Donald Trump picks battles. Will anyone respond?
Is anyone ready to stand up and fight Donald Trump? On Wednesday, Christopher Wray, the FBI director whom Trump has vowed to fire once he returns to the White House, announced he would preemptively resign in January, with nearly three years remaining in his ten-year term, rather than risk a devastating loss. General battle. Coming up with him will be the crucial concept of a politically independent administration, which Congress mandated in the 1970s to guard against such a scenario for a president seeking to install a partisan loyalist in the nation’s most powerful law. Enforcement function. “This is the best way to avoid dragging the office deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work,” Wray said in a statement. He did not explain how his decision to throw out the window would protect the institution’s values and principles from the threats of its next director, the Trump loyalist Kash Patel, who said in an interview in September that his first action upon taking over the FBI post would be to close the agency’s main building “and reopen it.” The next day as a deep state museum.”
Wray is not the only official to capitulate in the face of Trump’s early threats. On Capitol Hill this week, days after the attacks by A Maga Sen. Joni Ernst told a crowd of media that she would support Trump’s controversial nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, through his confirmation process, a stunning change in tone for the Iowa Republican, herself a military veteran and sexual assault survivor who She previously expressed concerns about a Pentagon nominee who has said women should not serve in combat roles and has been accused of sexual assault, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement. However, it is not yet clear that Ernst will ultimately vote for Hegseth, who has denied any wrongdoing, although Sen. Tom Cotton, a key Trump ally in the Senate, now expects he will. everyone Trump’s controversial nominees, including Hegseth, will be confirmed. What is clear is that bullying by or on behalf of Trump is working.
Just ask Mark Zuckerberg. This week, his company, Meta, made its first-ever donation to the Presidential Inauguration Fund, donating $1 million to Trump’s January celebration, despite — or, more likely, because of — Trump criticizing Zuckerberg as a “Zuckerschmuck” and attacking Meta’s. The platforms are biased against it. As Trump continues to hit post-election highs, some people and institutions who appear headed toward an inevitable collision with the returning president have so far been remarkably wary of applauding him, even when presented with Trump’s most provocative insults. Let us consider here the battle that Trump has already fought with Canada, where he threatened to impose tariffs of up to 25% on its imports in addition to those of Mexico – which could constitute a devastating blow to the economies of both countries. Earlier this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country would “respond to unfair tariffs,” but he didn’t yet know how it would respond — hardly an inflammatory insult. However, Trump responded by threatening to annex Canada as the 51st country, and mocked the Canadian leader as a “ruler” in a social media post. Trudeau, who frequently angered Trump in his first term, did not respond in kind. Instead, he has been hard at work on a plan to allay Trump’s concerns about the US-Canada border, including adding sniffer dogs and drones to a largely non-military zone, hoping to avoid the tariffs that Trump has threatened.
Some of Trump’s supposed targets don’t even wait for his anticipated threats. in NATO At headquarters in Brussels this week, news came that the alliance, which Trump once threatened to withdraw from entirely if member states did not start contributing more to their defense budgets, is considering a new goal for members: spending three percent of gross domestic product on defense. To each their own. year, up from the current target of 2 percent. The move, which will come at a time when growing threats to European security from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine require significant new military investments, appears to be an attempt to pre-empt Trump’s inevitable three percent spending demand – an idea floated by his advisers. Over the summer – which would probably get credit anyway if that happened. Why wait? Elbridge Colby, a former Trump Pentagon official who is said to take a top job in his next administration, went ahead and declared victory even before any official decision: “Trump’s common-sense policy is getting results,” he posted on X on Thursday.
Are these all examples of pre-emptive surrender?Obedience in advance“Or is there something more strategic going on here?,” said historian Timothy Snyder of Yale University.
As much as Trump loves to be cajoled, the specter of so many potential rivals capitulating is quickly creating its own kind of dilemma for a leader eager to struggle to preserve his presidency and his political movement. Trump thrives on such battles, seeks them out, and where they do not exist, he will move quickly to create them. Conflict is an integral part of his identity, as a person and as a politician. No doubt there will come a time when at least some of those he targeted, whether neighboring countries whose economic health was threatened by his protectionist policies, or government officials whose integrity and independence were compromised by his illegal demands. (Republican senators, maybe not so much.) And it seems every lawyer in Washington is preparing to fight the new Trump administration in court if their lobbying and patronage efforts don’t work first.
I suspect that much of what we see in the early response to Trump represents a collective conclusion that the resistance against him eight years ago did little good, and often much harm, to those who did resist. A classic example of this is Angela Merkel, then German Chancellor, whose statement congratulating Trump on his victory in 2016 served as a warning to Trump that she would monitor him if he violated the rules of democracy and public decency. Merkel may have become, to no one’s surprise, Trump’s least favorite Western leader. In 2024, it is quite logical to conclude that lecturing Trump will not lead to positive results. It is also understandable that many of his critics feel exhausted by the constant demands to stand up against the man. However, it is astonishing how many have switched to the other extreme. Is there no other path between going to war with Trump and accommodating him?
There is also a widespread view that Trump is more of a threat than just a bite. Eight years later, many of the president-elect’s staunchest enemies now realize that he offers them a unique combination of inflammatory exaggeration and actual threat. They know that he did not build the wall on America’s southern border and did not force Mexico to pay for its construction. So perhaps it is better to wait and mobilize against precisely the threats that Trump appears willing to pursue. Still, I can’t help but worry that this post-election transition to Trump’s second term is just another moment when hope seems to trump experience — whether or not Ukraine’s supporters are looking for evidence, however slim, that Trump won’t abandon them. Either they reach an agreement with Russia on Vladimir Putin’s terms, or opponents of “mass deportation now” believe it would be too expensive and complicated for Trump to implement. Just this week, he said he wanted to pardon insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on his behalf four years ago — and lock up members of Congress who investigated the riot. Is it really so good to think he won’t try it?
Don’t forget the reason Trump is picking all these fights is because he wants to be the winner. Well, he beat Chris and Ray without a fight. Now what? For Trump 2.0, just as in all his previous incarnations, there will always be new enemies to kill. ♦