What Trump could really do in his first 24 hours and in his first 100 days - not the scary things you may think are possible
- MID EDIT
For an overview and to find a particular section, skip to contents (at end of this blog post) or on a laptop, click on the column of dashes to the left for contents
Trump has made many extravagent promises for his second term but there is very little he can actually do by himself as president. South Korean president Yoon when he invoked war powers under South Korean law was able to suspend their parliament and control all of South Korean media - though he just wanted this to force through an economic reform against the wishes of their parliament. But a US president has no such powers. He can’t suspend Congress and he can’t control US media.
He has achieved something positive already, the release of 3 Hostages and the ceasefire and resumption of aid deliveries to Gaza strip, in an unusual collaboration between the outgoing and incoming presidency.
Trump tried to build the wall with Mexico for his entire first term. He never got Congress to back him with funding for it and he never got Mexico to pay. This term he has an even narrower margin in the House and he has a far more divided Republican party than in is first term. He is not likely to be able to pass any far right legislation.
Some of you may get intimidated by thehow of wealth on display in the inauguration ceremony. He will have the three wealthiest Americans on stage with him, Musk, Zuckenberg and Bezos. But even though they will be seated right next to his cabinet picks they will have no authority to do anything in government. They are limited in what they can do to help him.
Musk alone, if he sold SpaceX and Tesla, could afford to provide about half the funding needed to deport all the illegal immigrants from the US over the next decade - but he ise not going to do that. For Musk, a million dollars is almost pocket change but a billion dollars is a lot and he is not going to give 10s of billions of dollars to the government.
Unusually Trump has launched an official Trump meme cryptocoin. This briefly made him on paper one of the top 25 wealthiest people in the world.
They won’t have any executive power. Musk’s role is purely advisory as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. All he can do is talk to people in government, not order them to do anything, and then advise Trump. Bezos and Zuckenberg have no role in Trump’s admin, they are just there as guests. Their main motivation seems to be to try to get favorable deals on tarrifs for their companies.
As for the executive orders, they are easily reversed by the next president and there is very little he can actually do. At least compared to what you may be scared he can do. You get a pretty good idea of what he can do from what he already did in his first term.
If you have anything else you want me to look at here do say in comment replies if it is about what Trump can do in his first 100 days.
What Trump can do in his first 24 hours
Let’s start with his day 1 promises, or let’s say first 24 hours as his presidency starts at noon.
I’ll start with the things he can actually do. Then talk about the impossible things he claimed he can do but can’t.
He can withdraw from the Paris Agreement but this will have negligible effect on global warming as the US is rapidly reducing its emissions as it transitions to renewables and he can’t stop this
He can withdraw from the WHO - but the US only provides half a billion dollars a year to the WHO and far more by way of funding ot sub Saharan Africa - so this will have minimal actual effect and is mainly political
He can ban trans soldiers from the US military - this affects 15,000 soldiers. They would be medically discharged, meaning they are regarded as not medically qualified to serve as soldiers Reports: Trump Poised To Reinstate & Expand Ban on Transgender Military Service Members
However he is very limited in what else he can do as Congress would need to pass trans legislation and it would be filibustered in the Senate by the DemocratsHe can impose some tariffs but probably not across the board 25% for Canada and Mexico - if he tries it’s likely going to be stuck in the courts
— [ACHIEVED IN PART] Make sure all the hostages held by Hamas are released before he reaches office
three of them will be released on Sunday before inauguration day, and this is a rare achievement of an outgoing and incoming president working together -
Biden secured the deal between Hamas and Israel
Trump’s team will help ensure it continues and engage in the dialogue on moving to stages 2 and 3
Associated Press gives this list of other things he said he’ll do on day 1, I’ve added in square brackets whether they are possible at all:
The ones marked [IMPOSSIBLE] can’t be done by executive orders at all never mind on day 1.
Some of them could be done if he can get Congress to pass laws but he has such a narrow margin in the House that he can’t do that either, e.g. for an expensive deportation program.
— [NOT HAPPENING] Even before Monday, end the Russia-ine war.
this obviously won’t happen though he may be able to help end it far faster by giving Ukraine some big lever in negotiations according to Zelensky - this is more of a possible accomplishment in his first 100 days, can’t happen in his first day
He will likely however have meetings with both Zelensky and Trump in his first few days in office and we can then hear what happens
— [IMPOSSIBLE] “On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history.”
no he can’t do that on day 1 - and he can’t really do it AT ALL.
The cost would be about a trillion dollars and take a decade
there are 25 members of the Republican party that always vote against debt limit increases.
What he actually plans to do on day 1 is to send FBI agents into sanctuary cities like Chicago which protects illegal immigrants. Chicago is preparing for this by reminding its illegal immigrants of their legal rights to remain silent, refuse searches, not sign anything, not let an immigration officer into their house etc.
— [IMPOSSIBLE] “And on Day 1, I will close the border, and I will stop the invasion of illegal criminals coming into our country.”
He CAN send more police or national guards to the border but once again is limited in what he can do because of funding
BLOG: Why Trump won't be able to do large-scale mass deportation
Congress again is likely to reject any expensive new border measures
— [IMPOSSIBLE] “I will sign a Day 1 executive order ending automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.”
this is a constitutional right
can’t be changed by either the president or Congress.
requires an amendment passed with identical text in 38 states in both chambers by majority vote (single chamber for Nebraska as it is unicameral).
will never happen as there are 20 states that are either majority Democrat in both chambers or mixed and many Republican states would likely be opposed too
— [POSSIBLE but he says he will only pardon innocent detainees] Sign pardons for some or many of those convicted or charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
he can do this though he is not going to pardon the ones who committed serious crimes
he clarified . “If they’re innocent, I would pardon them.”
— [UNCLEAR WHAT IT MEANS AND IMPLAUSIBLE] “‘I will end the electric vehicle mandate on Day 1.”
there isn’t any electrical vehicle mandate
he could try to reduce exhaust emission requirements
he could end the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for buying a new EV.
however Elon Musk wants support for electric cars so all this is implausible
— [CAN DO BUT LIMITED IN EFFECT] Declare a national energy emergency to spur the approval of more drilling, pipelines, refineries, power plants and reactors.
He can declare a national emergency to try to boost this - but it’s limited what he can do without help of Congress
Many Republican states are benefiting from the inflation reductoin act which is not likely to be reversed.
with the commitment of the rest of the world to renewables and the fast reductions in price, the US and the world needs less and less fossil fuel as time goes on so this is not going to help the US economy and he will likely find reluctance from fossil fuel companies to invest in drilling which they are not likely to be able to profit from in the future
he can reverse Biden’s executive orders boosting renewable energy and environmental protection
— [NOT POSSIBLE] “On Day 1, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school, pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto the shoulders of our children. And I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.
He can’t do this with an executive order and any law would be filibustered by the Democrats in Congress
— [IMPOSSIBLE ON DAY 1 AND LIKELY ILLEGAL] Take steps to uproot the “deep state.”
By this he means to remove civil servants with tenure like the head of the NIH (formerly Dr Fauci).
Biden has made it impossible to put this in place on day 1 with a new rule that takes at least 60 days to overrule after a period of public consultation
Biden’s team believes that they have made Trump’s proposal legally impossible
. Trump offered a bountiful batch of campaign promises that come due on Day 1
To that we can add
— [IMPOSSIBLE] Become a dictator for one day on day 1
this is not possible at all - a US president doesn’t have war powers like Yoon couild assume in South Korea. He can’t suspend Congress and can’t take over the media like he could do
by the Supreme Court case Posse Comitatus, reinforced by later decisions, a president can’t order soldiers to shoot at civilians in the USA,
he can only use them as supplementary national guards with similar rights to the national guard and that only if he declares an insurrection first and orders the insurrectionists to disperse
— [MEANINGLESS] Declare that your sex assigned at birth is your biological sex
He can do this - but it has no legal effect
the judiciary won’t use a presidential executive order as a basis for decisions
Congress has to pass legislation and it can be filibustered by Democrats to stop any such legislation
— Trump has already launched a meme coin - which on paper briefly made companies linked to him worth over $70 billion if all the coins ever minted in the future were cashed out at that value and the circulating coins had a value of a fifth of that or $14 billion - though he can’t cash out on it. It quickly fell to less than $50 billion / $10 billion for circulating coins. You can follow it on coin Gecko
Such digital tokens are notorious for speculators using hype to pump up the value before selling at the top of the market, leaving latecomers to count their losses as the price crashes.
Trump will try to deport illegal immigrants from Sanctuary cities on day 2 - the FBI can’t do anything so long as they know their right to be silent and not to be searched or detained
He says he will send Federal agents into sanctuary cities like Chicago - which has a policy of not documenting an illegal immigrant’s status and not sharing this information with the government.
However these won’t be able to do much so long as the illegal immigrants know their basic rights. The main rights are:
to remain silent
to walk away from any encounter if they are not being arrested or detained
to refuse to be searched
not open a door to an ICE officer
to refuse to sign any documents
to hire a lawyer and to have a lawyer with you when being questioned
to take photos or video of the encounter in public spaces
QUOTE STARTS
She said the city is prepared. In addition to community agencies holding "know your rights" events all over, she said Chicago leaders have met with city departments and sister agencies, such as the police and public school district, to detail existing city policies.
...
On the city's Southwest Side, Any Huamani, a community organizer with the Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, was fielding requests for Know Your Rights Trainings and leading a rapid response team via private group chat. Team members are ready to be dispatched in case ICE agents arrive in her community.
"Obviously each scenario is different," Huamani said. "If they're there to detain someone, rapid response teams respond in a different way. We have to yell out 'These are your rights. You know, who can we call? Give us a phone number.' And we're also trying to record … ICE agents, if there's an ICE truck or if it's an unrecognizable truck."
Meanwhile, 20 requests for trainings had come in.
The biggest fear among immigrants who don't have a legal status in the U.S., Huamani said, is leaving their children behind.
During Trump's first administration, his "zero tolerance" policy separated more than 5,000 children from parents who crossed the border, without systems to track and reunite families. Some also fear being detained or held in cities or states unfamiliar to them. Huamani has been advising people at risk of being detained by ICE to memorize at least three phone numbers so that they can be located if taken into ICE custody.
Organizers are worried that ICE agents could target the city's Southwest Side and execute workplace raids in nearby suburbs, where there are also large concentrations of immigrants without legal status.
...
Chicago's police department does not document immigration status, nor share information with federal immigration authorities, said spokesman Don Terry in a statement. But he added that police "will not intervene or interfere with any other government agencies performing their duties."
"From the top down, everybody at CPD understands the roles that they play," he said. "This is not the first time that they've had interactions with federal agents acting about immigration status."
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/18/nx-s1-5266892/immigration-raid-chicago-trump
Here is a short summary of your rights, which every illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city needs to know.
QUOTE STARTS
You Have The Right To Remain Silent
Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you do not have to speak with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, answer their questions, or sign any papers if they ask, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
The right to remain silent includes protections around “self-incrimination,” which means saying anything that may signal your responsibility or involvement in a crime. That means you have the right not to speak with an ICE agent. You don’t have to tell them anything about your citizenship status or what country you are from.
Anything you share with an immigration officer or federal official can be used against you in immigration court. If you choose to answer questions, know that lying to an immigration officer has permanent consequences that can bar you from citizenship.
If you decides to speak, immigrant rights groups recommend that you ask to talk to a lawyer or request to see an arrest warrant with your name.
You Have The Right To Walk Away From An Interaction With ICE
If you are stopped by an officer, you can ask whether you are being arrested or detained. If you are not being arrested or detained, you have the right to walk away from an interaction with ICE, according to Informed Immigrant, an immigrant resources organization.
If you are arrested by ICE, you can ask to call a lawyer, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). You do not have to sign any documents without your lawyer present.
You Have The Right To Refuse To Be Searched
You can choose not to consent to being searched by ICE officials by saying: “I do not consent to being searched.”
ICE officials do not have the right to search you without your consent or probable cause, according to the ACLU. Probable cause means that an official must have a “reasonable” basis for believing you may have committed a crime, according to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.
You Do Not Have To Open The Door If An ICE Official Is Knocking
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you are protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This means ICE officials cannot search you or your home without your consent or a warrant signed by a judge. Some ICE officials may present warrants that are not signed by a judge, which do not grant them access to your home without your consent.
You Do Not Have To Sign Any Documents
You have the right to refuse to sign any documents presented to you by ICE.
United We Dream, a youth-led immigrant advocacy group, recommends you decline signing any documents ICE presents to you. Many groups recommend speaking to an immigration lawyer before signing any documents. This is because, in most cases, you have the right to a hearing with a judge to challenge your deportation. If you sign something called a “Stipulated Removal Order,” for example, you waive your right to that hearing, according to the ACLU.
You Have The Right To Hire A Lawyer
Under the Sixth Amendment, you have the right to consult with a lawyer for your immigration proceedings.
If you are arrested or detained by ICE or Border Patrol, you have the right to hire a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one. If the police arrest you, you have the right to a government-appointed lawyer.
You have the right to have your lawyer with you at any hearing with an immigration judge.
Police Officers Are Restricted From Working With ICE in Chicago and Illinois
Under Chicago’s “Welcoming City” ordinance and the Illinois TRUST Act, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) cannot cooperate with ICE officials seeking to deport immigrants and CPD is not allowed to arrest someone based on their immigration status.
Under these policies, the Chicago Police Department is also prohibited from asking an individual about their immigration status or questioning, arresting, or prosecuting someone based on the suspicion of being undocumented.
You Have The Right To Take Photos In Public Spaces If You Have An Interaction With ICE
Under the First Amendment, individuals can take photos and record videos in public spaces.
United We Dream suggests ensuring photos and videos are synced to iCloud or Google Photos so a trusted relative or friend can access them if you record an interaction with ICE.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/01/17/what-immigrant-communities-should-know-about-their-rights/
What trump can do in the first 100 days
I think that Trump does have what it takes to end the Ukraine war in 100 days - depends on his choices but Zelensky thinks he will do it. We will know more by the end of January.
Schedule F to replace many civil servants, is likely legally impossible now because of Biden’s new rule.
He will do tariffs, but he is limited in what he can do without Congress so I expect they won't be as major as he wants.
The economy is in a process of strong recovery and short of any other global shocks will continue to recover despite the tariffs. It would under any president, he has lots of leeway there. The US is not in a recession and there was never any risk of a recession.
He will also withdraw from the Paris agreement which will have negligible effect on climate action. He will order EPA to remove everything from its website about global warming as he did that in his first term. He can't order states to do this but it will make it harder for them to coordinate on global warming action.
He won't be able to do large scale deportation because of the expense.
He can't deport birthright or naturalized citizens.
He will likely withdraw the US from the WHO again as in 2020 making impossible demands on them to treat China differently from any other country which they can't do by their charter. But the US will continue to support sub Saharan Africa with billions of dollars of medical aid as before.
He will declare that there are only two biological sexes assigned at birth. This will be of zero significance because his executive order will not be used by justices, or legislators or the medical profession. The judiciary will continue to interpret legislation about sex as also applicable to trans people.
He will go back to the situation in his first term that trans soldiers can't identify wit their chosen gender at work. E.g. a trans woman can identify as a woman at homek wear women's clothes etc. But while fighting has to use a male pronoun, male clothing and must not talk about being trans.
But he can't order states to do that and can't pass it as legislation. The Senate will fillibuster to prevent any new trans legislation.
Those are the main things I know about based on what he has already said he will do and based on what he did in his first term.
In more detail on some of these points:
He can try to implement schedule F but Biden's rule means it can't start until at least day 60 as he needs to put a new rule in place to overturn Biden's rule. Any new such rule is certain to be challenged in the courts and e immediately suspended. Finally, Biden's team is sure that it will not survive those challenges because their rule is based on sound principles. Anyone replaced has to be replaced by someone who is at least as expert as the ones already there.
I go into details below:
Zelensky thinks there is a decent chance that Trump working with his European allies too can bring Putin to the negotiating table and end the Ukraine war faster than under Biden.
One member of his security team, General Kellog suggested setting a goal of 100 days. However, this is not from Trump and remember Trump hasn't been able to negotiate with Zelensky yet. We may be clearer on it all after they meet.
About the 100 day suggestion.
The US has always had the capability to help Ukraine end the war quickly but Biden is very timid - not out of any desire to prolong the war but just not got the character that makes it easy to stand up to a political bully.
We saw this also with Netanyahu. Biden's administration was at loggerheads with Netanyahu on bringing aid to Gaza Strip and on the bombing. Biden had all the aces in his hand to force Netanyahu to provide immediate access for aid convoys to Gaza Strip.
But instead the US did that expensive failed attempt to bring it in by sea at great expense by constructing a new floating pier - while Israel continued to blockade all the land routes into Gaza Strip which could have let the aid convoys just drive in along roads.
Trump is not easily intimidated in this way.
I talk here about how Zelensky thinks that Trump will understand the need to negotiate from a position of strength and will give Ukraine the lever it needs to be able to do this.
Trump may be the guy to keep the Hamas / Israel deal in Gaza Strip on track
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley is the former DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility) officer under Biden and former U.S. ambassador to Malta under Obama said she thinks he will be what's needed to keep Israel and Hamas to the deal.
She says the outgoing admin wasn't willing to put enough pressure on Israel or Hamas and that Trump will be able to. He has made it clear he doesn't want war and he has put his reputation on the line there. There is a lot of natural distrust on both sides and she thinks he is the one to ensure they follow a path to peace.
[BBC interview]
She concludes:
QUOTE I think the connectivity of many Trump is bringing into his administration as well as his own clear support for the state of Israel will be sufficient to keep people onside the way he will need them to be to keep support for the pressure that is going to be needed to keep the deal going. This is something that is going to be watched, you cannot underestimate his ability to persuade people, to gather support. He's made a lot of promises of course across teh board. But this is an important one and he has said he doesn't want war. So I believe there will be a very close eye by the incoming administration on both parties to stick to this deal.
In short what Trump does is sure to be mixed but there are positives and he may be the president the US need at this particular time.
With the US Constitution limiting his more negative tendencies.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility sure to continue even if different names for it - because it’s what people want when they understand properly what it means
She also said on DEIA (Diversity, Equality, Inclusion and Accessibility) that she is sure the work will continue though possibly with different initials as people want to have a level playing field where it doesn’t matter what you look like or where you went to school.
Q. You were the former officer for Diversity and Inclusion up until 2023. How do you see all this.
A. There's a lot of concern, a lot of worry because so many people have misunderstood the purpose of DEIA (for Accessibiltiy as well) which is to level the playing field. Which is that we are not going to have favourites based on a demographic group or where you went to school etc. Levelling the playing field professionally. I like to remind people that DEIA worked agbain under the Trump administration. That is a fact and people want ot work for organizations that they trust wil value their contributions regardless of what they look liek or their backgrounds. And that's what it's about and people want that work to be done. They want to belong to that sort of organization. And so it may not have the same initials but the work will continue.
DEIA is the idea of valuing differences and creating an environment where there are not just equal opportunities but which is welcoming to a variety of people. The graphic here helps illustrate the difference between equity and equality:
He won't be able to do large scale deportation because of the expense
He can't deport birth right or naturalized citizens.
BLOG: Why Trump won't be able to do large-scale mass deportation
He can make an announcement of some sort, he can deploy more police or national guards to the border but he can't do substantial deportations without funding and Republicans tend to be especially wary of granting funding requests. Trump plans to bundle all his legislative agenda in a "big beautiful bill" and try to pass it all at once. So that comes first later this year. It's likely at least months away. But it's sure to fail because of his very narrow majority and as for his funding for the wall with Mexico he likely spends much of his first 2 years fighting to try to get Congress to approve more funding.
The Democrat bipartisan border bill is no longer an option - the Democrats would vote for it but a Republican Congress won’t bring it to the floor
The Democrats under Biden got together a bipartisan bill that Trump scuppered that would have made his job far easier. They wanted to pass it along with the Ukraine funding in spring 2024. After the Republicans had worked on it for months and were ready to pass it, Trump told them to reject it. He felt it would make it harder for him to get re-elected if it was passed.
That bill is not an option any more because Republicans wouldn't bring that bill to the floor. It was a bill with Democrat priorities that was supported also by enough of a minority of Republicans to get passed.
Trump would need a bill supported by a majority of Republicans with enough of a minority of Democrats to get passed.
Its impossible all the Republicans agree on the same bill given the amount of extra debt it would add. So he needs to make a new bipartisan bill from scratch.
Trump’s plan to bully Republicans into passing his big bill can’t work
Trump is not good at working across the aisle like Biden was and it's highly unlikely he can achieve a similarly strong Republican originated bipartisan bill. It's not impossible and he can try.
But his current plan is to try to bully all the Republicans in the House and Senate into supporting a single bill with tax cuts, with the deportation funding and lots more funding and raising the debt limit at the same time to pay for it all. That is just not going to work.
Bloomberg looked only at enacted debt limit rises. There are 47 House Republicans who have never voted for a debt limit rise that became law.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Bloomberg Analysis
Trump’s big obstacle with his expensive promises such as deportation and border security
47 Republicans have always voted against debt limit rises
So he needs bipartisan support from Democrats for expensive projects
The New York Times looked more generally at the ones who vote against even any attempt to raise the debt limit.
Trump has 25 Republicans who always vote against any attempt to raise the debt limit. The same 25 would surely be very wary of adding potentially a trillion dollars over the next decade to deport illegal immigrants (by one estimate of the potential long term cost to deport them all).
38 Republicans voted no to lifting the debt ceiling.
25 of those have never voted to raise the debt limit.
. Meet the 38 Republicans Who Defied Trump on the Spending and Debt Deal
So it's not very plausible that Trump is able to do large-scale mass deportation.
For more on this:
BLOG: Why Trump won't be able to do large-scale mass deportation
Minimal impact on global warming
His impact on global warming will be negligible. Indeed he might even cause other countries to boost their climate action by withdrawing. The US is going to head for net zero with or without his help - one president who doesn't believe in global warming for 4 years will have almost no effect.
US emissions are already going down and Republican states are amongst the most benefited by Biden's inflation reduction act with the renewables subsidies. So though no Republican legislators voted for it, there will be a lot of Republican opposition to removing those subsidies now they are there.
The renewable subsidies in the Inflation Reduction act are supporting a major boost in an important modern industry in Republican states. Actually the first state with a wind mandate was Texas in 1999. Many Republican states are in areas with very high renewable potential.
Carbon brief has released a story claiming that Trump’s policies will add 4 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by 2030. As a rough guide, divide by 2222 to get the warming level.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Assumes Trump Reverses Inflation Reduction Act - not plausible.
4 billion tons adds roughly 4/2222 °C or 0.002 °C so effect is minute.
But many Republican states benefit from the Inflation reduction Act and would vote against any attempt to repeal it.
The 2222 figure comes from
QUOTE "D.1.1 Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C"
Summary for policy makers from Sixth Assessment Report
That's 2222 gigatons for a degree (1000/0.45) which happens to be an easy number to remember.
Enough independently minded Republican senators to block any cabinet picks they consider unsuitable
With Hegseth then all we know so far is he'll pass the preliminary committee (pretty certain, vote on inauguration day). But when it comes to the Senate he has to convince three senators who voted to convict Trump (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy) and Mitch McConnel who didn't convict Trump but is not in the least bit intimidated by Trump. Mitch McConnel is especially important because if he votes against a candidate, many others might gain confidence to follow his lead, as a respected senator and former leader of the Senate.
Hegseth needs to convince them that he won't make changes that cause problems for women soldiers and that he won't get drunk at any time while he is defence secretary (since he needs to be sober 24/7 in case there is some emergency he has to respond to). Also that he has what it takes to be in charge of a large government department (the DoD) with more than a million employees given his lack of any previous experience running any large organization.
There are at least 7 others who may well vote against various unsuitable picks like Kennedy or Tulsi Gabbard.
Those four will make their own independent decisions. Hegseth is borderline, whether he can convince them to give him a chance. He is so inexperienced he might not last long, if he is confirmed.
Tulsi Gabbard has a far higher bar to surmount as she seems a security risk.
If Kennedy is confirmed as head of HHS he can theoretically override FDA approval of any new medications (unusually) - but not change existing approvals of vaccines
I look specifically at Kennedy here, as he seems most vulnerable of all and I wonder if Trump selected him just to honour an election pledge but expecting him to fail? It seems easy to find 4 senators that are likely to vote against.
Normally he would have no authority at all over the FDA. But for some reason the head of the HHS is given more authority than you expect. He can override any NEW approvals of vaccines.
But he can't change approvals that already happened.
For those who are keen on Kennedy - the only reason people are opposed to him is because of the risk that he could reduce vaccination rates in kids. When vaccination falls below 95% old diseases that have been eliminated from most of the world will return. Measles first as it is the most infectious of all. One child in a thousand dies of measles. Only those unvaccinated or a few severely immunocompromised can get it, and we wouldn’t go back to the pre-vaccination levels of measles deaths but such deaths are all tragedies as they can all be prevented. Rubella can lead to deformed kids if the mother gets it in pregnancy. Mumps can also be serious and the worst of all is polio. This has similar fatality rates to measles, but it can also lead to life-long partial paralysis of kids.
As it gets close to the confirmation hearings some of the top picks may drop out, not unusual, very rare for any to fail confirmation because they check to make sure they can get through first. So that's the more likely way for it to happen than a failed confirmation hearing.
Kennedy is one of the most likely to be stopped. Mitch McConnel got polio as a kid and only just was able to get over it. He doesn’t want any modern American kid to go through what he went through and is very opposed to anything that will dent public confidence in the polio vaccine. He is also independent minded , can’t be intimidated by Trump and if he votes against Kennedy, others will likely be emboldened to follow his lead. I’ll be surprised if RFK is able to convince Mitch McConnel that he is a suitable pick for the head of HHS and there are several other senators would likely vote with him along with the usual three of Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowsky. The surest no vote for him may be Bill Cassidy who is a medical doctor, is also strongly in support of vaccines and voted to convict Trump.
Only Congress can pass laws and it will certainly not pass a law making vaccines illegal. It may not even be legal to pass such a law.
Trump may symbolically withdraw from the WHO - the US contribution is half a billion dollars a year - similar to the Gates Foundation - the US gives $5 billion a year independently to help sub Saharan Africa
He could withdraw from the WHO. He did this before in 2020. The WHO had to do without most of its US contribution during the height of the pandemic. It got a big boost of funding from Germany which helped compensate.
The amount isn't that huge, a little under half a billion roughly in 2024 from the US and over $400 million each from the UK, and the Gates Foundation.
The top funders currently are the US, the Bill Gates Foundation, the UK, Germany and the EU in that order.
UK is important because most of it is flexible funding which means the WHO can use it for anything while the US and Gates foundation funding is ear-marked and can only be used for certain things.
https://www.who.int/about/funding/contributors
That is out of a total of 6.5 billion
https://open.who.int/2024-25/contributors/contributor
So if Trump withdraws again then the other 30 top donors will need to find an extra 10 million or so on average each to compensate. In practice as in 2020 probably one or two countries would step to the plate.
When Trump withdrew in 2020, Biden rejoined on 21st Jan 2021, his first day in office.
https://apnews.com/article/us-who-support-006ed181e016afa55d4cea30af236227
So - it's not surprising, he could do it again. Back then reporters commented that the top donors are the Bill Gates Foundation and the US both donating about 9%.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/gates-foundation-donations-to-who-nearly-match-those-from-us-government
When the US pulled out from the WHO it did not end US philanthropy of course. The US government is particularly involved in Africa with lots of projects to help support African health.
In 2024, the USA gave Africa $5 billion in health care funding. So that's about 10 times the amount it gave to the WHO. See page 2 here:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46368
So this is not about saving money, it's a political statement.
When Trump withdrew in 2020 he'd given $58 million so far that year so the WHO got a little over a tenth of its usual funding from the USA.
https://apnews.com/article/us-who-support-006ed181e016afa55d4cea30af236227
In 2020 Trump's gripe was that he thought the WHO was too influenced by China. It was all that stuff about claiming COVID was the result of a lab leak. The WHO asked both China and the US to stop all the politicising and to fund a second international expedition to China to follow up the leads on their first investigation.
But they didn't stop and it got so politicized that it was impossible to get any new data from China.
We now are very sure that it crossed over in Wuhan market but it is still impossible for Chinese and international scientists to cooperate in research in China to find the true origins. That second WHO investigation never happened.
BLOG: New research published in Science gives close to rock solid proof COVID jumped to humans from live animals in Wuhan market
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/New-research-published-in-Science-gives-close-to-rock-solid-proof-COVID-jumped-to-humans-from-live-animals-in-Wuhan-mark
So - Trump might well threaten to leave the WHO again or actually do it as some sort of anti-China political statement.
In reality the WHO treat China like every other WHO state, they don't have any special treatment of China. It's all a myth. But one that Trump believes.
So there is nothing the WHO can change. They just had to watch the politicising go on and Dr Tedros made various statements asking both sides to stop the politicising and that was all they could do.
It's unfortunate. But just one of those things. They found workarounds and the main thing that suffered was the research into the origins of COVID - not so much funding as that it became impossible politically to do a scientific investigation.
The US was requiring the WHO to investigate the lab the WHO said they needed to see the US evidence of a lab leak, and the US refused to give the WHO any information to assess and meanwhile China made totally absurd accusations that COVID originated in the USA just as a political barb back at the USA.
There was nothing the WHO could do except hope it died down but sadly it never did. It continued under Biden with the USA releasing reports of intelligence agencies claiming that they thought it was a lab leak as if you could spy on a virus from the USA using intelligence tools. They never provided any evidence to the WHO that they could act on.
So there was no scientific reason to focus on the lab leak hypothesis and the US demands to make that the main focus of the investigation were unacceptable to China and didn't make scientific sense to the WHO.
Sadly this continued under Biden so we have had no progress on the origins of COVID by way of in situ research. The progress we did get was through clever re-analysis of data from 2020.
It is now basically a "cold case" there very likely is some evidence still in China to be discovered but we have lost the best time to do the investigation soon after the outbreak. It now depends on lucky finds, maybe some frozen meat from the time, or blood samples, or else finding animals with possible precursors of COVID - with the complication that COVID has had the chance now to leap back into whatever animals it came from.
We have several animals we know were sold in the Wuhan market including civets which were the origin of SARS and are a plausible COVID origin,, and probably the most likely, raccoon dogs, but we may never know which it was and where it came from originally, presumably from bats.
BLOG: New research published in Science gives close to rock solid proof COVID jumped to humans from live animals in Wuhan market
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/New-research-published-in-Science-gives-close-to-rock-solid-proof-COVID-jumped-to-humans-from-live-animals-in-Wuhan-mark
So in short, he can and may do this. The funding from the USA is only half a billion dollars and it would cause problems for the WHO but other countries would likely step up. The US funds healthcare in Sub Saharan Africa to the tune of $5 billion so this isn't about saving money. The main issue is political that continuing infights between the US and China over the origins of COVID just makes it hard for researchers to research the topic - and the WHO has nothing it can actually act on in terms of favouring China more than the USA since it was never really about that. There is nothing sensible actionable that the WHO can do consistent with being a scientific non political body.
Trump can’t sack large numbers of civil servants with Schedule F because of Biden’s new rule - delays it 60 days and makes it pretty certain it’s impossible
Project 2025 is impossible. the closest is schedule F to remove lots of people from top jobs in the civil service, but that also is impossible now by Biden's new rule.
The other main thing is impoundment which we’ll look at in the next section, to just not spend the moneyh allocated by Congress on the relevant agencies, he can't do that either by a 1974 law
He can try to implement schedule F but Biden's rule means it can't start until at least day 60 as he needs to put a new rule in place to overturn Biden's rule. Any new such rule is certain to be challenged in the courts and e immediately suspended. Finally, Biden's team is sure that it will not survive those challenges because their rule is based on sound principles. Anyone replaced has to be replaced by someone who is at least as expert as the ones already there.
This new rule is strongly grounded in the law and the US Constitution which will make it very hard to reverse, as it protects ordinary Americans from civil servants that don't understand their profession.
he main thing concrete they have is "Schedule F" which Biden immediately revoked so it's never been through legal challenges. This would let a president fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 of the 2 million Federal employees.
But as we'll find out, Biden put a new rule in place which likely makes it impossible for Trump to ever implement it.
In more detail, most of the US civil service is appointed by merit. As an example Dr Fauci, he was not appointed by a president and his post didn't change from one president to the next. However about 4,000 of the 2 million Federal employees are appointed by the president and typically one of the first things a new president does is to fire all the ones appointed by the previous president and replace them by the ones they prefer.
First, of course if the president does get this level of power with schedule F then the next president if democrat can then fire all those 50,000 employees the Republican president elected.
Then remember that it doesn't matter how far right the employees are, if the president asks them to do illegal things and they try to do them then they will be prosecuted and may indeed end up in prison for it. So called "conservative justices" mainly originalists, often rule against Republicans.
QUOTE STARTS
Typically, a new president is allowed to replace around 4,000 “political appointees” — a revolving layer that sits atop the federal work force. Below the political layer lies a long-term work force of more than two million, who have strong employment protections meant to make it harder for a new president of a different political party to fire them. These protections, enshrined in law, established a civil service that is supposed to be apolitical — with federal officials accumulating subject matter and institutional expertise over long careers in the service of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
...
Mr. Trump’s staff estimated that Schedule F would give the president the power to terminate and replace as many as 50,000 career government officials who served in roles that influenced federal policy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/us/politics/republican-president-2024-heritage-foundation.html
Trump changed the rules on October 21, 2020, not long before election day Nov 3.
Schedule F made it permissible to fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 by asking agencies to reclassify some of their employees as ones that can be fired. Still the vast majority wouldn't be fired.
However it's not clear if it was legal. It would certainly have been challenged. It had one suit against it already before Biden revoked it.
NTEU Sues Trump Over Schedule F Executive Order
However Biden revoked it on the third day of his administration on 22nd January 2021.
. Schedule F appointment - Wikipedia
Biden’s new rule is here Regulations.gov
It protects civil servants appointed by merit.
QUOTE STARTS
It would allow workers to keep their existing job protections, such as a right to appeal any firing or reassignment, even if their positions were reclassified. It would also tighten the definition of what types of positions can be exempted from civil service job protections, limiting it to non-career political appointees who are expected to turn over when a presidency ends.
...
“Our proposed regulation is strong and based in law and has a strong rationale,” Mr. Shriver said. “Anyone who wants to explore a change in policy would have work to do,” he added. “They’d have to go through the same administrative rule-making process and make sure that their policy is grounded in the law.”
. Biden Administration Aims to Trump-Proof the Federal Work Force
It means that reclassifying employees under Schedule F won't take away their protection from being fired.
To reverse it a president has to go through the same rule making procedure which takes 60 days so that delays it. However, it also opens it to legal challenges because the rule is on good legal grounds and reversing it would be legally dubious and sure to be challenged.
Anyone who tries to reverse it has to show that under their new replacement rule:
decisions to hire and fire are based on how well federal employees served the American people
are not based on political affiliation
as required by the merit system
This is from an article by Carten Cordell, managing director of the Government Executive:
QUOTE “We are confident that our final rule is the best reading of civil service statutes and is grounded in the civil service in the statutory language, congressional intent, legislative history and decades of applicable case law and practice,” said OPM Deputy Director Rob Shriver on a press call. “The rule is strong, it will help to ensure the rights employees earned as envisioned by Congress when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978 and expanded and strengthened those protections through subsequent enactments.”
... “If another administration were to disagree with the policies that are reflected in this regulation, first, they would have to follow that full rulemaking process themselves,” said a senior administration official when asked about potential attempts to revive Schedule F. “They would have to justify how a different rule would ensure that decisions to hire and fire were based on how well federal employees served the American people, as is required by the merit system principles that are enshrined in the law, rather than on their political allegiance.” ... Mfume said he was pleased the final regulation was adopted, "Civil servants are the nucleus of our federal workforce and provide the continuity needed to keep our government operating efficiently," he said. "I applaud the Office of Personnel Management for working with my congressional colleagues and me on this rule, because hardworking public servants deserve to be protected from the volatility of electoral politics."
The regulation is expected to go into effect on May 9.
One of their prime targets was the head of the NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], Dr Fauci.
Dr Fauci has retired now of course. The new director is Jeanne Marrazzo in her early 60s. She of course said similar things to Dr Fauci on COVID. She is openly lesbian BTW. Very expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Marrazzo
There is no way they could replace her by some Trump appointee who knows nothing about infectious diseases. It has to be someone who has been studying infectious diseases for many years, written vast numbers of papers on the topic and is very expert. To dismiss her without any reason is never going to work.
They would have to show that their decision to fire her and replace her by someone else is based on what best serves the American people.
The Project 2025 team had no idea how this all works. They don't understand how anyone could be as expert as Dr Fauci was
QUOTE “No bureaucrat should have an action figure made of him,” jokes Dans. “Fauci had 50 years on the job in one of the most technically demanding and ever-changing professions in bio-science. Either the person is a genius on the order of Einstein or is Machiavellian in terms of keeping power. I would submit the latter.” [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811
They simply don't understand how science works. It's not like politics.
Dr Fauci was a top academic. He doesn't need to be of the order of Einstein whatever that might mean but he DOES have to be at genius level in his area of science to have such a job. Also very good at his job administratively too.
And for as long as he continues to be up to the task, he has tenure for life. Nobody else even can remove him just as it is not possible to remove a professor from his job at a university once appointed unless he does something seriously wrong.
And if he is that good he will have integrity and can't be a Trump loyalist.
They can't replace the head of the NIAID by someone who is willing to declare Ivermectin an effective drug to treat COVID if the evidence points the other way.
Vought can’t just starve agencies of the funding they need - this is illegal
Vought's idea for the Office of Management and Budget is to just not spend the money allocated by Congress and so to starve agencies of the money they need to keep going. This is illegal. He tried to do it in Trump's first term and was stopped.
It's possible he'd try again and try harder, if so it would go all the way to the Supreme Court and they are NOT MAGA. Their Chevron decision suggests they do NOT want to give the executive lots of extra power so they would very likely agree that he can't do this and has to follow the guidance of Congress. Remember the justices Trump and other Republicans appointed are originalist and structuralist, and though their decisions are seen as more "conservative" they are NOT AT ALL MAGA and often rule against Trump.
He'd have to either get Congress to remove the 1974 bill on impoundment or defy Congress and hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the president against Congress. Neither of these are plausible.
Details, see
There is no way that the president could spend this money on other things either. Just to stop the spending altogether.
So he couldn't for instance use money for the Department of Education to fund deporting illegal immigrants.
He could just not pass it on to the Department of Education but if he does this he'll get an immediate court case against him. It would likely go all the way to the Supreme Court but they have shown they want to check the power of the executive - that was what they did with Chevron. It is highly unlikely the current conservative (in legal sense) Supreme Court would allow for a radical shift in direction to give the presidency far more power instead of less.
They are not MAGA, they are originalists, and structuralists and their decision making shows a clear preference for reigning in the power of the executive to make independent decisions not authorized by Congress.
Trump can’t close down Congress or take over the media like president Yoon did in South Korea - he can only suspend the right of insurrectionists to see a lawyer in detention - if he orders them to disperse first and they refuse
The US president doesn't have war powers like that to invoke. So Trump can't override Congress and get things done that he wanted to in the way president Yoon did.
Yoon was able to close down the South Korean parliament and take over all the media in South Korea. He briefly took over control of government and could have issued any instructions he liked, which in his case was just to get things done that the government wouldn't agree to because they didn't agree with his agenda.
QUOTE STARTS
All political activities, including the operations of the National Assembly, local assemblies, political parties, political associations, gatherings, and protests, are prohibited.
All media and publications are subject to the control of the Martial Law Command. https://www.csis.org/analysis/yoon-declares-martial-law-south-korea
That is why we saw the police stopping the legislators from going into their parliament. He tried to stop them from legislating to stop his period of martial law. But the police obeyed his instructions in a half-hearted way - the legislators were able to get through and the police later apologized for obeying his order. It was clear there wasn't any military emergency.
Yoon did have the power to do this in the SK constitution but it was a clearly illegal use of the presidential war powers. That is why he was impeached.
A US president however doesn't have any war powers like this in the US Constitution so can't do any of this.
The US Constitution can't be suspended. Only one provision can be suspended, the right to see a lawyer if you are detained - that's for the duration of an insurrection. It's for practical reasons. There may be many thousands who need to be detained in some big uprising and they can't all be given access to lawyers so for the duration of the insurrection they can be detained without trial and without access to lawyers.
However before doing that. Trump would have to order the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully. He can only detain insurrectionists if they have first been ordered to disperse and they refuse to do so - there are other ways to suspend the right to see a lawyer (habeaus corpus) but they are less plausible legally. I go into it here.
The media is protected in the USA by the first amendment. So he can’t close down the press either like Hitler did.
. The Press in the Third Reich
Trump will be effectively a lame duck president in Congress - very difficult to pass any laws except with help of democrats - likely the most bipartisan presidency for a long time
I think he will be effectively lame duck in many ways, because he has a very difficult hand to play with such narrow margins, and doesn't know how to work with Congress. He has no previous experience serving as a legislator. His vice president Vance has only been a senator for 2 years, from 2023 to 2025. So he also is very inexperienced in how Congress works compared to Biden and Harris with decades in the senate and previously VP for Biden and Harris was senator for 4 years from 2017 to 2021.
Many of his cabinet picks and Musk of course have no experience of working in government at all.
He has a few more experienced cabinet picks but very little compared to the experience of Biden, Harris, and their team. .
But most of all Trump lacks Biden's ability to work across the aisle. He tries to get things passed by bullying. That will not work. He has already failed to get the leader of the Senate he wanted or to get the debt limit lifted.
Biden faced almost the same difficulties in the first term, a bit easier in the House, tougher in the Senate - but he could get the Democrats to all vote togehter in the Senate on a very difficult bill to pass, the inflation reduction act. That took months of patient negotiating to get a bill that both Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin could pass and it nearly failed at the last minute and was saved by a last minute compromise. He also got the bipartisan infrastructure bill over first which set in place a lot of what he needed in a bipartisan way which he could build on with the inflation reduction act.
Trump doesn't have the experience or the patience to do that.
He wants Mike Johnson to bundle all his priorities into one "big beautiful bill" and he will try to bully the House into passing it.
That is like herding cats, to use a popular metaphor in the UK. He will try to bully them but some will just ignore him and curl up and others will go chasing after mice in all directions and a few will do what he wants after much cajoling, and he will achieve nothing.
It is very predictable with such a divided Republican party.
Even for the speaker - because of Mark Gaetz resignation then he had to get at most one vote against. Johnson just got through and only because it was impossible to confirm Trump as president until they got a speaker.
Once Trump removes two cabinet picks from the House, he will face a majority of only 217 to 215 in the House. There is no tie break.
The Republican party has changed their House rules now so that it takes 9 objections to remove a speaker.
BLOG: Johnson protected, diversity office scrapped in new House rules
But if 9 do agree to remove him he has no chance because for now it’s only 1 vote against and he will lose his bid to continue as speaker. Once back up to full strength it is only 3 votes.
There are five factions and one of them, the Freedom Caucus MAGA Republicans are devoted to crashing the conventional norms that help the House run smoothly.
So Trump faces a very difficult time and I expect this to be the most bipartisan Congress ever in history with almost all the bills passed having bipartisan support.
I expect it to have the highest level of bipartisan bills ever in recent US history.
More details:
If any of them seem unable to be able to function or have serious issues then there are enough independently minded Republicans in the Senate to vote against.
3 who voted to convict + Mitch McConnel + several others who would vote against on various issues.
Worst case probably some like Hegseth if he is confirmed probably wouldn't last long on the job he seems way out of his depth.
But there isn't that much he can actually do. Not compared to what scares people.
Remember the cabinet can't pass laws. /
Trump can’t literally establish an oligarchy - Biden’s speech was about a fair shot for everyone to go ahead
Yes he was being hyperbolic. It is not literally an oligarchy. Biden does say that. But he also said the US can stop them like they did with the "robber barons" of the nineteenth century like Rockefeller, just by making sure they play by the same rules as everyone else..
He talked about "Our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead." but that section of his speech is really about the last bit, "a fair shot for everyone to get ahead" i.e. to be able to fulfill their dreams or try to.
The likes of Elon Musk can't take away basic rights. He can't override judicial decisions, or pass any laws. Trump can't either.
In the inauguration on Monday, Musk, Zuckenberg and Bezos will be seated right next to Trump's cabinet picks. So he is trying to project a message that they will have a strong influence on his policy.
But they are NOT cabinet picks, none of them. They will have no executive authority. They can just talk to Trump that's all not actually do anything. Zuckenberg and Bezos aren't close allies of Trump. They are just trying to have some influence on things such as tariffs because they rely on imports from other countries and retaliatory tariffs would also hit their exports.
Musk is a strong Trump ally and has veered far right in recent months. But he also is purely advisory. His Department of Government Efficiency won't be able to do anything except talk to people throughout government and then advise Trump.
They can't play a role in government because they would have to put their companies in a blind trust if involved in any government decisions that could impact on them. None of them will want that.
Why Elon Musk can’t have official positions - because he’d have to put SpaceX into a blind trust for someone else to manage
With Elon Musk it's not a cabinet position. He would be head of a newly invented Department of Government efficiency which would only operate initially through to July 4th, set up by the president and more advisory than anything no actual teeth. So a president can set up something like that without any need for confirmation from the Senate.
Musk wouldn't want to have a government position because he'd have to divest his SpaceX / Tesla holdings or put them in trust because of conflicts of interest.
QUOTE STARTS
Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee where he would still have enormous access, but he would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest between his private business interests and government role.
. Trump’s allies are already jockeying for high-powered spots in his administration | CNN Politics
So in short, the Senate can boot out the Secretary of Defence by just not letting him take office and as long as there are 5 object he's had it. There are lots of moderate Republican Senators there. They will take a lot of convincing that he is up to the job.
Elon Musk's role is informal and advisory and he'll have no real power, just reporting to the president and Trump can do that without any problems without authority of Congress and Elon Musk wouldn't want a more official job anyway because by government ethics rules he'd have to hand control of SpaceX and Tesla over to someone else who he can't consult with for the duration of the job (a blind trust). He obviously won't want that so that's impossible.
He would have to do that because in a more official post, he'd be able to make decisions that would impact on SpaceX and Tesla and which he could exploit if he continued to have direct control of SpaceX and Tesla.
QUOTE STARTS
In some cases, the same experience that qualifies an individual for a role may create potential conflicts of interest. Legislators with experience in an industry are more likely to be given committee assignments involving the regulation of that industry. However, that experience may be tied to ongoing personal financial interests that would require recusal from participating in those matters. Some legislators may use blind trusts in an attempt to ethically balance private interests with public duties.
In a blind trust, an individual places assets that could otherwise create conflicts of interest into an asset vehicle ("trust"). Control over the trust and its assets are given to an independent trustee, who may buy and sell assets without the knowledge or consent of the beneficiary ("blind"). In theory, a public official with a blind trust would be immunized from potential conflicts stemming from the assets held in trust because the legislator-beneficiary would have no knowledge of the impact of official actions on the personal financial interests.
So this means someone else would have to run Tesla and SpaceX and make all the decisions about them and Elon Musk would only know about what is going on from the news. He couldn't be involved in the design of the rockets, or in deciding which programs to go ahead with or stop or which government contracts to bid for or anything.
This is obviously impossible for Elon Musk so this type of post is out of his reach.
The top three “100 billionaires” have only half the total wealth of the remaining Americans with wealth at least $100 billion - and 48% of billionaiers who replied said they’d vote for Biden in a Forbes poll
Note - Bill Gates and Bloomberg are not in the list of people toadying to Trump. Or Warren Buffet. He does have the top three, but there are 12 American hundred-billionaires and most would not have anything to do with Trump. The total wealth of the remaining 9 hundred-billionaires is nearly double the wealth of the top 3 never mind all the billionaires
244+197+181 = $0.622 trillion dollars
175+150+136+130+123+107+105+104+101 = $1.131 trillion dollars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_Americans_by_net_worth#Top_25_richest_Americans
Forbes have a list of them here:
Based on those numbers the figures are:
top 3: 433.9 +239.4 +211.8 = 885.1
Other 100 billionaires:
204.6 +181.3+161.4+154.0+146.2+126.0 +120.2 +115.4 +115.0 +110.4 +109.1 +106.0 +104.7+101.4 = 1855.7
So then it’s more than double the wealth of the top 3 from the total number of 100 billionaires with 17 total in the list.
Forbes did a survey of American billionaires in October back when Biden was still on the ballot and of those that replied, found that 48% were planning to vote for Biden in the elections. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/10/20/even-americas-billionaires-are-tilting-toward-biden-in-the-2020-presidential-race/
So though Trump is trying to present an image of the wealthy in the USA backing his government in reality only some are though he managed to get the top three wealthy Americans to show up for his inauguration. Of those three, Musk of course is closely allied, Jeff Bezos is somewhat Republican leaning, Mark Zuckenberg is not allied naturally with Trump at all and is just trying to get some influence.
43% Republicans, 24% Democrats and 33% independents. Yet they’re swaying blue. Nearly half, or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump.
. Exclusive Forbes Survey Of U.S. Billionaires On How They Will Vote For President
Trump will try to reduce the taxes for the wealthy. He did in his first term. But it will be hard to pass any new legislation even supported by almost all Republicans in the current divided Republican party with such tiny majorities - except for things that have at least some Democrat support.
Congress won't pass the laws they want to pass and if they try to do clearly illegal things, they will be taken through the courts and found guilty and Trump will be impeached even by moderate Republicans.
:
US presidents can’t assume war powers like Yoon to close down Congress - only temporarily remove the right to speak to a lawyer from detention - and only for insurrectionists that ignore his request to disperse
The US president doesn't have war powers to invoke. So Trump can't override Congress and get things done that he wanted to in the way president Yoon did.
Yoon was able to close down the South Korean parliament and take over all the media in South Korea. He briefly took over control of government and could have issued any instructions he liked, which in his case was just to get things done that the government wouldn't agree to because they didn't agree with his agenda.
That is why we saw the police stopping the legislators from going into their parliament. He tried to stop them from legislating to stop his period of martial law. But the police obeyed his instructions in a half-hearted way - the legislators were able to get through and the police later apologized for obeying his order. It was clear there wasn't any military emergency.
It was a clearly illegal use of the presidential war powers. That is why he was impeached.
A US president doesn't have any war powers in the US Constitution so can't do any of this. The US Constitution can't be suspended. Only one provision can be suspended, the right to see a lawyer if you are detained - that's for the duration of an insurrection. It's for practical reasons. There may be many thousands who need to be detained in some big uprising and they can't all be given access to lawyers so for the duration of the insurrection they can be detained without trial and without access to lawyers.
However before doing that. Trump would have to order the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully. He can only detain insurrectionists if they have first been ordered to disperse and they refuse to do so - there are other ways to suspend the right to see a lawyer (habeaus corpus) but they are less plausible legally. I go into it here.
or the rest of the world, they didn't trust Biden less because of Trump. I think the effect of him on whoever is next president will be less than you think. He is sure to leave the Paris agreement and likely leaves the WHO. But this won't have much effect on the rest of the world. Not likely really to leave NATO. The main issue for other countries is the tariffs but we've been through that before. I think Trump will cause lots of dramatic news stories, he knows how to get on the front page over and over, but his presidency is likely to struggle to do that much.
Partly because of his narrow majority and not really seeming to understand how the US government works very well so that he tries things that are impossible. Like trying to bundle together all his wish list into one big bill then to try to bully all his Republican members of the house into voting for it - it's never going to work.
This is about his narrow margin.
No. The WHO is only advisory, it has no authority over any country. That's not why the US would withdraw. The US has its own FDA. The WHO has no authority over drug regulation in the USA. It's only the weakest economies that may use the WHO pre-approval decisions to guide their own drug regulation.
Trump's reason for withdrawing would just be out of protest out of an alleged favoritism of China. In reality the WHO treats China the same way as everyone else.
He would have to get the FDA to do that and they wouldn't comply. The head of the HHS can only block new approvals for vaccines. The FDA would need to do some enquiry first to overturn old ones already approved.
This would be for athletics. It may pass in the House especially if a few Democrats join the Republicans - passed before under Biden in the House. They never brought it to the Senate. It will be brought to the Senate now if it does pass the House, but would need seven Democrats to vote for it in the Senate. That seems unlikely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/01/14/transgender-students-sports-bill-house/
About the only one can go through Congress that I could find is a ban on trans women in women's sports but though it might be a possibility for the House, the Democrats could filibuster it in the Senate so I don't think it will happen.
Apart from the ban on trans soldiers using their preferred pronoun and identifying with their preferred sex, at work, about the only thing that they might be able to do is a ban on trans women taking part in women's sports. For SOME SPORTS mainly atheltics, especially running it IS appropriate for some sports associations to have regulations on it at the top of the league.
But even in running, a small trans woman athlete who is similar in size to a biologically woman athlete has no advantage over women (after gender affirmation therapy). The only advantage really is that a trans woman is more likely to have a larger body than a cis woman. The advantage isn't enough to make a noticeable difference at schools - it is way over the top to do a Federal country wide ban for schools, they should be free to make their own decisions.
Even for trans sports - then the Democrats would be able to stop such a ban with a filibuster in the Senate. And the margin is now so narrow in the House it might not pass in the House either. They have passed this ban in the House before, never in the Senate.
There are some other things they can do but most of what people imagine is impossible.
I go into details here:
It isn't really hostility to trans people. I think it is rather that he doesn't believe they exist, that they are genuinely who they say they are. That is Musk's view for sure. Trump is more ambiguous.
But many far right Christians think that human beings are either male or female and that if they are male in their body their brain must also be male and if female the same.
This goes against all the scientific evidence. But it is only slowly percolating down to the general public.
So all this about banning gender affirming care and banning puberty blockers is because they think falsely a trans woman is "really" a man and a trans man is "really" a woman and that they need to adjust to the gender they "really" are.
They believe falsely, that a trans woman needs help to realize she is really a man and that a trans man needs help to realize he is really a woman.
It's very old fashioned, and stuck in the past and not consistent with science.k
It's much the same as the way they ignore the science on vaccines and on global warming.
For the real science on biologically trans see my blog post:
I think these will be seen as very old fashioned out of date ideas in the near future.
The Republicans can stop the filibuster altogether with a simple majority vote, but they won't do that because if they do then laws will keep flipping between Republicans and Democrats too much as administrations change.
They can do a filibuster carveout for particular topics. But if they did that then the Democrats can flip things back again in those topics.
Democrats want a filibuster carveout for abortion and some other things so they can codify Roe, and pass some other things - they think that once passed then it will be hard for the Republicans to reverse again.
The Republicans wouldn't want a filibuster carveout for something they think that Democrats might easily reverse in a future administration.
They are not likely in practice to do that here.
Republicans can’t call for a convention of states - Democrats would filibuster any law to lump together all calls into a single convention - and it would be for show anyway as any proposed changes can be stopped by only 13 states
There aren't enough states for a convention, unless as this article says at the end Congress declares they can all be lumped together which presumably requires a new law that the Democrats at least would filibuster. So can't see that working either.
But anyway such a convention would just be for show because any amendment that comes out of it can be blocked by just 13 states. There are 20 states with either Democrat or mixed chambers (one Democrat one Republican) which means that there are lots of Democrat states to block any amendment that it proposes.
Any amendment to the Constitution has to be passed in identical text in 38 separate states in both chambers (or the one chamber if the state is unicameral only applies to Nebraska). Government's signature not needed.
So - it doesn't matter even if they rewrite the entire constitution in a Constitutional Convention - it would get a lot of publicity but nothing would happen.
Congress can’t stop laws that allocate funding (mandatory funding) - these tend to be widely supported and the narrow House margin makes it impossible - and Democrats in the Senate can filibuster to stop changes to the discretionary funding that’s allocated every year
As an example, Section 8 housing is mandatory funding.
It only takes a simple majority in House and Senate to change mandatory funding if part of some big overall bill. But this means he would have to get Congress to pass a bill to stop it and mandatory funding tends to be for things that are widely supported and many moderate Republicans would be opposed to stopping it.
As an example, SNAP which helps poorer families with their diet for better nutrition is part of discretionary funding allocated every year.
It is budgeted for every year, so in some ways it is easier to change.
However, it can be fillibustered in the Senate so any changes would need to be supported by Democrats.
All the government funding is one of those two, mandatory - tends to be hard to change, or discretionary - funding changes every year but can be filibustered
When the discretionary funding is filibustered they generally run the same funding as the previous year while they sort it out.
Ina little more detail:
There are three components, mandatory, discretionary and interest. Trump can’t change the mandatory funding unless Congress changes the laws that set that funding up. He can’t do anything about the interest. So that leaves the discretionary funding.
. File:2023-federal-budget-breakdown.png - Wikimedia Commons
Discretionary spending also IS in the control of Congress which works out how much to spend on these areas every year in the yearly budgets.
Trump can’t change these directly but he can suggest budgets to Congress for their yearly budget discussions.
Half of this consists of Defence:
File:Discretionary Spending 2019 Budget.jpg - Wikipedia
If he reduces defence spending he has $679 billion there that he could reduce to some extent. But many expect him to increase defence spending. That leaves the $626 billion in non defence spending (just rounding to the nearest billion of the %s of the 2023 budget)
Trump oversaw a big increase in defense spending in his first term. But it’s not certain it will increase in this term.
Whereas the right once almost uniformly supported higher military spending, it’s now split into three main camps, he argued.
The first is traditional defense hawks, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who favor a more assertive military and funding to support one. The second is budget hawks, like the House Freedom Caucus, who are most concerned with bloated government spending and would in some cases favor cuts.
And the third is the “America First” wing of the Republican Party, such as Trump’s final acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, who are skeptical that America’s military needs to maintain so many missions around the world, and may also support cuts.
. What a second Trump presidency could mean for the defense budget
The Mandatory spending can’t be changed at all, it’s authorized by various bills that Congress would have to change in order to change the mandatory spending.
Trump has said he won’t try to cut SSI or Medicaid etc. In any case he could only change these through Congress and not just by submitting new budgets to Congress.
File:Mandatory Spending.jpg - Wikipedia
See also United States federal budget - Wikipedia
Even with these restrictions there are ways he can save money according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They found: “$700 Billion of Easy Deficit Reduction”
I’m not sure how easy those savings are but they are something he could look at.
Any changes in discretionary funding needs bipartisan support - because it can be filibustered unlike mandatory funding changes - this is why haggling often leads to government shutdowns
A president can only suggest budgets not set them. Congress finds the money. And HHS can't move it to another program as the funding is earmarked for Head Start.
Changes in discretionary funding needs bipartisan support unless a party has a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate as well as a majority in the House. If they can't achieve this you get a government shutdown which can be averted by a continuing resolution that continues the same funding as the previous year.
These bills can be filibustered, and so Democrats with a 47 seat minority in the Senate can stop them. Needs only 41 to stop a bill using a filibuster.
So any change in the funding level of Head Start needs at least 7 Democrat senators to support it.
Also Trump has only a 3 seat majority in the House.
Many Republican moderates would surely join the Democrats in voting against any attempt to remove Head Start, and there are around 20 Freedom Caucus MAGA extremists who just cause chaos deliberately.
So the Republicans likely need Democrat votes in the House too for any of these bills as well as in the Senate.
The House and Senate typically haggle over the budgets and if they can't agree a budget then that is when you get government shutdowns. They can do a continuing resolution as a stopgap which just continues the budget for the previous year into the next year as they haggle over details of the new budget.
Explanation in Wikipedia.
QUOTE STARTS
Under the United States budget process established in 1921, the US government is funded by twelve appropriations bills that are formed as a response to the presidential budget request submitted to Congress in the first few months of the previous calendar year. The various legislators in the two chambers of Congress negotiate over the precise details of the various appropriations bills. In some politically contentious years when these negotiation processes deadlock, the Legislative Branch passes a continuing resolution that essentially extends the current funding levels into the new fiscal year until a budget can be agreed upon by a majority of both houses and signed into law by the President of the United States. Supplemental appropriations bills can provide additional appropriations for emergencies and other matters.
These appropriations bills are classified as discretionary spending, and make up around 22% of federal expenditures. The remainder is classified as mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as interest on debt.[2]
This gives a short intro to the filibuster and how that is used to stop bills in Congress but expect you know it.
. Understanding Political Gridlock: Causes and Solutions
I wondered if it could be bypassed by reconciliation which allows a change with only a simple majority in the Senate.
But no. Reconciliation is not permitted for discretionary funding only mandatory funding.|
QUOTE STARTS
The Congressional Budget Act limits the use of the reconciliation process. Reconciliation instructions can be given for three specific purposes: to make changes in the statutory debt limit, to make changes in revenues, and to make changes in direct (mandatory) spending, or any combination of the three. Discretionary spending subject to the regular appropriations process—such as annual funding for the Departments of Education and Defense—cannot be included in the reconciliation process.1
Mandatory funding could be changed with a simple majority in House and Senate. But generally they are things that are hard to change.
For instance, Trump could reverse the Inflation reduction act with reconciliation if he could get almost all the House Republicans and all except 3 fo the Senators to vote to remove it. But he is not going to be able to do that because many Republican states benefit from it.
Discretionary funding even though it has to be allocated every year is better protected and can only be changed with Democrat support in the Senate.
Trump may permit states to add work requirements for Medicare as they did in his first term - though not likely to be able to legislate in Congress
Not likely to be able to legislate in Congress. But these did go through at a state level under Trump for some states. Most were rescinded or withdrawn under Biden. The one for Georgia remains in place.
Here "Waiver with work requests" means that certain adults were required to show employment or equivalent to get medicaid.
The aim was to try to get them into employment but in practice it resulted in reduced healthcare coverage and no increase in employment.
Since Trump approved these waivers in his first term then he is likely to do it again in his second term though not necessarily in the same states as the states may have changed their views on whether they want to do this since then.
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-work-requirements-current-waiver-and-legislative-activity/
The US can't regulate foreign media, even propaganda under freedom of speech legislation.
This is under the Supreme Court Decision: Lamont v. Postmaster General from 1965.
The post office was required to check unsealed mail from communist countries and then hold back any communist propaganda and ask the recipient to confirm they want to receive it before sending it on.
The Supreme Court decided 8 to 0 that this is unconstitutional with one justice recused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
Story behind it here:
Supreme Court ruled that the TikTok ban will not censor free speech because most social media companies are not from foreign adversaries - but Trump wants to keep it anyway
The latest is that Trump is considering a 50% share of the US with ByteDance whch may be more palatable to them than a full sale.
It's not clear if the law needs to be changed in Congress or if Trump can just decide that this is what the law means by divestiture. If the law needs to be changed then he will need to get Congress to change it and it is the sort of change that Congress might approve, there isn't any particular reason for Democrats to filibuster it.
He did not explain if that meant a U.S. based company has a 50% share, or the U.S. itself.
QUOTE STARTS
The law, the Supreme Court which unanimously upheld Friday, leaves the interpretation of a “qualified divestiture” up to the president. In his latest post, Trump seemed to lay out what would satisfy that definition for him.
Trump said he “would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture” and confirmed that the move would “save TikTok.” The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for clarification about whether he meant ownership should be held by a U.S.-based company or the U.S. government itself.
…
Even so, ByteDance has never indicated that TikTok is actually for sale and has never revealed a valuation for it. Since the company has been reluctant to sell, a 50% joint venture may be more palatable than losing 100% of the ownership of TikTok.
A qualified divestiture would give TikTok’s service providers much more peace of mind than simply an extended period of nonenforcement.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-executive-order-tiktok-us-rcna188313
With a valuation of $50 billion plus even a 50% share would likely require Congress to approve it if the US buys it.
The law might need clarification also in Congress depending on the solution.
There are potential buyers. TikTok has said it won't sell however. But Perplexity AI which has $8 billion valuation and is supported by Jeff Bezos has made an 11th hour merger proposal. It doesn't want to buy the algorithm, it can make its own. It's an AI company and wants to integrate video into its AI. So I think this idea is of a separate company based in the USA that's interoperable with TikTok.
QUOTE STARTS
Perplexity AI submitted a bid on Saturday to TikTok parent ByteDance, proposing that Perplexity merge with TikTok U.S., CNBC has learned.
The new structure would allow for most of ByteDance’s existing investors to retain their equity stakes and would bring more video to Perplexity, according to a source familiar with the situation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/18/perplexity-ai-makes-a-bid-to-merge-with-tiktok-us.html
QUOTE STARTS
As its written, experts said the law does not require TikTok to take down its platform, so its unclear if the company voluntarily shut it down or was unable to continue the service alive after losing access support from its tech providers. The company did not respond to questions sent this week about its plans.
...
The statue allows the sitting president to extend the deadline by 90 days if a sale is in progress. But no clear buyers have emerged, and ByteDance has previously said it won’t sell TikTok.
On Saturday, artificial intelligence startup Perplexity AI submitted a proposal to ByteDance to create a new entity that merges Perplexity with TikTok U.S. business, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Perplexity is not asking to purchase the ByteDance algorithm that feeds TikTok user’s videos based on their interests and has made the platform such a phenomenon.
Other investors have also been eyeing TikTok. “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary recently said a consortium of investors that he and billionaire Frank McCourt put together offered ByteDance $20 billion in cash. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also said last year that he was putting together an investor group to buy TikTok.
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-trump-biden-china-bdc79b7ce741a81761f67ea56d410103
The ban also applies to some apps owned by TikTok including Marvel Snap
https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347034/marvel-snap-banned-tiktok-bytedance
TikTok went dark briefly on Sunday 19th before the inauguration.
STATEMENT FROM TIKTOK:
In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.
It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.
https://x.com/TikTokPolicy/status/1881030712188346459
Biden told TikTok it wouldn't enforce any ban and the law itself doesn't require TikTok to ban access to the app only to stop providing it in app stores like Apple. So it's not clear why TikTok has responded like this blocking access altogether. There may be some technical reason or the company may have just made the voluntary decision from their side to shut it down.
Trump is now strongly in support partly because he himself is a "big star" on TikTok in his words. He will likely be able to do it because of an eleventh hour merger proposal by Perplexity AI.
The reason the Supreme Court said the TikTok ban is constitutional is because there are few social media companies hosted by companies based in foreign adversaries to the USA. Anyone on TikTok can move to another social media platform indeed many have accounts on multiple platforms already. There are several that now offer shortform video, which TikTok pioneered. The law can only be used for apps hosted in China, or other countries that can be plausibly called foreign adversaries of the USA. Most of the best known social media companies are actually based in the USA.
It's partly because he used it a lot during his election campaign and sees it as contributing to his success. Trump says "I'm now a big star on TikTok".
QUOTE STARTS
That was Mr. Trump’s position, too, before he became a political star on TikTok, where he now has more than 14.7 million followers.
Geoff Garin, a Democratic strategist, noted that Mr. Trump’s U-turn puts him at odds with many Republicans who remain worried about China’s ownership of the app.
“It is hard to believe that Trump’s TikTok flip-flop is about anything much more than the influence of a billionaire donor and Trump’s reluctance to give up his access to his followers on the platform,” Mr. Garin said, referring to Jeff Yass, a Republican megadonor who owns a significant share of ByteDance. “As with nearly everything Trump does, his change of position is driven by self-interest, not principle or the national interest.”
...
That change of position came around the same time that Mr. Trump met with Mr. Yass.
Mr. Trump has said they did not discuss the company. But Mr. Yass helped found the trading firm Susquehanna International Group and one of the biggest supporters of the anti-tax lobbying group Club for Growth, which hired Kellyanne Conway, a former senior counselor to Mr. Trump, to lobby for TikTok in Washington.
Mr. Trump told CNBC in March that he still considered TikTok a national security threat, but that young people “will go crazy without it.” He also said moves against TikTok would benefit Facebook, which he called an “enemy of the people.”
Mr. Trump went on to use TikTok with great success during the campaign, and has said that it was a key vehicle for reaching young people this year. His youngest son, Barron, also encouraged him to lean into the platform to win over young voters, according to two sources familiar with their interactions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In September he posted a video on his social media site, Truth Social, and boasted that he was setting records on the app.
“I’m now a big star on TikTok,” he said. “We’re not doing anything with TikTok but the other side’s going to close it up. So if you like TikTok, go out and vote for Trump. If you don’t care about TikTok — and other things like safety, security and prosperity — then you can vote for a Marxist who’s going to destroy our country.”
Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist and executive director of the Center for Campaign Innovation, a Washington-based think tank, said Mr. Trump had taken advantage of TikTok in a way that other Republican lawmakers had not.
“If it sticks around, Republicans have to figure out how to campaign with it and reach voters,” Mr. Wilson said. “Donald Trump has certainly created a permission structure to do that.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/28/us/politics/trump-tik-tok-ban.html
Trump wants to keep TikTok and will try to unban it. Biden is not going to enforce it on the 19th. Whatever happens it is not part of any Trump conspiracy since he wants to keep the app.
QUOTE STARTS
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden won’t enforce a ban on the social media app TikTok that is set to take effect a day before he leaves office on Monday, a U.S. official said Thursday, leaving its fate in the hands of President-elect Donald Trump.
Congress last year, in a law signed by Biden, required that TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance divest the company by Jan. 19, a day before the presidential inauguration. The official said the outgoing administration was leaving the implementation of the law — and the potential enforcement of the ban — to Trump.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal Biden administration thinking.
Trump, who once called to ban the app, has since pledged to keep it available in the U.S., though his transition team has not said how they intend to accomplish that.
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is expected to attend Trump’s inauguration and be granted a prime seating location on the dais as the president-elect’s national security adviser signals that the incoming administration may take steps to “keep TikTok from going dark.”
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-trump-executive-order-1e95d9836bf6f8c0c245ed1c3234d968
It IS acceptable legally for everyone to agree not to enforce the TikTok ban - but in practice TikTok is not likely to accept this as a solution
There are times when the law is just ignored. E.g. many states have capital punishment as a possible sentence for some offences but never impose it. It's still on the books but has effectively ended because no justice ever gives that sentence.
As another example, possessing marajuana is illegal according to Federal law but many States have legalized it. The Federal law has never been modified to add any exemptions for states where it is legal.
In theory Federal officers should arrest anyone who possesses marajuana or uses it even for medical purposes even in the states where it's legal.
In practice they just ignore this law. This has been formalized in the Cole Memorandum to just not enforce Federal marajuana laws in states that have legalized marajuana.
https://leafwell.com/blog/cole-memo
Then there are some very bizarre old UK laws that are never enforced.
It is illegal to carry a plank of wood in the Metropolitan police district or to be drunk in a pub, or to fly a kite in a public place.
And a British cab driver is required by law to ask all their passengers if they have plague or smallpox.
https://emlaw.co.uk/weird-uk-laws/
Nobody bothered to repeal them. They just are never enforced.
So - in principle so long as everyone agreed not to enforce the TikTok ban that would be the end of it. But in practice TikTok is not likely to agree to an arrangement like that in case someone changes their mind including the next president.
TikTok ban not likely to apply to games industry
It's rather implausible that it would apply to the games industry. But on that remote chance none of the big games companies are majority owned by China and so are not controlled by it. So, seems unlikely they would be covered. Remote possibility then their Chinese investors have to stop being share holders and sell their shares to Americans and others not in foreign adversary countries.
But I can't see that happening.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-us-is-banning-tiktok-could-fortnite-and-league-of-legends-be-next-this-week-in-business
Seems a false rumour about ByteDance considering sale to Trump - they call it pure fiction
I expect the idea would be interoperable with TikTok but only sold in the US. That was the original idea anyway though presumably it could break away and become a competitor? Maybe that's partly why TikTok don't want to sell?
Seems a false rumour that ByteDance could sell to Musk. ByteDance calls it fictional.
Seems implausible because of its $40 to $50 billion asking price, Elon Musk struggled to find the ready cash to buy X which cost $44 billion. And he's losing money on X.
He is very wealthy, he could afford to give away $1 million a day in a promotion for the election. He can find $1 million from pocket change almost. But when it comes to $1 billions, that's far harder for him to find.
Most of his wealth is in shares in Tesla and in his SpaceX company which he owns privately and won't sell.
He bought X partly through selling shares in Tesla. He won't be keen to do that again.
TikTok says it's fiction
QUOTE STARTS
TikTok has repeatedly said that it will not sell its US operation.
"We can't be expected to comment on pure fiction," a TikTok spokesperson told BBC News.
Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that one possible scenario being considered by Chinese officials would see Musk's X social media platform take control of TikTok's US operations.
X did not immediately reply to a BBC request for comment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78w9zz62ego
QUOTE STARTS
The report estimated the value of TikTok's US operations at between $40 and $50 billion.
Although Musk is currently ranked as the world's wealthiest person, Bloomberg said it was not clear how Musk could execute the transaction, or if he would need to sell other assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Acquisition_announcement
Trump can’t be elected a third time and is not very plausible that the public are so keen that they support a figurehead in the place of Trump or other workarounds
Perhaps but implausible that the public would vote for him. The one at the end just electing a figurehead is the least risky for Trump but given that he'll likely have a chaotic rather lame duck presidency seems unlikely he'd have the public enthusiasm for a gimmick like that.
Net neutrality is about broadband speed - nothing to do with content moderation and the US has only had it for two and a half years - from 2015 - 2017 and from July 22nd, 2024 to Jan 2nd, 2025
This will have no effect on anyone outside the US. Inside the US it is about what is the best approach to fast broadband in rural areas.
Under Trump the chair of the bipartisan FCC will change to the Republican Brendan Carr. The main thing Brendan Carr can change is net neutrality. This name confuses people - it's not about internet content. It is about the speed of broadband. It is about regulation to ensure equitable access to fast broadband even in remote rural areas.
Despite the confusing name, net neutrality is just about competing ideas about how to get more broadband to more people.
* who gets it soonest, when, how and where and
* whether the price of it is reasonable.
It is about whether to regulate this or rely on competition to ensure low cost broadband.
Mozilla has a useful very clear timeline. The US had net neutrality from 2015 to 2017. It was then rescinded. California restored it at a state level from 2018 onwards.
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/net-neutrality-timeline/
As for what happened next, the FCC ruled to restore it country wide in April 2024 This came into force on 22nd July 2024. https://www.telefonica.com/en/communication-room/blog/paradox-open-internet-regulation/
Then finally the courts struck it down again on 2nd Jan 2025.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl417l757o
With Trump about to become president and not a supporter of it, that likely is the end to net neutrality.
So the US had net neutrality from 2015 to 2017 and then again from 22nd July 2024 to 2nd Jan 2025.
It made very little difference to broadband speed for people in rural areas.
It doesn't affect state level regulation - some states have net neutrality legislation. But it means that it is over to Congress to legislate for it country wide. Trump would refuse to sign such legislation even if it could be got through Congress. A future Democrat administration could however pass a net neutrality bill if there is enough support for it, similar to the state level laws.
Basically it is about two different approaches to trying to connect everyone to the internet. Both work.
# Regulatory, forcing companies to connect everyone to broadband equally
# relying on commercial competition to sort most of it out.
It is not surprising that Republicans would think the commercial competition approach is better and Democrats think the regulatory approach is better.
Trump can’t increase numbers of nukes - limited by NEW START and when it expires by the cost
Russia has just suspended NEW START. It ends in 2026 if not renewed.
I'm sure they would be willing to extend it - at least once the war is over. They don't want the expense of building more nukes especially right now.
It's really over to Trump if he also is willing to negotiate a new treaty. But if not, he is likely not going to be able to increase the US nukes because of expense. With his very narrow margin in the House, unlikely he gets funding to expand the US nukes if he wanted to do that. There are 25 Republicans who have always voted against any debt limit rise. Things that involve more expense are likely to require Democrat support to get them over the line.
If the US doesn't increase nukes I'm sure Russia won't. And probably even if it does they will not want to compete.
The only country likely to slowly increase nukes is China but it doesn't see any need to compete in numbers with Russia and the US.
See also
also
also
also
also
also
also
also
also
also
Contents
This contents list is at the end of the page as it’s rather long
What trump can do in the first 100 days
He won't be able to do large scale deportation because of the expense
Enough independently minded Republican senators to block any cabinet picks they consider unsuitable
Vought can’t just starve agencies of the funding they need - this is illegal
Trump can’t increase numbers of nukes - limited by NEW START and when it expires by the cost
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.