Trump’s Lost Generation(s)

Demonstrators at an April 8 protest in New York City opposing funding cuts for the National Institutes of Health. Jimin Kim/Sipa via AP Images

The other day I ran into an acquaintance who runs a government program that provides a valuable service and that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have tried to eliminate entirely. Through legal action and other means, this organization has fought back and so far staved off execution, even as much of its activity has been halted. The goal, I was told, is to preserve this program even as a shell that does a fraction of what it once did. That way, if the Trump crusade is eventually beaten back and Democrats regain power, it can be returned to its previous size and scope. “If it is destroyed,” this person said, “it will be nearly impossible to rebuild from scratch. We have to preserve it in some form, even if greatly diminished.”

I was heartened to see a public servant engaging in strategic resistance from the inside. Holding on for dear life for four years will be tough and not fun. Those people engaged in this insider opposition deserve our respect and appreciation.

But this encounter led me to an obvious realization. This hanging-on strategy cannot work across the board. Some government agencies that performed crucial work are being eradicated or broken beyond repair. Moreover, this obscene demolition derby is causing what will be a generational loss of brainpower and talent for the United States that will likely not be remedied.

It’s easiest to spot this in scientific research. With the extensive cutbacks at the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that support research, jobs are being lost throughout the scientific community. And Trump’s extortion-like withholding of federal funding from universities that draw his ire also threatens the research cosmos.

Research programs and centers at universities and institutions across the country have had to cut positions and rescind employment offers to newly graduated PhDs. They have had to turn away graduate students due to slashes in funding. Many of these people—midcareer or young scientists—will leave the field or look elsewhere. For some, the latter will mean seeking jobs in other countries. No doubt, many won’t return to the United States. They will establish themselves, fall in love, start families in other lands. All these brilliant minds, educated and trained here, will cook up ideas—advances that help cure diseases, create new energy systems, yield not-yet-imaginable technological breakthroughs—that benefit their adopted lands.

We are throwing away one of the great drivers of American society and the US economy. Two months ago, Lisa Jarvis, a columnist at Bloomberg Opinion who covers biotech, put it plainly:

The Trump administration’s attacks on science and funding at the National Institutes of Health will set research and training for future scientists back a generation.

This might sound melodramatic to anyone not intimately familiar with the world of academic training and research. But in just two months the administration has cut off opportunities at every phase in a scientist’s career. Unless funding and the freedom to pursue science without political bias are restored, biomedical research in the US will become less ambitious, less competitive and result in fewer breakthroughs.

After the Trump White House recently released its slash-and-burn budget blueprint that included huge cuts for the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies that fund scientific research, Michael Lubell, a physicist who tracks science policy at the City University of New York, told Nature, “The message that this sends to young scientists is that this country is not a place for you.  If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat.”

This is a serious self-inflicted wound. The man who irrationally obsesses about a trade deficit doesn’t care about creating a massive knowledge deficit. Who will benefit from this? European nations that are already luring away our scientists and China, as it surpasses the US in R&D investment. Meanwhile, Trump’s assault on elite universities could lead to a decline in the enrollment here of foreign students and a loss of talent from overseas. Trump is engineering a brain drain that won’t be easy to reverse.

And it’s not just within science. The administration decimated USAID, the agency that distributes foreign aid. Thousands of employees and contractors were pink-slipped, and humanitarian agencies funded by USAID had to lay off workers. A whole cadre of people who had developed expertise in delivering aid and overseeing humanitarian programs overseas—not an easy task—will now disappear. That human capital will dissipate, rendering it harder to revive these programs in the future. Job cuts at the State Department and the CIA will shrink the population of foreign policy experts knowledgeable about assorted parts of the globe.

Demoralized federal agencies will attract less fresh blood and become less attractive to the best and the brightest. Do we really want fewer young scientists, researchers, and policy experts looking for ways to prevent the next pandemic? Or searching for a cure for Alzheimer’s? Or preparing the government for the next international crisis?

I’m surprised there has not been more political outrage expressed over Trump’s maniacal effort to kill a generation of people with the expertise needed for a secure, prosperous, healthy, and competitive America. In his 1956 poem “Howl,” Allen Ginsberg wrote, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.” All these years later, we are not destroying our best minds. We’re just telling them to get lost. Many will find other homes. And we, not they, will suffer.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

Almost every day brings us a scandal worse than Watergate. There’s a big sign on the White House: “Open for Grift.” Yet so much of the corruption gets lost among all the shit that floods the zone. I recently wrote about one sleazy Trump scheme that looks like a mob shakedown: the president of the United States using a supposedly independent federal agency to pressure a private corporation to settle a lawsuit with him that could lead to him receiving millions of dollars. In olden times, this would have prompted much indignation throughout the political and media world. Now...it’s just same-old/same-old. After all, there are at least a dozen crypto-related scandals in Trump World. But here’s my rundown on this shady caper, which would make Tony Soprano proud.

Disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who served for a few minutes at the start of the first Trump administration, is one of the Trumpers most responsible for spreading the nuttiness of the hyper-paranoid QAnon movement that claims Democrats, liberals, Hollywood celebs, and others have been running a global cabal of pedophilia and sex trafficking. He once posted a video of himself and family members taking the QAnon oath, and he appeared at a QAnon convention. A leading denier of the 2020 election results, Flynn, at a QAnon event in 2021, suggested that a military coup akin to the one that occurred in Myanmar “should” happen in the United States. 

Now the worm turns for Flynn. As Will Sommer reports in the Bulwark, a group of QAnonish Trump supporters are pushing a conspiracy theory claiming that Flynn and his family orchestrated the January 6 attacks on the Capitol and led unwitting grassroots Trump supporters into a trap that day.

It's a rather convoluted notion. But what’s delicious is that the conspiracy nutters whom Flynn has long fueled with his own promotion of paranoid bunk are now directing their derangement toward him and his kin. Lead people down this path, and you might pay the price. It’s a small piece of justice. If you’re looking for a dose of schadenfreude, read the article. 

The depth of stupidity in MAGA Land has no limits. After apparently watching Escape from Alcatraz, Clint Eastwood’s 1979 movie, on a local PBS station in Florida, Donald Trump put up a social media post that called for reopening the infamous prison that was shut down in 1963 in order to “house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders.” This was, of course, a dumb idea. Alcatraz was closed because it was expensive to operate and maintain, and the US Bureau of Prison already has a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, and several other maximum-security facilities for federal convicts. (By the way, most murderers and violent criminals are handled by state law enforcement and, when convicted, locked up in state prisons.) There’s no need for Alcatraz. But because Trump voiced this idiotic proposal, the rest of his cult had to jump aboard, and there was a flood of dumbassery.

Like this post from Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.): “The first person to be sent to Alcatraz should be Anthony Fauci.”

It does seem that far too many GOP legislators would rather troll than legislate.

MAGA commentator Larry Kudlow dutifully acted like a parrot: “The president suggested over the weekend maybe rebuild and reopen Alcatraz. Put them there, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean somewhere.”

Alcatraz is not in the middle of the Pacific. It is 1.25 miles offshore San Francisco in San Francisco Bay. 

Talking about Trump’s tariffs and erratic trade policy, Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) said, “The idea that the Christmas trade is already starting to slow down…and there might be less around, I get it. I think the American people will understand that because the American people understand shared sacrifice."

Trump promised the Golden Age would begin on the first day of his second presidency. That would include lower prices and better-paying jobs for everybody. Now GOPers are talking about working-class Americans engaging in shared sacrifice. Do they think we’re dumb?

In the past few weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about people and organizations who have bent the knee before Trump. It’s been a metaphor. But not for all of Trump’s cult. Look:

This happened during a National Day of Prayer event at the White House. If a gesture were a comment, this fellow would win our contest hands (and knee) down. And a word of advice: Do not worship false idols.

On to the winner: Catherine Austin Fitts. She was a managing director at Dillon, Read & Co., an investment bank, and then served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during George H.W. Bush’s presidency. That sounds pretty establishment, right? But a few nights ago, she was on Tucker Carlson’s internet show and matter-of-factly asserted, as right-wing disinformationist Benny Johnson later put it, that the US government has “quietly spent $21 trillion to build underground cities for the elites in case of a major disaster.”

Yes, whoa…if true. And that’s a big if.

Fitts claims that she has discovered that there were $21 trillion in undocumented funds spent by the US government between 1998 and 2015. As for what happened with all this moolah, she told Carlson, “One of things I’ve looked at is…the underground base and city infrastructure and transportation system that has been built.” At this point Carlson, who often peddles bizarre conspiracy theories, interjects, “I’m sorry?” As if he couldn’t believe she was saying this.

Austin went on: “We have built an extraordinary number of underground bases and supposedly transportation systems… Some of these are documented as part of the national security infrastructure. I think there are many more in the US [and] all over the world…but also underground in the ocean around the United States…Our estimate was 170, with a transportation network connecting them.” This is all in preparation, she added, for a “near-extinction event.”

Nearly 200 secret underground bases around the world, including in the ocean, all connected by an underground transportation system? Where government officials and elites can escape if a comet strikes the Earth or the polar ice caps melt and flood the globe? It seems that Fitts, who has insisted there was massive fraud in the 2020 election, has mistaken the Hulu sic-fi/political thriller series Paradise for a documentary. It was almost too much for Carlson. But more than enough for us to award her the DCotW trophy.

Federal district court Judge Beryl Howell recently struck down Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie, one of the big law firms he has attacked, ruling his move unconstitutional and proclaiming it an unlawful assault on the American legal system.

In a somewhat unusual move, Howell began her ruling by citing Shakespeare and compared Trump to one of the Bard’s characters, a rebel who declares "kill all the lawyers" as part of his plan to gain power. Here’s how Howell’s ruling starts, but the whole thing is worth a read:

No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” William Shakespeare, Heny IV, Part 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand.” Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 n.24 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”).

A few days ago, ICE agents raided several popular Washington, DC, restaurants, in search of undocumented workers. The point obviously was to demonstrate a show of force in the nation’s capital, where most diners are of a Democratic or liberal bent. But when the agents got to Chang Chang, a high-end Chinese restaurant in the Dupont Circle area, the manager demanded they produce a warrant. The agents did not show one, and the manager and other staff blocked them from going to the kitchen. The agents were forced to leave without detaining anyone. By the way, Chang Chang has the best shrimp dumplings.

If I ever want to fill the mailbag, I only need  write about problems with the Democrats and what they ought to do:

Margo Landrum emailed:

Could you convince David Hogg to focus on persuading young people to protest, to run for office, to vote for responsible, ethical candidates, rather than just replacing the old guard?

Thanks for writing, Margo. It's not my job to convince Hogg of this. But I am quite sure that many others are trying to do that. 

Sheryl Villas Nicolas wrote:

As an outsider (Canadian) looking in at the ongoing debacle in the United States, my impression is that the Democrats will continue to lose favour unless they learn to pivot, read the room, and start embracing the reality that we are now in the year 2025. This means opening the door to young blood who have a right to affect the narrative, because guess what. The decades of the future now belong to them not those who are currently in their 70s and 80s.

These seniors had their shot at running the country. Many of the decisions of these career politicians have proven disastrous not only for the citizens of the US but also in those countries where your foreign policies backfired helping to create the massive migration of people forced to flee to survive.

Read the tea leaves. Telling them to be quiet, be patient, and wait is counterintuitive when they now know that Trump is what happened last time they did this. If the career Democrats of a certain age are not willing to put country before their own personal greed and ego and open the door to younger more progressive candidates, they are, in my opinion, no better than Trump.

Alyssa Owens had a simple point:

The Dems must not show their discord publicly; they must be united and strong against the malevolent person and his hench persons.

Niki Sebastian shared this:

I wholeheartedly agree with your May 3 post. The old guard Dems who are more focused on achieving their personal aims for power and prestige are as harmful as the Trumpers, in that none care about the greater good. Which does not mean the younger disrupters are always right. We need a steady exposure of those (including some Republicans) who actually care for and speak for us ordinary citizens and a ditching of all in either party who do not.Thank you for being a voice for my perspective.

Niki, I’m not sure that’s how I put it. But I am certain that these days there are few, if any, Republicans who fall into that group and deserve support. And that's sad.

Elizabeth Riebschlaeger emailed:

Thanks for raising the issue—ages old and perennial as it is—of the "generation gap.” 

The young, with all their (sometimes untamed) energy, have a vision for their future in the world. They have their agenda and, believing that the future belongs to them, want a definitive say. But often, they have not assessed how their message/agenda and vision would "sell" with the majority of voters in whichever area they may want to represent. Often, they have no extensive experience in which they could have tested their agenda.

The older, more experienced generations has "been there, done that" on many issues in their time and so bring the vision born of their own experience. They know history and had lived experience to draw on in making decisions for the common good. 

Perhaps resolution might begin with each side asking not only what they have to offer, but what they have to learn from one another and how they can work in complementary ways to accomplish their common goal. And each can recognize that they both have something to gain by working together.  

I think you might be too reasonable, Elizabeth. But that would be productive.

MD Fisher sent this note:

I am a 99-year-old American who came to Australia when I retired because my Australian wife wanted to come home. I thought I was doing her a favor, but she was doing me a favor since the US has become Trumpland. She has died, but I want to stay here because the US I left no longer exists, and I do not have the energy to work to bring it back. My descendants all live in the US except for one granddaughter who lives in France. I miss the United States, but the US I miss exists only in my memories.

That's a sad message, MD. There are still many wonderful places and people in the US. And the fight is not over yet. But good luck down under and enjoy those recent election results.

Shari Silverman emailed:

Tim Walz has a valid point: “oligarch” and “food insecurity” present as “elite speech,” pre-supposing everyone understands the history and meaning of the term “oligarch” and the socio-economic term “food insecurity.” Framing counts. Using “oligarch” and “food insecurity” frames the Dems as out of touch with regular working Americans. Greedy billionaires and children going to bed hungry are more direct, easy to understand concepts, and no one needs a post-doc to get the message. Keep it short; keep it simple.

Shari, you're probably right on this, as is Walz. But the question is whether he ought to be criticizing Democrats who use these terms. Such criticism is easy to misconstrue. 

Perry Gross added to the mix:

I think David Hogg has a pretty good strategy. If he and his group do as they say—just focus on safe Democratic seats for a shake-up—I am good with that. Schumer's capitulation was the last straw. (And then to do a book tour two days later, really?) Hogg's focus on "go along to get along" Democrats hits the mark of the moment. If you don't have a little fire under your ass, we will give you one. Dems need to come into the next Congress ready to undo Trump but also to get real stuff done. Put a half dozen "dead wood Democrats" on the sidelines and things could be different.

Perry, I think the issue for some is whether these targeted Dems are real "dead wood" or just old. Some of the folks being aimed at are progressives with strong track records and not obstacles to better Democratic performance. That said, the party will have a better image with sharper and fresher representatives.

“Why do you look sad?”
“I am sad, Moxie. A friend died.”
“What happens when a friend dies?”
“It’s like they go away forever. You can’t play with them. You can’t hold them. You can’t talk to them.”
“But you still can talk to them. They just won’t talk back.”
“Yes, you can.”