What Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer Have in Common

Hint: Both are terrible negotiators

Good Evening:

Riddle me this: What do Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer have in common?

Well, yes, both are from New York. But I was thinking more characterologically.

Here’s my answer: Both negotiate with terrorists and give away all their negotiating leverage preemptively.

In Trump’s case, the terrorist in question is Vladimir Putin—to whom Trump preemptively conceded Ukraine’s NATO membership and security guarantees and, when Putin then added a raft of conditions today to the US-Ukrainian cease-fire proposal, proceeded to declare that he was seeing “good signals” on the progress of negotiations.

In Trump’s case, the preemptive capitulation makes a certain amount of sense. He likes Putin (for whatever weird combination of reasons). He hates Ukraine (for whatever weird combination of reasons). And he’s infinitely corrupt. And he worships power.

In Schumer’s case, the terrorist is Trump himself, and the preemptive capitulation is a little more puzzling. Schumer tonight announced that he was supporting the Republican plan to keep the government open, even though he acknowledges that plan to be terrible. He will presumably deliver the Democratic votes to get it over the finish line, and in exchange for this remarkable service—given that the resolution in question does violence to major Democratic priorities—he demanded and got exactly nothing.

Now unlike Trump’s relationship with Putin, Schumer does not harbor some weird admiration for Trump. He doesn’t want him to succeed. He doesn’t secretly hate the DC government and want to cut its budget by a billion dollars. He doesn’t want to make a significant down payment on the DOGE cuts. He does not want to validate Trump’s impoundments.

He just seems to be ignoring the cardinal rule of negotiating with bad people: If you want to stop bad people from doing bad things, you need to show them you have both the capacity and the will get in their way. You need to create a seat at the table for yourself by denying them something that they want and forcing them to negotiate with you. In the current case, that means one thing: denying Trump the Democratic votes to pass this bill without Democratic input on the bill.

That’s the only job right now. It really is that simple.

---

Today on #DogShirtTV, I was once again broadcasting from the airport, so the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher once again came to my assistance. Holly talked Lindsey Graham, tuberculosis, and the uselessness of American teenagers. And then, when the live-streaming gods booted me offline for a few minutes, the estimable John Hawkinson came to her assistance to discuss whether we might actually invade Canada:

---

Today On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett

A Dynamic Governance Model for AI

Paulo Carvão, Yam Atir, and Salvina Ancheva outline a dynamic governance model for artificial intelligence (AI), in which public and private stakeholders create and implement evaluation standards, compliance, and legal liability systems through a three stage process. Carvão, Atir, and Ancheva argue that this model balances innovation and accountability, mitigates unregulated AI’s risks to democracy, and positions the United States as a leader in AI:

Today’s AI challenge requires a similar balance. Industry leaders emphasize the need for flexibility, arguing that overly stringent regulations could stifle innovation and push companies to operate in less restrictive jurisdictions. Policymakers, by contrast, stress the importance of regulatory mechanisms to ensure AI does not exacerbate inequality, increase fraud, or threaten privacy and national security.

The solution lies in a governance model that is adaptive, inclusive, and capable of evolving with technological advancements.

China Highlights Imbalance in U.S. Economic Security Strategy

Adam Tong warns that the Biden administration’s approach to economic security has inadvertently exposed the U.S. to supply chain threats from China, highlighting that the electric vehicle industry is vulnerable to critical mineral deficits and underpriced imports that hurt American manufacturers:

These vulnerabilities carry valuable lessons. Should tit-for-tat coercions escalate, China can now inflict actual costs on U.S. supply chains, with both commercial and national security implications. Previous Chinese responses to U.S. economic pressures were largely symbolic in practice. Other than using market access as leverage, Beijing wielded limited influence on foreign companies. This, however, has changed with China’s growing centrality to refined critical minerals on a global scale, many of which currently lack viable alternatives.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Van Jackson and Michael Brenes join Tyler McBrien to talk about their new book, “The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy.” They discuss the pitfalls of great power competition, the origins of the China threat, and why the U.S. should take a less aggressive approach to China:

Videos

On March 14 at 4 p.m. ET, I will speak to Scott R. Anderson, Matthew Boaz, and Anna Bower about the status of the civil litigation against President Donald Trump’s executive actions, including the freezing of the disbursement of federal funds, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the firing of probationary employees:

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is an adolescent king penguin who looks the way every adolescent human feels:

In honor of today’s Beast, be thankful you aren’t 13 anymore.