The Rise of Caesarism
What can Congress do as the White House accretes power?
We're another week in to the dismantling of our constitutional republic.
This week in the land of the free
Among the most notable developments this week include the purging of the security apparatus (including firing senior DOJ staff and reviewing for possible dismissal thousands of FBI agents connected with investigating the Trump insurrection); efforts afoot to fire 70% of OPM staff (the government's HR shop); eliminating federal agencies without congressional permission, notably US AID; deleting agency websites and removing datasets from federal data repository data.gov; and FCC "investigations" into independent media sources NPR and PBS.
This comes after the administration's illegal efforts to fire 18 federal Inspectors General; the purging of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; the firing of EEOC and NLRB members; the removal of references to American history that relate to non-white people and the firing of DEI staff; the firing of senior staff at Treasury and taking of control of a sensitive payment system; and criminalizing trans people using specific bathrooms and locker rooms.
There's also a new trade war with Canada, Mexico, and China; threats to Panama over the canal; and threats to annex or purchase Greenland. Millions of federal employees have been ordered to report to a government office – regardless of where they live, whether there is room, and whether it’s wise – and they're being pushed and encouraged to resign.
The political alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump remains strong, with Twitter becoming a primary way for reporters to receive information from some of the agencies. Meanwhile the Pentagon kicked NBC, the New York Times, NPR, and POLITICO out of their work spaces to be replaced with propagandist One America News Network, the New York Post, Breitbart, and (!) HuffPost. Even as Twitter becomes a form of state media, the billionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are interfering with their in-house journalists to take a more pro-Trump line. Other publications, like POLITICO, are now owned by Axel Springer, an arch-conservative right wing populist media empire.
It's bad out there and it's getting worse. The New York Times finally has discovered Curtis Yarvin, the dark enlightenment writer whose calls for a new authoritarianism (a "Caesarism") has inspired alt-right movement leaders who have captured the government, notably many of the billionaire technology business owners aligned with Trump.
What's next
Many people are wondering what's next. My handy-dandy copy of Coup D-Etat by Edward Luttwak has a chapter focused on execution, which comes down to stabilizing the situation so that the Trump folks can gain control of the mechanisms of state. So long as the opponents of those efforts remain disorganized, those seeking to gain control will have the upper hand.
From a political perspective, Democrats need to hold the line firmly against Trumpism, especially in Congress. If they do not, Republicans who oppose Trumpism but are afraid of the political consequences of opposing Trump can justify their votes to confirm the people and policies of the new regime because an oppositional vote would not make the difference. They must be clever, however, in making space for those Republicans to come out without being painted as RINOs.
Nonetheless, unless Republicans in Congress are willing to hold the line – from protecting Congress's powers of the purse against illegal impoundment efforts to giving aid to the independent Inspectors General to opposing unfit administration officials (like OMB nominee Russell Vought) – what's left of our current constitutional regime will shortly become a curiosity of history.
I've been thinking a bit about how the French identify their various republics. The first French Republican was from the abolition of the Monarchy until the declaration of the First Empire (under Napoleon); the second ran from deposing Napoleon under Napoleon III declared himself emperor, and so on.
How would it work for us? The First American Republican ran from the declaration of independence until the adoption of the Constitution. The Second from the adoption of the Constitution until Andrew Jackson. The Third would be from Jackson until the civil war. The Fourth starts with Lincoln and runs until the end of reconstruction. Then we have an anti-Republic, dominated by slavers and industry. Perhaps it ends with Teddy Roosevelt and trust busting, or perhaps WWI with Wilson and the amendments on direct election of senators and the income tax. Or perhaps with FDR, who clearly initiated a new presidentialist regime.
Whenever the transition, the Sixth Republic started with the great society and LBJ, which began the enfranchisement of millions of Americans. It bobbled with Nixon's and Reagan's unconstitutional misadventures, and took a near mortal blow with Bush v. Gore in 2000.
It ended with the Trump insurrection. We know we are in a different era because of the failure of the second impeachment, when Senate Republicans blocked political efforts to hold Trump accountable, the failure to hold Trump criminally accountable by the Justice Department, and the Supreme Court's providing immunity for sitting presidents.
Just as I'd argue the post-reconstruction era was not a republic, so too it appears our current era is not one either — certainly it’s not what it was. We are seeing not the rule of law, but the rule of a man, with the courts and Congress so far complicit in destroying our constitutional system of checks and balances. If you disagree, watch what many Republicans are saying now on impoundment — and what Congress and the courts ultimately do.
Homage to Constitutionalism
People throw around the word Orwellian a lot, but I want to point to three concepts from the book 1984 that are relevant today.
The first is double-think. It's a form of indoctrination where a person must hold two conflicting ideas as true, especially when they are at odds with reality. A perfect example is illustrated when Trump's nominees are asked whether they think Trump won the 2020 election. They know he did not, but must instead say the opposite. Another example are those people who say the Trump insurrectionists who sacked the Capitol were invited in, or were non-violent, or were antifa. They know better but must pretend otherwise.
The second is memory hole. The memory hole is a mechanism used by a regime to rewrite history by making documents and records disappear. The shutting down of websites, purging data.gov of data regarding health information, and literal whitewashing of walls to remove people of color are examples of these techniques.
A third concept is unperson. An unperson is "an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration." In the book, these folks have been executed, but in our context he is making those people disappear from consideration. At times Trump has railed on about antifa, or communists, or DEI as destroying America. He is working to make trans people unpersons. And Trump will be using Guantanamo Bay to put immigrants beyond the reach of the courts, just like George Bush did to those accused of plotting 9/11. (He also set up America's own gulag archipelago, a chain of detention and torture facilities around the world.)
One common feature of authoritarian governments are shock troops. It is no secret Trump has made common cause with the white nationalist militias and regimes. His pardoning of the violent insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and threatened the lives of Trump's political enemies provides him with a wink-wink militia who know they can get away with violence because Trump will wash it away. This sends a message to people who would oppose Trump that their lives are at risk.
That message is underscored by Trump's removal of security details for Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mark Milley, and others.
Congress?
So what does all of this have to do with Congress, the ostensible focus of this newsletter, the First Branch Forecast? There are a number of power centers left to resist Trumpism.
Labor unions can work to protect federal workers who are following the law, for example. (And if you're a fed, you should consider joining. Just saying.) The states can sue when it appears the federal government is violating the law. The same is true for citizens and civil society. But the most effective power center remains the Legislative branch.
The Senate could decide to delay or refuse to confirm some or all Trump's appointees. Either chamber could hold hearings and haul executive branch folks in for questions.
Congress must pass appropriations bills or the government will shut down. Congress can include whatever directions or limitations to the executive branch they choose. Addressing the debt ceiling presents another such opportunity – and one where Democrats have leverage. The GAO can conduct independent oversight of the Executive branch.
There's a lot for Members of Congress to do. They have immunity for what they say in legislative debate. Many members are afraid of a mob sent at them by Trump. He is a strongman, but he is still consolidating power and in a weakened position. Congress can reassert itself to protect itself and its members. The best time to do this was years ago. There's no time like the present.
A popular front?
It's doubtful that Democratic and Republican members can make a broad alliance, if for no other reason than the hierarchical nature of the current party structure. But there are factions within the parties, and they have preferences.
For example, POLITICO's profile of Chip Roy suggests that he's smart enough to defend his faction's interests, i.e. opposition to raising the debt ceiling, against the big spending plans of Trumpism.
Mitch McConnell could lead the very different cold war faction in support of international commitments, although McConnell has shown he's more of a Hindenburg: trying to hitch Trump's populism to his conservative agenda, only to have his agenda hijacked by the Trumpism that he personally enabled. Read his interview last night with 60 Minutes and tell me if you disagree. Look specifically for this:
McConnell: I expect to support most of what this administration is trying to accomplish. So, what happened in the past is irrelevant to me.
We have seen Sen. Grassley speak out in defense of federal Inspectors General, and I bet many members will be unhappy with the trade wars.
I do hope that the politicians get a better political sense about what's important. For example, Sen. Warner's efforts to attack Tulsi Gabbard led to verbal attacks on Edward Snowden. It's not surprising a national security supremacist wouldn't like Snowden, but you would think the idea of a whistleblower who reveals unlawful government activity to the press would be something we could rally around at a time like this. It's the only way we're going to know what's happening inside the Trump administration, that is, besides reading Twitter and going on the fednews reddit page.
Similarly, you'd think that knocking out Trump appointees because they believe the federal courts should review governmental requests to spy on Americans is the wrong stance to take. Do you really want Trump using the intelligence apparatus to gather the domestic communications of Americans – gathered "incidentally" of course? Do you trust the DOJ's current procedures to hold? Come on, man.
How to Fix Congress
My friend Chris Nehls has written about efforts to map Congress as a system on his excellent substack. (Interactive map here.) This was part of an effort to improve Congress's functioning. This point is the most important:
Huge political forces may shape and constrain those choices, but we found a lot of individual agency inside the map. Members like to plead helplessness, but they can choose different paths because ultimately, they are the system. Different choices can lead to better outcomes.
Here are some of the key findings:
Increasing leadership control of the legislative process has hamstrung committees, which historically have been the policy engines of the institution.
The outcomes of leadership control, however, have diverged for the parties starting in the last Congress.
Democrats… have prioritized party unity over all else, particularly in the House.
The nationalization of elections and partisan activity has created another set of perverse incentives for members not only to toe the party line, but push the boundaries of partisan messaging.
Congressional oversight, which has enormous potential to rectify the problems of modern-day governance, essentially is captured by the agenda setting of the Executive Branch and rarely rises above the level of gotcha politics.
Institutional investments in information technology, policy knowledge resources, viable career pathways, and data literacy remain (despite some important wins) a problem with societal implications.
Chris's final point: "The most relevant divide today isn’t left-right, but democratic and authoritarian."
Congressional ethics
This probably doesn't count as Congressional ethics, but Congress has hired two "fake electors" as staffers. Legistorm reports Rep. Brian Jack hired Joseph Branna, and Sen. Dave McCormick hired Sam DeMarco. Just thought ya should know.
Corrupt former Senator Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison for a "gold bar bribery case." The former senator is now appealing to Trump for clemency, blaming political prosecutions. If you read between the lines in this POLITICO article, you can see which Democratic "leaders" were slow to call for Menendez's departure from the Senate.
The annual senate ethics report for 2024 was just released, and it shows that all our senators and their staff are just angels. Once again, no matter resulted in a disciplinary sanction. It is unbelievable. Literally unbelievable.
In addition, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights released its annual reports on "settlements" – payouts to staff of an "award or settlement in connection with a claim alleging" harassment or other issues. There's actually three reports and the way they report it is confusing.
Looking at the support offices and agencies, the U.S. Capitol Police appear to have paid out to four employees more than a combined $600k; the Library of Congress paid out to three employees around $18,500; the Architect of the Capitol Paid out to five employees roughly $243,000.
In the House of Representatives. Rep. Gimenez paid out $25,000.
In the Senate, the Senate Sergeant at Arms paid out $36,260.
These low numbers suggest that additional unlawful behavior is happening that is not being dealt with through OCWR.
The law that applied some workplace protections to Congressional employees is the Congressional Accountability Act. Roll Call's Jim Saksa looked back at the hard road to get it enacted in 1995. Let me remind everyone, political and non-political staff, that just about everyone who is not management is eligible to join or form a congressional union. I have a list of many of those congressional unions here.
Odds and ends
Why did the Republican Study Committee take down its list of members? That information was online last Congress, but that webpage was deleted.
Senator Gary Peters says he will not run for reelection. He is both ranking member of HSGAC and an appropriator.
What did the Modernization Subcommittee achieve? BPC takes a look back.
Video from an International Parliamentary Union event on AI and public engagement for parliaments is now online.
The Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds has released the 2025 edition of its Training Manual: Best Practices for Working with Whistleblowers (available on HouseNet). You can also check out the Office’s 2024 Annual Report and 119th Congress Strategic Plan.
I'm a big fan of news about the United States as if it were written by a foreign correspondent. Here's how overseas reporters would cover what happened here last week.
I didn’t write this week about anticipated floor votes and hearings in Congress. There will be a bunch of nominee hearings and votes in the Senate, but the rest of the public actions largely are not of significant importance or relevance to include here. The most important stuff is what’s happening in the background.
We do have a list of all House and Senate appropriators now and the subcommittees on which they serve. That will be the focus of a separate newsletter.
Truly appreciate this well-organized and readable summary on what’s happening and where we go from here in terms of public administration, politics, and governance. Three questions that I’d ask Daniel:
1. In the midst of the dismantling of administrative capacity, democratic norms, and rule of law, questions of “policy” feel completely obsolete apart from the dim background of “will they cut entitlements or not?” Should opposition members of Congress still be talking about policy and pushing a policy agenda? Does it even matter to push for any kind of economically progressive position on, say, energy policy when the entire legislative branch is functioning without any real governing power?
2. What does history and political theory tell us about the possibility of dramatic reform following a constitutional breakdown? Do you see a feasible path to achieve anything like Lee Drutman’s (Undercurrent Events) proposals around proportional representation and expanding the House?
3. How seriously should we take Trump’s ousting of the Joint Chiefs? What does this *actually* mean, considering the Orwellian parallels highlighted here?
The fairweather fidelity to the Constitution by Democrats is why we're here in the first place.
When FDR undermines the rule of law by threatening to pack the court in their eyes it's no big deal.
When Obama decides to seize farm land through the waters of the US rule hey that's cool.
And when Biden unconstitutionally stops evictions from happening it's all good.
Thus until Democrats come back to reality and embrace democratic norms, not just power grabs when it benefits them, then a too powerful executive branch is what we're stuck with.