Buy Canadian. Buy Mexican. Support Friends.
Find a way.
Good Evening:
It’s actually a terrible Old Fashioned, but not because of the whisky, which is fine. Just way too much syrup.
Today on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher, the estimable Alicia Wanless, and I discussed the implementation of tariffs on Canadian goods. We also covered atheists, alternate uses for maple syrup, Ukrainian refugees, and whether EJ Wittes actually exists.
(EJ Wittes says: Descartes’s formulation is sufficient to persuade me that I exist. The real question is whether any of you people do.)
The issue has arisen as to whether I should make #GetReadyWithMe videos using all Canadian products. I assume the answer is yes?
A reminder that there will be no show tomorrow, and there will be no show on Monday. Because, you know, I’ll be in Argentina.
The Situation
I wrote a very angry and bitter “The Situation” column today about the Reuters story this morning that Donald Trump is contemplating revoking the temporary protective status of 240,000 Ukrainians. I confess that I have been surprised at how stoically a lot of Ukrainians are treating the news. I am not stoic about it. I’m enraged:
One possibility is that this is simply part of Trump’s larger war on foreigners in the United States. The Ukrainians here under temporary protective status and a separate program specifically for Ukrainians are in no sense illegal immigrants, but they are here under programs that are easily turned off, and you can deport a lot of people by simply revoking these parole statuses for Ukrainians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians and Afghans. And Trump clearly wants to juice the deportation numbers.
There was some reason to think that the Ukrainians might be in a different category from the others—for reasons both legitimate and disgusting. On the legitimate side, Ukraine is an active war zone, after all. But let’s also be candid: Ukrainians are, for the most part, white. And they’re not what anyone thinks of when they hear Trump’s vile rhetoric about migrants—or presumably what he is thinking about when he deploys rhetoric about pet eating and other such blood libels.
Most importantly, the Ukrainian government was, until Trump blew up the alliance over the last few weeks, a close ally, and it’s one that Trump wants things from. There was reason to hope that continuing to protect 240,000 vulnerable people was a trivially easy way to maintain good will.
But this brings me to the other possible motivation for this trial balloon. Since the Oval Office meeting the other day, the administration has suspended aid to Ukraine. It has paused intelligence sharing. Now “a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter” tell Reuters that the administration is poised to make a quarter of a million Ukrainians leave the country. And the administration denies it only to the extent that it denies having finalized the decision.
It’s hard not to see this as a pressure tactic directed at the Ukrainian government—and at Volodymyr Zelensky personally. Full pressure on all fronts. Fall in line and cooperate as the United States barters Ukraine’s fate with the genocidal Putin, and maybe some of that aid will start flowing again; maybe some of that intelligence Ukraine depends on will become available; and maybe we’ll let a whole lot of economically productive Ukrainians remain in the United States for another few months. But step out of line again, and we will make Ukraine feel it even at the level of children we have stepped up to shelter.
“And I'll be making the decision pretty soon."
This is gangster stuff. And while nothing about it is surprising, given who Trump is, it’s perilously close in a moral sense to hostage taking.
Today On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett
Foreign Assistance is Not an Article II Power
Scott Anderson explains that despite the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the president's foreign affairs powers under Article II, Congress retains authority over foreign assistance due to its power of the purse. Anderson emphasizes that the Trump administration’s claim of broad constitutional authority—one not backed by historical or legal precedent—may require the courts to intervene on the political question of foreign affairs:
Foreign assistance, however, has never been the subject of such ambiguity. Instead, it has always been seen as a natural extension of Congress’s constitutional authority “[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” under what is known as the Spending Clause. As the Supreme Court has described in prior foreign assistance cases, this clause “provides Congress broad discretion to tax and spend for the ‘general Welfare,’ including by funding particular state or private programs or activities.” And for decades the Supreme Court has maintained that “Congress’ power to allocate funds for public purposes includes an ancillary power to ensure that those funds are properly applied to the prescribed use” through the imposition of related statutory requirements, subject to certain limitations. Importantly, as Zachary Price recently wrote for Lawfare, these requirements have come to include statutory measures—specifically, the Anti-Deficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act—that reinforce Congress’s own constitutional authority to dictate the terms of federal spending by setting tight limits on when and how a president can either act without specifically appropriated funds or refuse to spend (or “impound”) funds once appropriated for a specific purpose.
Improving U.S. Intelligence Sharing With Allies and Partners
Daniel Byman identifies key challenges the United States must resolve to improve intelligence sharing with allied states, including disparities in cybersecurity standards, antiquated classification policies, and the tension between security and transparency. Byman also emphasizes the critical role of trust in intelligence sharing and the need for the U.S. to create stable mechanisms to strengthen partnerships:
Modernizing classification policies is imperative, recognizing that the skill of Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies is a serious challenge and that more sharing entails more risk. The U.S. should implement a tiered classification system that facilitates selective sharing with trusted allies, reducing the use of NOFORN and ensuring that crucial intelligence is not unnecessarily withheld. Additionally, expanding training for U.S. and allied officials, increasing preapproved intelligence-sharing agreements, and establishing clear pathways for automatic and real-time intelligence exchange can reduce bureaucratic delays.
Meta’s Move to Limit Fact-Checking Endangers Women—and Democracy
Melanne Verveer and Kristine Baekgaard detail the negative effects that Meta’s decision to end its fact checking program—eliminating safeguards against the spread of harmful content—will have on violence against women in digital spaces. Verveer and Baekgaard also highlight how a variety of actors use digital violence not only to undermine female politicians and attack women’s rights, but also to damage democracy:
Meta’s rollback is not a neutral policy shift—it is an abdication of responsibility that puts women, minority communities, and democracy at risk. Research consistently demonstrates that women’s leadership contributes to more equitable policymaking, reduces corruption, and strengthens democratic institutions. Women, in particular those from marginalized communities, seeking political office in 2024 faced intensified risks. Online threats drive women to disengage from public discourse, self-censor, or withdraw from political and professional opportunities altogether.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Quinta Jurecic sits down with Molly E. Reynolds and Eloise Pasachoff to discuss the impoundment crisis brought on by the Trump administration's efforts to withhold federal funds while Congress stays relatively silent. They talk about how things have developed since January, how the courts and Congress are responding, and how it might shape congressional negotiations to avoid a government shutdown as soon as March 15:
Videos
On Friday, March 7, at 4 p.m. ET, Natalie Orpett will speak to Anderson, Anna Bower, and Nick Bednar about the status of the civil litigation against President Donald Trump’s executive actions, including the firing of probationary employees, the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and foreign aid freeze:
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is an elephant with a refined culinary technique:
Digestion, it turns out, starts with the feet.
In honor of today’s Beast, try stomping on your next snack before eating it. It might taste better that way.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
 | A guest post by
|