Even though I live nearly half a world away from the insanity that is the Trump administration, I have been taking a very keen interest in what is happening in the US. It seems clear to me that Trump is now shoehorning everything into "foreign relations" because that is where he claims to have presidential power beyond the reach of anyone, including the Supreme Court. It seems inevitable that he will claim "foreign interference" as a pretext to taking control of the midterm elections. And this may even become true if he enlists some of his mates at the "Board of Peace" to create "foreign interference".

What do you think? And what can be done about it?

2 hours ago, KJW said:

It seems inevitable that he will claim "foreign interference" as a pretext to taking control of the midterm elections.

I don't think that's inevitable, given that even many conservatives value our system of each state controlling its elections - it's enshrined in Article I of our Constitution. Also, I think foreign interference is not the only pretext, and is harder to sell to Congress than, say, civil unrest or voter fraud. And again, the reality controlling 50 different voting systems could prove far more daunting than what Turnip imagines. States rights is an issue that can draw strong bipartisan support.

There's also the problem that the only proven instance of foreign interference was when Turnip won, in 2016. I'm guessing he might rather lean hard on civil unrest and "insurrection" to delay the midterms.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't think that's inevitable, given that even many conservatives value our system of each state controlling its elections - it's enshrined in Article I of our Constitution. Also, I think foreign interference is not the only pretext, and is harder to sell to Congress than, say, civil unrest or voter fraud. And again, the reality controlling 50 different voting systems could prove far more daunting than what Turnip imagines. States rights is an issue that can draw strong bipartisan support.

There's also the problem that the only proven instance of foreign interference was when Turnip won, in 2016. I'm guessing he might rather lean hard on civil unrest and "insurrection" to delay the midterms.

Would this prior position cramp his style or are we beyond that?

Trump says Zelensky using war as reason to not hold election

Edited February 7Feb 7 by geordief

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Would this prior position cramp his style or are we beyond that?

Trump says Zelensky using war as reason to not hold election

That's Trump projecting right there, as he always does when he accuses someone of wrongdoing that he intends to do himself.

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

each state controlling its elections - it's enshrined in Article I of our Constitution.

But that's the whole point. Trump needs to shift everything over which he doesn't have control to where he does have control, by any means possible, even if it means resorting to sophistry (such as likening drug trafficking to an armed attack on the US).

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

Also, I think foreign interference is not the only pretext, and is harder to sell to Congress than, say, civil unrest or voter fraud.

But does that allow Trump to wrest Constitutional control of voting away from the states?

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

And again, the reality controlling 50 different voting systems could prove far more daunting than what Turnip imagines.

Trump has already said he wants Republicans to take over the voting in 15 places. Presumably that means swing states. On the other hand, with the recent strong swings against the Republicans, the swing states may not be enough, and Trump probably knows that.

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

States rights is an issue that can draw strong bipartisan support.

What can the states do if the Supreme Court decides the judiciary doesn't have the authority to decide on matters of foreign relations?

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

There's also the problem that the only proven instance of foreign interference was when Turnip won, in 2016.

Surely a proven instance of foreign interference helps Trump make his case, regardless of the particular details. And if it doesn't, then foreign interference can be manufactured.

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm guessing he might rather lean hard on civil unrest and "insurrection" to delay the midterms.

What good is delaying the midterms? Trump needs a resounding Republican victory. And he needs that victory to have the appearance of legitimacy.

6 minutes ago, KJW said:

But that's the whole point. Trump needs to shift everything over which he doesn't have control to where he does have control, by any means possible, even if it means resorting to sophistry (such as likening drug trafficking to an armed attack on the US).

But does that allow Trump to wrest Constitutional control of voting away from the states?

Trump has already said he wants Republicans to take over the voting in 15 places. Presumably that means swing states. On the other hand, with the recent strong swings against the Republicans, the swing states may not be enough, and Trump probably knows that.

What can the states do if the Supreme Court decides the judiciary doesn't have the authority to decide on matters of foreign relations?

Surely a proven instance of foreign interference helps Trump make his case, regardless of the particular details. And if it doesn't, then foreign interference can be manufactured.

What good is delaying the midterms? Trump needs a resounding Republican victory. And he needs that victory to have the appearance of legitimacy.

I share your fears.

I am no longer confident the Supreme Court (or should that be Chicken?) is effective any longer. They have been due for weeks now to issue their judgement on whether or not Trump's tariffs are constitutional. I think they know damned well they are not, but are afraid to issue the judgement because of the damage that would do to Trump and his administration, both internationally and domestically (unwinding illegal tariffs would involve compensating the affected importers).

In any case, the enforcing of court orders requires in the last resort the use of the US Marshals........which is an agency reporting to a certain Pam Bondi. So good luck with that, if and when a showdown with the courts arises.

It also looks as if the role of ICE is gradually being expanded beyond its original remit of rounding up illegal immigrants. I note in particular the alarming presence of ICE to provide protection to Vance during his attendance at the Winter Olympics, in Italy. WTF? They seem to be morphing into a new arm of state security, outside the systems, controls - and training - of the normal security services and answerable to no one. They have already established a reputation for killing citizens with impunity. So the fear factor is being ramped up. What next? Brown shirts and diagonal leather straps across the chests?

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It also looks as if the role of ICE is gradually being expanded beyond its original remit of rounding up illegal immigrants. I note in particular the alarming presence of ICE to provide protection to Vance during his attendance at the Winter Olympics, in Italy. WTF? They seem to be morphing into a new arm of state security, outside the systems, controls - and training - of the normal security services and answerable to no one. They have already established a reputation for killing citizens with impunity. So the fear factor is being ramped up. What next? Brown shirts and diagonal leather straps across the chests?

It also has the benefit of creating the conditions, in which he can excuse the use of actual troop's and, perhaps, martial law; I think his only chance of his third term.

@KJW he still has to dance for the people, politically, and the US is still a democracy, however tenuous it's grip; I still have faith in the US massive... 🤙

I would make the argument that D Trump, and members of his administration, have no clue about foreign relations, and I think the American electorate, members of Congress and the Senate are beginning to realize that.
The Greenland fiasco, and Trump's insults about NATO contribution to the Afghan war effort ( the only time Article 5 was ever invoked; for NATO aid to the US after 9/11, without asking ) demonstrate the scope of their stupidity. I just don't understand why the analysts,planners and strategists in the Pentagon aren't pushing back against the destruction of a support network they have built over the last 80-100 years.

It is rather lengthy, but Perun offers a valuable ( if only Trump and his administration would watch it ) analysis ...

Or as Michael Shurkin from Pax Americana said ( I paraphrase ) ...

"Once you put a gun down on a negotiating table, it ceases to be a diplomatic negotiation; it becomes a threat, and will not be forgotten"

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I would make the argument that D Trump, and members of his administration, have no clue about foreign relations, and I think the American electorate, members of Congress and the Senate are beginning to realize that.

But I fear that they also don't particularly care. After all, pretty much everyone during his first administration who exited have remarked how little Trump understands basic concepts, including foreign relations. And of course, the first few weeks of the second Trump administration made it exceedingly clear. I am also pretty sure that the pentagon was understood what is happening, with Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense. The pentagon is not really outward-facing and there have been reports of levels of confusion and demoralization. Yet, clearly, there is no formal pushback, (as opposed to Trump 1.0) and it is not clear what would have to happen before there is.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

Surely a proven instance of foreign interference helps Trump make his case, regardless of the particular details. And if it doesn't, then foreign interference can be manufactured.

The details matter because Turnip steadfastly denied that they ever happened. His insistence of no influence from foreign powers weakens any later claims he might make. Civil unrest "carnage" or drug "invasions" are easier, and the red meat his followers are hooked on.

10 hours ago, KJW said:

What can the states do if the Supreme Court decides the judiciary doesn't have the authority to decide on matters of foreign relations?

Even the RW leaning Roberts court has deferred to the doctrines of states rights - that's how we got Dobbs v Jackson, our SCOTUS ruling on abortion rights sent back to the states. Several conservative justices have made clear they view the Constitutional framework for states rights as sacred. Not even Turnip can intimidate them away from that. And a recent decision or two has affirmed that states retain control of their elections.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

What good is delaying the midterms? Trump needs a resounding Republican victory. And he needs that victory to have the appearance of legitimacy.

He might use civil unrest to leverage a delay, because an extended delay allows more time to subvert the various legal and institutional checks presently in place on his regime. We've already seen what 13 months with a GOP majority Congress can do to batter away at such.

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The details matter because Turnip steadfastly denied that they ever happened. His insistence of no influence from foreign powers weakens any later claims he might make. Civil unrest "carnage" or drug "invasions" are easier, and the red meat his followers are hooked on.

It is also noteworthy that it would be a bit of a mistake to see cohesive strategies everywhere in the Trump administration. There are of course folks who do have a plan, such as Vought and Miller. But as Trump is too lazy (or dumb) to follow all that, his public remarks have been used repeatedly in court to undermine arguments of government lawyers in court. I think Trump is used to pick and choose whatever reality he fancies at any given point but at least so far that doesn't really work in court.

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Even the RW leaning Roberts court has deferred to the doctrines of states rights - that's how we got Dobbs v Jackson, our SCOTUS ruling on abortion rights sent back to the states. Several conservative justices have made clear they view the Constitutional framework for states rights as sacred. Not even Turnip can intimidate them away from that. And a recent decision or two has affirmed that states retain control of their elections.

I may be wrong, but isn't KJW's point that foreign relations is a clear area where the constitutions gives the federal government the primary power limits state powers? I.e. the idea of declaring something relevant to foreign relations (or anything else primarily in the fed's jurisdiction) would be a means to move jurisdiction and thereby effectively curtailing state powers. I do not really see a realistic path to that. But then, since Trump mentioned it, I think it is a fair bet that there are folks strategizing about that.

On 2/8/2026 at 10:43 AM, MigL said:

I just don't understand why the analysts,planners and strategists in the Pentagon aren't pushing back against the destruction of a support network they have built over the last 80-100 years.

I wonder how many of those likely to do this have been drummed out of the military in the past year or so.

On 2/8/2026 at 3:43 PM, MigL said:

I would make the argument that D Trump, and members of his administration, have no clue about foreign relations, and I think the American electorate, members of Congress and the Senate are beginning to realize that.

He's taking a very British approach to foreign policy, talk loudly and slowly and if they still refuse to understand, invade their country and shoot them for being stupid.

On 2/8/2026 at 8:34 PM, CharonY said:

It is also noteworthy that it would be a bit of a mistake to see cohesive strategies everywhere in the Trump administration. There are of course folks who do have a plan, such as Vought and Miller. But as Trump is too lazy (or dumb) to follow all that, his public remarks have been used repeatedly in court to undermine arguments of government lawyers in court. I think Trump is used to pick and choose whatever reality he fancies at any given point but at least so far that doesn't really work in court.

"The king is dead, long live the king"...

Who do you think the king maker has their eye on?

Sometimes Turnip's "foreign relations" are really just him flexing for a fellow billionaire, as with his recent blockage of opening the Windsor-Detroit bridge.

The only deal here is not really about Canada, or their paying tribute to his orange magnificence, but about showing how he can toss treats to the oligarchs. (Gift link)

The Atlantic

Trump Has a Bridge He Wants to Sell You

The president’s closure of a trade route from Detroit to Windsor will help a billionaire and hurt basically everyone else.