent she summarized aloud in the courtroom, said the ruling could lead to “submission, instability, and even oppression.”

“The president, to be sure, emerges with more power than ever before. That power was given to him by six justices on this court, not the people or the Constitution,” Sotomayor said.

Fed governor Cook’s case

In Cook’s case, the court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s effort to get Cook out of her job now. Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices were in the majority.

Allowing Cook to be ousted now, Roberts wrote, “would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”

In this Jan. 29, 2020, file photo Chief Justice John Roberts departs at the end of the day in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

Roberts did include a footnote in his opinion noting that nothing forbids Trump from “trying again” to fire her, provided she is given proper notice and a chance to contest it.

Trump suggested he would take Roberts up on the offer, saying on Truth Social that “we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”

Cook, who was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors by Biden, can continue in her post at least as long as her lawsuit challenging her firing goes on, the court said. The Trump administration is appealing a lower-court ruling in her favor.

Besides trying to fire Cook, Trump had threatened to fire former Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell if he didn’t leave the board when his term as chairman ended in mid-May. Powell has remained as a governoreven as Kevin Warsh has replaced him as chairman.

Judges on lower courts have allowed Cook to remain in her post as one of seven central bank governors.

The true motivation for trying to fire Cook, Trump’s critics say, is the Republican president’s desire to exert control over U.S. interest rate policy. If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, the first Black woman to be a Federal Reserve governor, he could replace her with his own appointee and gain a majority on the Fed’s board. The case is being closely watched by Wall Street investors and could have broad impacts on the financial markets and the U.S. economy.

Cook said her case was “never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor.”

“It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people. That is the most fundamental obligation of a Federal Reserve governor,” Cook said in a statement.

Trump’s confrontation with the Fed

Trump has been dismissive of worries that cutting rates too quickly could trigger higher inflation. He wants dramatic reductions so the government can borrow more cheaply and Americans can pay lower borrowing costs for new homes, cars or other large purchases, as worries about high costs have soured some voters on his economic management.

The Fed has left its key rate unchanged this year, but a growing chorus of policymakers is expressing concern about persistently high inflation and suggesting the central bank could raise its benchmark rate by the end of this year or leave it unchanged.

While Cook’s case was under review at the high court, Trump dramatically escalated his confrontation with the Fed. The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Powell and served the central bank with subpoenas.

The investigation ended in late April, the department said. The announcement cleared a major roadblock to the confirmation of Warsh as Powell’s successor.

The case against Cook stems from allegations she claimed two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the Fed board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.

Those applications, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in January, are evidence of “gross negligence at best” and give Trump reason to fire her. In any event, he argued, courts shouldn’t be reviewing his decision and Cook has no right to a hearing.

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

The Dictatorship

Alaska Supreme Court says man with same name as Sen. Dan Sullivan can be on primary ballot

Published

9 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Alaska Supreme Court says man with same name as Sen. Dan Sullivan can be on primary ballot

Jun. 30, 2026, 5:12 AM EDT

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a man with the same nameand party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is qualified to run for the seat and ordered elections officials to place him on the August primary ballot.

The ruling came hours after the court heard arguments and just days after state court Judge Thomas Matthews found the Division of Elections had “abused its discretion”in booting the challenger Sullivan from the ballot. The Supreme Court, in a brief ruling, affirmed Matthews’ decision to include the challenger on the ballot but sent back to the division the issue of how he should be listed as a candidate “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

The court said a full opinion explaining its decision would be released later.

Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for the challenger Sullivan, expressed gratitude for the ruling and said he expected the division “will act in full compliance” with ballot design law in preparing the ballots. Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the state Department of Law, said the state appreciated the quick ruling “and will work to implement the order.”

Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan’s campaign, said while disappointed by the ruling, the campaign is encouraged that Beecher “will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters.”

Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher issued a decision June 15 finding the challenger’s candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. But Matthews said Beecher’s decision was not based on the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution to serve in the Senate — which address age, citizenship and residency — or on state laws or regulations.

Alaska’s US Senate race could help determine control of chamber

The dust-up over the two Dan Sullivans began with the challenger filing his candidacy about a month ago and has roiled one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Alaska’s race is one of about a half dozen Senate contests that are considered competitive and could determine control of the chamber for President Donald Trump’s final two years in office.

The candidate filing prompted accusations by the senator and his alliesincluding the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that the challenger is a sham candidate intent on sowing chaos. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees elections, responded by announcing an investigation into the challenger’s candidacy.

Two complaints raising questions about his party affiliation and motives were filed by the Alaska Republican Party chair.

The senator also accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola to cause confusion. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger, who said the decision to run was “my choice.”

Peltola is seen as the senator’s main rival in the race, which features more than a dozen candidates.

The top four vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, advance to a ranked choice general election in November.

The challenger Sullivan, 69, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, told The Associated Press on Monday he had grown frustrated with the incumbent and thought the timing for a run was right. “I just decided it was something I needed to do,” he said. “I will find out if it was the right thing or not, but I’m going to give it a shot.”

He said he aims to pull votes from the senator, as any challenger would. “But no, I’m not trying to trick people,” he told the AP.

Arguments before the state Supreme Court

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivanin filings before the state Supreme Court, said the elections division disqualified their client “because of what it thought were his reasons for running.” They called the good-faith standard applied by Beecher “legally unsupportable.”

Matthews agreed in his decision Friday to allow Sullivan on the ballot, saying, the elections division determination “was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good-faith’ criteria.”

Beecher, in disqualifying the challenger Sullivan, said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican, an affiliation he did not previously had. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of coordination.

Attorneys general from 14 Republican-led states submitted a brief supporting the division and asking the state Supreme Court to keep the challenger Sullivan off the ballot.

The division initially certified both Sullivans as candidates, identifying the challenger as Dan J. Sullivan and the incumbent as Dan S. Sullivan.

Debate over ballot design

Attorneys representing the state, in their filings, said using a middle initial on the ballot would not be enough to help voters distinguish between the two Sullivans. They asked the court to uphold Beecher’s finding.

But if the court ordered the challenger Sullivan on the ballot, they proposed he be listed as Daniel James Sullivan Jr. with a nonpartisan party affiliation — arguing the division believed it could deny him being labeled a Republican since he had no prior affiliation with that party before running. The attorneys, led by outside counsel Christopher Murray, proposed in their brief that the senator be listed as Dan Sullivan, registered Republican and incumbent.

Attorneys for the challenger said any proposal to list their client as “nonpartisan” would be unlawful because Alaska law allows him to be listed according to his party preference. It proposed he be listed on the ballot as Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican.

They said the senator could ensure his supporters are aware of his middle initial and that the state’s candidate information pamphlet, which is sent to voters, also could help address any confusion.

At least one outside group supporting the senator has been running ads and sending political mailers referring to him as Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

The Dictatorship

Colorado Democrats face a test of how far left the party will go

Published

9 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Colorado Democrats face a test of how far left the party will go

Jun. 30, 2026, 5:00 AM EDT

A week after a trio of progressive House candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept their races over establishment favoritesColorado’s primaries on Tuesday will test whether the left’s momentum can travel west.

The Democratic Socialists of America are backing an insurgent against one of the state’s most established Democratic House incumbents. More broadly, a wider field of progressive challengers is pressing the establishment in races the DSA has stayed out of, a sign of how much leftward energy is coursing through the primary even beyond the group’s own slate.

“As an American, I don’t like the DSA. As a Democrat, I don’t like the DSA,” said Adam Frisch, a former Colorado congressional candidate now working to help the centrist wing of the party.

The question Tuesday is whether reliably blue Colorado feels the same way. Re-electing or elevating the relatively moderate incumbents could suggest that New York’s results owed more to Mamdani’s singular appeal than to any broad hunger among rank-and-file Democrats for a leftward turn. Ousting them would land as a warning shot to the party establishment.

The DSA has been explicit about its ambitions. “Today, the East Coast,” the group wrote on X last week“next week the Mountain West.”

Here are the races to watch.

Curse vs. DeGette

In the state’s 1st Congressional District, 29-year-old Melat Kiros — backed by both the DSA and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — is attempting an uphill bid to unseat Rep. Diana DeGette, 68, who has held the reliably blue Denver-based seat since the 1990s. (A third candidate, Wanda James, a member of the University of Colorado board of regents, is also running, though she has struggled to break through in a race that has focused largely on the matchup between Kiros and DeGette.)

Kiros, an Ethiopian-born Ph.D. student and former lawyer, has campaigned heavily on her opposition to funding military aid to Israel while also calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and backing universal healthcare. She cast herself as an agent of generational change. The race, she told MS NOW, is “about addressing the corruption and actually fighting for the policies that are going to help working families.” Establishment Democrats who “have been in their seats for decades at a time,” she added, “aren’t up to that task.”

DeGette, meanwhile, has leaned on her experience on Capitol Hill while also touting her own progressive bona fides, including her record fighting the Trump administration, her seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee and her leadership of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus in the House.

Kiros’ stance on Israel has played a key role in the race, underscoring its growing salience for Democratic primary voters. Her biography on the website of the Justice Democrats, which also endorsed her, suggests that she lost her job as a lawyer in New York City after writing an essay defending college students protesting Israel’s war in Gaza. She has also castigated establishment Democrats for being too willing, in her view, to take money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, writing on X in September: “We cannot wait for them to find the courage to stand for what’s right, it’s time to clean house on all of them.”

Kiros recently faced criticism from progressive leaders for declining to characterize last year’s deadly Boulder firebombing at a pro-Israel demonstration — which led to the death of an 82-year-old woman — as antisemitic in a local news interview. (In an interview with MS NOW’s Jacob Soboroff this weekend, Kiros called the firebombing “a horrific attack on a group of Jewish people that were peacefully protesting,” and called to distinguish antisemitism from anti-Zionism.)

DeGette has rarely faced a serious electoral challenge during her decades in Congress.

Gonzales vs. Hickenlooper

State Sen. Julie Gonzales, a former DSA memberis running to unseat Sen. John Hickenlooper, a 74-year-old Democrat who formerly served as Denver’s mayor and Colorado’s governor. Hickenlooper was first elected to the Senate in 2020 after a short-lived campaign for president he launched — and ended — the year before.

Gonzales, who has served in the state Senate since 2019, has centered her campaign on affordability, but has also taken a vocal stance on Israel, including by backing an arms embargo to the country. She has also taken Hickenlooper to task for voting to confirm President Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees for the departments of Agriculture and Energy and the Treasury. But Hickenlooper has cash on his side, having raised $9.8 million in the race to her approximately $870,000, per Federal Election Commission filings.

State Sen. Mark Baisley is running unopposed for the GOP nomination in the race.

A heated primary in a battleground seat

Colorado’s 8th District is widely considered one of the most competitive races in the country, as Republican Rep. Gabe Evans seeks re-election in a cycle likely to favor Democrats. On the left, a three-way race for the Democratic nomination is widely expected to come down to former state Rep. Shannon Bird and current state Rep. Manny Rutinel.

Rutinel has positioned himself as the more progressive choice of the two, though the Denver chapter of the DSA has declined to endorse his candidacy after he allegedly changed his stance on several issues, including funding for Israel, in a recent interview with the Colorado Sun. Bird — who raised about half as much as Rutinel did, per FEC filings — has a reputation as a moderate dating to her days in the statehouse. The candidates’ positions on ICE have emerged as a flash point in the race — the district they are competing to represent is 40% Latino — with both leading candidates touting their support for reforming the agency.

Other races

In the governor’s race, Sen. Michael Bennet was widely considered a shoo-in when he launched his candidacy last year. But state Attorney General Phil Weiser has run hard to Bennet’s left, touting himself as a change candidate who can carry the state in a more progressive direction than Bennet, who has a reputation as a moderate. The race has been an expensive one, with Weiser taking in roughly $6.7 million to Bennet’s $5.8 million. Four Republicans are running for the GOP nomination in the race, but Colorado has not elected a Republican governor since 1998.

In the 5th Congressional District, Democrats are hoping either Jessica Killin or Joe Reagan — both Army veterans — can knock off Republican Rep. Jeff Crank. Killin, a former chief of staff to onetime second gentleman Doug Emhoff, has vastly outraised Reaganwho narrowly lost the 2024 Democratic primary for the seat. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has backed Killin; the DSA has stayed out.

Hunter Woodall contributed to this article.

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.