Editorial Roundup: United States

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

Jan. 21

The Washington Post on the need for transparency from social media platforms

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken a lot of heat since he announced last week that he is pulling his company out of the fact-checking business and curtailing content moderation on its platforms. The criticism is understandable, given the uncertainty over how Meta’s new rules will handle misinformation and otherwise harmful material.

Keep in mind, however, that the company’s content-moderation strategies — and indeed those of practically all social media platforms — have not worked as intended. As Zuckerberg noted in a video about the changes, Meta’s automated content screening often got things wrong. And even when it correctly identified “misinformation” — a nebulous term that’s far more difficult to define than many people want to admit — it struggled to remove the stuff, given the volume and persistence of bad actors.

In any case, the problems that social media poses for its users run much deeper than content moderation. Bigger concerns stem from how platforms disseminate content. Tech companies should be helping address these worries by doing far more to reveal their algorithms to the public, allowing for greater scrutiny of their operations. The companies should also grant access to their data so that researchers and policymakers alike can study the effects that social media networks have on users and society.

The need for such transparency has become more evident since Zuckerberg’s announcement. Rather than use third-party fact-checkers to determine the accuracy of content on its platforms, the CEO said, Meta will adopt a system similar to X’s Community Notes function, which crowdsources the work of debunking false claims. Meanwhile, the company will loosen its content filters to prioritize screening “illegal and high-severity violations,” such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation and fraud.

It remains to be seen how well Community Notes will combat misinformation. The idea has promise, but X, formerly known as Twitter, has seen mixed results with its model. Some critics say it has trouble keeping up with the torrent of false claims. It’s also unclear how Meta’s algorithms will promote content that previously would have been removed. Will they allow material to spread unchecked that is, for example, abusive to specific groups of people? Will content that is flagged as inaccurate be deprioritized?

The answers to these questions will have real-world consequences. Many studieshave found that frequent use of social media among adolescents is associated with more exposure to cyberbullying and, as a result, more suicidal thoughts. Allowing public scrutiny of Meta’s algorithms would help ensure that the company takes seriously any potential harms from its content.

Plenty of evidence shows that social media platforms create echo chambers that reinforce users’ worldviews. Internal studies conducted by Facebook itself and disclosed by whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021, for example, suggest that, despite the company’s efforts to remove anti-vaccine content, misinformation about coronavirus vaccines on the platform proliferated.

Studies such as these illustrate how much insight can be gleaned from the data that online platforms collect. In the right hands, this data could help society identify and cope with the side effects of social media use. Imagine, for example, if public health researchers were able to examine how vaccine-hesitant people consume information and which messages resonate with them. They might be able to develop better strategies to meet vaccine skeptics where they are, and thus combat misinformation more effectively than content moderation does.

A few years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress proposed legislation to compel platforms to share their data with university-affiliated researchers while also devising privacy and cybersecurity standards for the process. Such an idea is worth revisiting. Lawmakers should also consider requiring social media companies to be more transparent about their algorithms, perhaps by subjecting them to oversight.

Experience has shown that social media companies cannot effectively weed out all bad content on their platforms. This is not to say their efforts have been wasted, only that, even with multimillion-dollar investments, there is a limit to what can be done.

If Meta and other social media companies want to rebuild trust with their users, openness is essential. Though it has become less fashionable to acknowledge the good that social media can do, there was once much optimism that it would actually improve society. With transparency that reaches to the foundations of these platforms, such bright potential might be imaginable again.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/17/meta-facebook-zuckerberg-social-media-misinformation/

___

Jan. 17

The New York Times says institutions must stand up to Donald Trump's fear tactics

“Real power is — I don’t even want to use the word — fear.”

Donald Trump made that remark to the journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in March 2016. Fear is, of course, a favorite tool of the president-elect. He has used it for decades to intimidate opponents, critics and allies to give up, give in or give way. He built his real estate empire through lawsuits and threats against rivals and partners.

He cowed and demolished political opponents through humiliation and invective. He consolidated control of the Republican Party and silenced G.O.P. detractors with pressure tactics and threats to end careers. And as president, he used the power of the office and the power of social media to make life miserable for anyone he chose.

His goal in these efforts has been to push people to check themselves rather than check his power. Now, as he prepares to re-enter the Oval Office, Mr. Trump is using fear not only with Congress but also with other essential independent institutions such as courts, business, higher education and the news media. The goal is broadly the same: to deter elected officials, judges, executives and others from exercising their duties in ways that challenge him or hold him accountable. He wants to make dissent so painful as to be intolerable.

America’s leaders and institutions must remain undeterred. They will need to show courage and resilience in the face of Mr. Trump’s efforts as they continue to play their unique roles in our democracy. Vigilance is everything: If institutions surrender to the fear and coercion — by bending the knee or by rationalizing that the next right actions aren’t worth the fight, stress or risk — they not only embolden future abuses; they are also complicit in undermining their own power and influence.

The early results suggest reason for concern.

Mr. Trump has put forward several selections who are unacceptable — Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — yet there are precious few senators, defense experts, military and intelligence leaders and other principled statesmen on the right who are willing to stand up to the president-elect’s insistence on confirmation.

When one did — Senator Joni Ernst, the Iowa Republican who voiced reasonable concern about Mr. Hegseth’s qualifications to be defense secretary — Trump allies besieged her until getting both of the outcomes Mr. Trump sought: She issued positive comments about Mr. Hegseth and, in doing so, discouraged others from standing up to him in the future.

Chief executives of tech companies seem to have learned the same lesson: After challenging misinformation, hate speech and criticism from Mr. Trump and his allies in the first term, several leaders have showered him with public praise and million-dollar donations for his inauguration, with Mark Zuckerberg going as far as nixing Meta’s fact-checking program while shilling for the president-elect by branding the election as a “cultural tipping point.” Ford, G.M., Boeing and other companies have sent money and fleets of cars for the inaugural, hoping to stay on Mr. Trump’s good side ahead of his threatened trade wars.

Some of this can be chalked up to people jockeying for personal advantage with a highly transactional president. Some may reflect genuine acceptance that the country has elected a flawed leader to disrupt the status quo. But those sentiments cannot be fully disentangled from the threat posed by Mr. Trump: his determination to get his way by all means necessary, including abusing powers at his disposal to take revenge on those he thinks have crossed him or even just failed to support him in critical moments.

That threat is real: Mr. Trump has selected people for top legal and law enforcement positions who have threatened in the past to retaliate against some of those who challenged him. And that is to say nothing of his informal ability to direct troll armies to harass critics. In the absence of leaders across civic life continuing to play their roles — including standing up against illegal and immoral actions when necessary — the acquiescence to fear will free Mr. Trump further from the checks and balances that have served our nation so well.

If legislators, for instance, don’t cut back on climate-related spending, he has threatened to initiate a constitutional showdown by rescinding the money. His running mate, JD Vance, once suggested that if courts overrule such actions, they may be ignored altogether. “The chief justice has made his ruling,” Mr. Vance said in 2021, imagining a confrontation with the Supreme Court and quoting a line that Andrew Jackson might or might not have said. “Now let him enforce it.”

Corporate giants with media divisions, such as those controlled by Disney, Comcast and Jeff Bezos, have been distancing themselves from their media assets rather than making a case for traditional accountability journalism that could invite Trumpian retaliation against their broader financial interests. For smaller, less financially secure news organizations, the expense of defending themselves in lawsuits from Mr. Trump and his allies may be enough to encourage self-censorship.

He has picked Pam Bondi to be attorney general and Mr. Patel to lead the F.B.I. and other candidates for positions that are critical to the rule of law — yet who have spoken to varying degrees about prosecuting people who cross Mr. Trump. “The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Ms. Bondi said on Fox News in 2023. (In her confirmation hearing this week, Ms. Bondi insisted that “politics will not play a part” in prosecutorial decisions.) Mr. Patel has an enemies list of the so-called deep state and has vowed to “ come after ” members of the news media “who lied about American citizens.”

Business will face pressure, too. As president, Mr. Trump will once again wield enormous influence over regulation, mergers, industrial policy, licensing, tax enforcement and a host of business waivers and outcomes. Chief executives will be under pressure to get with the program on tariff, tax and spending policies rather than speak truth to power about potentially damaging short- or long-term fiscal decisions. Business leaders, economists and academics who were once counted on for expertise and warnings to Congress and in the news media about deficits, trade wars, sanctions and the broad exercise of government power on the economy will be expected to sing from the Trump hymnal.

Mr. Trump has also used this approach in his engagement with the rest of the world, going beyond his previous declarations that he would no longer fulfill various treaties and international commitments, including those plainly in the American interest, if he doesn’t win concessions. He is acting like a bully rather than a constructive leader, threatening allies like Canada and Mexico with heavy tariffs if they don’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants and warning developing nations they would be shut out of the U.S. market if they create a currency to threaten the dollar. He has demanded that Denmark and Panama allow Greenland and the Panama Canal to become American property.

Those actions only undermine our reputation as a trustworthy ally, leading other nations to wonder if they need to hedge against an unpredictable superpower, which would almost certainly undermine our economy, security and cultural influence.

For institutions facing this kind of pressure, we’d urge them to meet the moment with three thoughts in mind.

First is simply demonstrating conviction by identifying the right thing to do, then showing the courage to pursue that path, even in the face of pressure.

Second is remembering that despite Mr. Trump’s transactional nature, no one can count on remaining in his good graces without continued unconditional fealty. (Ask those in his own inner circle who justified or turned a blind eye to misbehavior again and again, only to be cast out for a single episode of standing up to his excesses.) Any advantage gained may be fleeting; any risk overcome may return.

Third is demonstrating faith in the American system, with its remarkable series of checks and balances, with its strong set of rights, with its promise of equal justice.

Sometimes that will mean overriding the president’s worst impulses. Republican senators, for example, will probably confirm a vast majority of Mr. Trump’s nominees. But that tradition of deference shouldn’t keep them from using their constitutional power to reject those who are dangerous, extreme or unqualified. It was a promising sign that those senators set aside Mr. Trump’s threat to make recess appointments and told him that Matt Gaetz could not be confirmed as attorney general, leading to his withdrawal from consideration. They should take the same stand on Mr. Hegseth, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Patel and Mr. Kennedy.

Sometimes resiliency will mean going to court and being forced to spend money to resist improper directives from the administration. That’s what publishers and news executives will have to do to continue investigative and accountability reporting when it draws legal action from Mr. Trump. (Small and nonprofit news organizations will need help finding the resources to fight government challenges and complex defamation suits.) When Mr. Trump files baseless lawsuits out of pure vengeance, as he did recently against The Des Moines Register over a poll showing him trailing Kamala Harris in Iowa, publishers will have to summon every resource to fight such abuses of the legal system.

That’s what governors will have to do if a federal official or agency demands their state use local law enforcement to round up migrants for deportation through illegal or unconstitutional means or reduce access to voting in ways that violate voting rights, civil rights or other laws. And if state prosecutors find that federal officials are violating the law, they shouldn’t hesitate to file criminal charges.

Challenging Mr. Trump in federal court proved to be a useful tactic during his first term. Federal courts routinely blocked some of his first administration’s worst policies; one study showed that he lost nearly 80 percent of the time when civil lawsuits were filed against his agencies’ rule making. For example, when he ordered an end in 2020 to the diversity-visa lottery program, he was sued by immigrant-rights lawyers, and a federal judge upheld the program, which stayed in place past Joe Biden’s election.

Even as leaders prepare to hold fast under pressure, they would benefit from some meditation on the anger and mistrust that helped make the Trump era possible.

Americans have lost their patience with the status quo and their faith in the ability of many institutions — including public health agencies, financial and business institutions, the Democratic Party, the courts, elite universities and, yes, the news media — to improve their lives and communities. In playing their unique roles in our democracy, institutions should also be wary of falling into a reflexive resistance posture, in which everything Mr. Trump proposes is implicitly wrong or dangerous or in which any tactics to oppose him are implicitly right and virtuous.

During Mr. Trump’s four years in office, the country saw that many of his fulminations fell apart when brave politicians or lawyers or ordinary citizens simply said no. America must see through the fear again. This is not the time to feel resigned to the old Trump tactics or be cowed by his threats and insinuations.

This country and its principles are too vital to sacrifice anything in the interest of going along when Mr. Trump huffs and puffs. America will stand strong as long as people stand up for it. There’s no reason to surrender or get a foreign passport or move to Canada. Those on his so-called enemies list shouldn’t be begging for pre-emptive pardons. Such moves only reward his abuses and even legitimize them.

ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/opinion/donald-trump-fear.html

___

Jan. 17

The Wall Street Journal asks if Donald Trump can do better in his second term as POTUS

Donald Trump takes the oath of office on Monday for a second term promising to disrupt the status quo—in Washington and around the world. Lord knows the status quo needs disrupting, but how he’ll do it and how far he’ll go remains a mystery, albeit for different reasons than eight long years ago.

In 2017 Mr. Trump had won narrowly, almost by accident, and he inherited a GOP majority in Congress that had a long-developed agenda on taxes, healthcare, judges and much else. The main policy victories of his first term—tax reform, energy development and judges—were traditional GOP priorities. He was less successful on his own signature issues of tariffs and immigration control.

This time Mr. Trump arrives in the Oval Office after a clear victory that was largely his own. The GOP majority in Congress is loyal to him, and a remarkable two-thirds of Republicans in the House were elected since 2016. Congress doesn’t have much of an agenda beyond what Mr. Trump campaigned on.

Eight years ago Mr. Trump also faced Democrats who were determined to oppose him on everything, if not impeach him from the start. There is no Russia collusion narrative this time. The press—which went all in for the “resistance” the last time—has hurt its credibility so much that Mr. Trump can afford to ignore most of its criticism.

The President-elect thus starts his second term with a personal favorable rating that is close to 50% and new political capital. Susie Wiles, his chief of staff, seems to have imposed order on the transition and the new White House staff. Mr. Trump’s first six months in 2017, by contrast, were a daily riot of media leaks and make-it-up-as-you-go orders.

All of this means Mr. Trump has political running room, though it’s not unlimited. His victory was solid but no landslide. Half the country still dislikes him. And the GOP majority in the House is so narrow that a couple of willful Members can kill anything. Mr. Trump could quickly find himself in trouble if he exceeds his mandate from voters.

Take immigration and border security. Mr. Trump has a mandate to stop the flood of illegal migrants, and that will be an immediate priority. He will have support for deporting criminals and gangs like Tren de Aragua.

But he also promised mass deportation. If this means midnight raids on busboys, or separating mothers from children, the politics could turn fast. His best option is controlling the border and using his political capital on the subject to cut a deal with Congress on legal and illegal immigration.

Or take the tax bill that must pass to avoid a $4 trillion tax increase in 2026. Merely extending the 2017 tax provisions will be a heavy lift. But Mr. Trump campaigned on trillions of dollars more in tax breaks—no tax on tips, Social Security benefits or overtime.

The danger is that the tax bill becomes a vehicle for income redistribution rather than economic growth. Inflation more than anything else elected Mr. Trump, and he will fail as President if his policies don’t lift real wages for his new working-class coalition. He needs to support the Federal Reserve’s efforts to keep reducing inflation and promote growth with supply-side tax and regulatory policies.

Which brings us to tariffs, which he calls the “most beautiful word” except perhaps “faith” and “love.” A tariff is a tax and a tax is anti-growth. Mr. Trump is going to impose tariffs as soon as his first week, and they may be large and universal.

The impact of his tariffs, and of the retaliation from other countries, is a growth wild card. Congress has ceded so much authority to the President on trade that financial markets may be the only real check on his tariff policies. His policy advisers this time have all endorsed tariffs of some kind.

Mr. Trump also views tariffs as an all-purpose political tool, which raises the question of how much he wants to disrupt the current U.S. network of alliances. He may not leave NATO, at least not right away, but he will want Europe to provide for most of its own defense. Same with allies in Asia.

What we don’t know is whether Mr. Trump believes in a world in which there are dominant spheres of influence: the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere, China in the Asia-Pacific, and Russia in Europe. This is the logic of the GOP’s isolationist wing, and it is a recipe for a chaotic reordering of world affairs.

The biggest risk in our view is Mr. Trump’s desire to court adversaries in search of diplomatic deals for their own sake. He won’t settle the Ukraine war in a day as he promised, but an ugly deal that favors Russia could be his version of President Biden’s flight from Afghanistan. Mr. Trump will try again to coax North Korea’s Kim Jong Un into a nuclear deal, despite his failure the last time. Mr. Trump will be tougher on Iran at first, but he wouldn’t mind a nuclear deal with the Ayatollahs if they’re willing.

Most important will be his courtship of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. Former Trump security adviser John Bolton writes in his memoir that Mr. Trump said in his first term that a U.S. defense of Taiwan was implausible, and Mr. Xi can read. China could react to Mr. Trump’s tariffs with a blockade of Taiwan, or perhaps by taking nearby islands now controlled by Taiwan. How would Mr. Trump respond to avoid the risk of war? Would he cede Taiwan to Mr. Xi?

Mr. Trump’s victory was most important as a repudiation of the woke left, and it creates a rare opening for Republicans to build a new majority. But Americans don’t want disruption for its own sake. They will support it if it means broader prosperity that they can share. They also don’t want Mr. Trump to indulge in the politics of retribution by siccing the FBI and Justice Department on opponents.

If Mr. Trump focuses on settling scores rather than raising incomes, Democrats will sweep the 2026 midterms and progressives will return to power with a vengeance in 2028. A second presidential chance would be a terrible thing to waste.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-inauguration-second-term-3ceb7729?mod=editorials_article_pos5

___

Jan. 19

The Boston Globe on the Israel-Hamas ceasefire

When Hamas released a video of female Israeli soldier Liri Albag this month, after 15 months in Hamas captivity, her parents broke down to see their 19-year-old daughter looking frightened, shaking, and faint. “She’s not the same girl,” her mother told Israeli media.

In Gaza, The New York Times reported, Palestinians are dreaming of packing up their tents and returning to their homes — or the rubble that’s left of them — and reuniting with relatives or visiting their graves.

The cease-fire deal that Israel and Hamas have agreed to, which went into effect Sunday, is the best possible outcome: a solution negotiated by both parties. The deal, reached with the involvement of the Biden administration and the Trump administration, is far from perfect. It is a short-term solution, which will free just some of the Israeli hostages and leave open the possibility of resumed warfare. The second phase of the cease-fire still needs to be worked out, and the deal doesn’t begin to address long-term questions about Gaza’s recovery.

But the cease-fire will provide much-needed respite, letting Gazan civilians return home and reuniting female, child, elderly, and ill hostages with their families.

Under the terms of the deal, Hamas will return 33 “humanitarian” hostages over six weeks, beginning Sunday. It is not known how many are alive. These include the two children who remain in Gaza — 2- and 5-year-old Kfir and Ariel Bibas — and the 10 remaining women, including soldiers and civilians. The first three of those women — Emily Damari, Romi Gonen, and Doron Steinbrecher — were released Sunday. Two hostages with dual American-Israeli citizenship — Sagui Dekel-Chen and Keith Siegel — are expected to be released in this phase.

Israel will release around 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, according to Israeli media. The exact number is unknown because it depends how many hostages are returned alive. These prisoners will include women and minors and also hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences, including for murder and terrorism. The first 90 prisoners were released Sunday.

Israel will withdraw troops from Gaza’s population centers and bring them closer to Israel’s border, although Israel will temporarily keep soldiers in strategic locations including the Philadelphi Corridor along the border between Egypt and Gaza.

There will be an influx of aid into Gaza, including 600 trucks of humanitarian aid daily, 60,000 temporary homes, and 200,000 tents.

Many in Israel are justifiably worried that releasing convicted terrorists will cause future bloodshed and incentivize more kidnapping. After all, in 2011, Israel released 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one Israeli soldier. One of those prisoners was Yahya Sinwar, who masterminded Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack, in which terrorists killed 1,200 people in Israel and kidnapped 251, sparking the current war. Israel has said murderers will not be returned to the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Israel will need to improve its security and intelligence capabilities to prevent future attacks. But 15 months of war that decimated the Gaza Strip should also serve as deterrence for those who would plan another attack.

There are also huge questions about what comes next. The cease-fire’s second stage is envisioned as including another exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners. There are currently 91 hostages held in Gaza who were kidnapped on Oct. 7 and another two Israelis and one body of an Israeli soldier that Hamas has held for a decade. It is estimated that Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians in prisons, including those convicted of crimes and those in administrative detention who have not been charged. In the second phase, Israeli troops would withdraw from Gaza and Israel and Hamas would declare a “permanent cessation of hostilities.”

There is, understandably, fear on both sides that negotiations will fail to reach the second stage. That would leave the remaining Israeli hostages stranded in Gaza indefinitely and subject Gaza’s Palestinians to more war and displacement. One right-wing member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government left his governing coalition when the first phase of the cease-fire went into effect, and others could exit if Israel agrees to permanently end the war, potentially toppling the government.

The argument for continuing the war is that Israel has failed to eradicate Hamas. But if Israel has not been able to do that in 15 months, it suggests the goal may not be achievable. Continued fighting will cause more pain and suffering for civilians caught in the crossfire. President Trump and other mediating countries should work with Israel and Hamas to ensure they reach an agreement that allows the cease-fire to hold beyond six weeks.

The third stage of the deal would include the return of bodies of Israeli hostages and the development of a reconstruction plan for Gaza.

Even if these latter stages move forward, there are huge unresolved issues, first and foremost who will govern Gaza.

Hamas, which claimed victory from the cease-fire despite the killing of its senior leadership, cannot be allowed to continue leading the enclave. There will need to be new local leadership with technocratic expertise. The Palestinians will need international aid to rebuild schools, homes, and hospitals. The United Nations estimates that 69 percent of Gazan structures are damaged, including 245,000 homes, while the World Bank estimates the cost of the damage at $18.5 billion, the Associated Press reported.

Diplomats and policy makers need to continue hashing out these difficult questions. But in the meantime, after months of death and destruction, let us take a moment to rejoice as Gazans begin returning to their homes and hostages return to their families’ loving embrace.

ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/19/opinion/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages/

___

Jan. 20

The Guardian on Donald Trump's inauguration

On the surface, Donald Trump’s inauguration looked like the usual transfer of power, with political rivals exchanging polite applause. This was a facade. Mr Trump’s address feigned conciliation but was, in reality, a rightwing call to arms against his enemies, rejecting the unity the ceremony represents. Mr Trump presented a grim picture of a country on its knees that only he can revitalise. He declared not one but two national emergencies, pledging to return “millions of criminal aliens” and “drill, baby, drill” for the “liquid gold under our feet”. His alarming call to “take back” the Panama Canal from China hints at ambitions to reshape the global order, potentially through force.

A flurry of Trumpian executive orders will accelerate the climate emergency, defy the US constitution over birthright citizenship and reduce the scope of legal protections. Forget the stirring rhetoric of Kennedy; Trump’s message was blunt: enemies at home and abroad, beware. Where Roosevelt once inspired hope, Mr Trump offered fear.

Mr Trump attempted to cast himself as a visionary heralding a transformative US era. His speech shouldn’t fool anyone. He began with grandiose rhetoric – that “the golden age of America begins right now” – and ended with the characteristic hyperbole that his fellow citizens were “on the verge of the four greatest years in American history”. Mr Trump is a vain showman. His last spell in power revealed him to be a politician who cloaked a fragile ego in bullying and dragged American democracy to the edge.

It has been a remarkable turnaround for Mr Trump, who returns to the White House as 47th president. He has defied being impeached twice, a criminal conviction and even an assassination attempt. His rhetoric about reclaiming national greatness taps into frustration felt by some with their lot. Due to the cold weather, Mr Trump’s address took place inside the US Capitol’s rotunda, rather than outside the building. He recognises the power of pictures. He wanted a rally in front of devoted fans to be the defining image of the day – not the billionaires, technology executives and oligarchs who sat before him during his address.

The populist pose masks an unabashed oligarchic takeover. Mr Trump has duped ordinary voters into believing he’s their champion while framing Democrats as out-of-touch elitists. Yet his conflicts of interest are staggering. At the weekend, Mr Trump made billions through a branded crypto token, a windfall tied to regulatory decisions he controls. It should matter that his disinformation strategy sows division and erodes trust, replacing facts with identity-based politics that demand absolute loyalty.

Mr Trump’s Maga movement isn’t unique. But he arguably is. His narcissism, craving for flattery, disdain for critics and readiness to wield government power for personal gain and revenge set him apart, making him a rare figure unlikely to be replicated in US politics anytime soon. The 2024 election highlighted the razor-thin US political divide, with Republicans securing power by a narrow margin – underscoring a deeply fractured electorate.

The depth of division is such that Joe Biden, in a dramatic final act, wielded his pardon powers to shield members of his family, and a number of current and former public servants, from Mr Trump’s retribution. A pillar of the rule of law is trust in the institutions, rather than individuals, to mete out justice. America, be warned: abandoning these norms risks dismantling the foundations of democracy itself.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/20/the-guardian-view-on-donald-trumps-inauguration-fear-division-and-the-facade-of-national-populism

___