A Valentine for Vladimir

Plus: How did the federal government take $80 million out of a private bank account?

After January’s inflation numbers, published yesterday, seemed to indicate expectations of more price hikes under Trump, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has a warning for the president that the policies he’s been doggedly committed to for decades could be bad for the economy.

We’re lucky they’re on the case, because he’ll definitely listen to them, right?

---

Painted Matryoshka dolls also known as Russian nesting dolls, bearing the faces of Russian President Vladimir Putin and USA President Donald Trump on display in a souvenir shop in St. Petersburg, Russia, on May 31, 2020. (Photo by Sergey Nikolaev/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The Coming End of the International Order

by William Kristol

Last night on CNN, discussing Donald Trump’s planned betrayal of Ukraine, John Bolton stated that Vladimir Putin “couldn’t be happier.”

“They’re drinking vodka straight from the bottle in the Kremlin,” Trump’s former national security adviser added. “A big day for Moscow.”

This morning in Moscow, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged that Moscow was “impressed” by the point of view of the new Trump administration. That’s a diplomatic way for him to put it. Yesterday was a victory for Moscow and for Putin. And it was a defeat for the United States and Ukraine, and for the international order and the cause of freedom.

This shouldn’t, I suppose, have come as a surprise. Trump has long indicated an unwillingness to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin’s aggression. He and his supporters have at times blamed Ukraine for being invaded. But one couldn’t help but hope that Trump might be awakened to the disastrous consequences of appeasing Putin. It now seems clear that longshot hope was in vain.

In what Trump lauded as his “highly productive phone call”—in which he and Putin “agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations”—Trump personally undermined the three-year-long international effort to isolate the Russian dictator and to resist his aggression.

Earlier in the day, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. While in Brussels, he also told the Europeans that Europe would have to bear the brunt of the burden of any further help for Ukraine. Indeed, he went further, upending almost eight decades of American foreign policy by going out of his way to, in his words, “directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

Later, in the Oval Office, Trump was asked if he viewed “Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?” Trump responded: “It’s an interesting question. I think they have to make peace. That was not a good war to go into.”

Now one might try to correct Trump by explaining that Ukraine did not choose to “go into” that war, that Ukraine has been resisting a brutal invasion by a dictator seeking to destroy Ukraine as an independent nation.

One might try to persuade Trump and Hegseth that history teaches us that Europe will not fare well without a clear U.S. commitment to its defense and without U.S. leadership of the alliance.

One might try to explain to the Trump administration that the whole post-World War II global order will be endangered by American retreat in Ukraine. And one might further explain that a collapse of trust in American’s willingness to uphold that order will weaken the United States, that our strength and power depends on our allies trusting us and our adversaries fearing us.

But these explanations would be in vain.

The problem isn’t that Trump doesn’t understand that he’s laying the groundwork for Ukraine to lose. He doesn’t care if Ukraine loses.

The problem isn’t that Trump doesn’t understand he’s giving a massive victory to Putin. He wishes Putin well. He’s on Putin’s side.

The problem isn’t that Trump doesn’t understand that the Europeans are very unlikely to fare well without us solidly at their side. He doesn’t care if a free and democratic Europe fares well.

The problem isn’t that Trump fails to see the consequences of a betrayal of Ukraine for the international order. He doesn't like the post-World War II international order. That’s the meaning of “America First.”

And of course the problem isn’t that Trump doesn’t grasp that he’s weakening the cause of freedom and democracy in the world. He doesn’t care about the cause of freedom and democracy, at home or in the world. He seems to prefer autocracy and dictatorship.

The problem isn’t that Trump doesn’t understand what he’s doing. It’s that he knows what he’s doing.

---

Musk and the Great Citibank Heist

by Martyn Wendell Jones

Elon Musk appears to be expanding the remit of his work with the Department of Government Efficiency. Not only is Musk (often illegally) putting parts of government he doesn’t like “into the wood chipper,” canceling congressionally appropriated funding at his whim, but he is also forcing the government to take back federal money that in some cases it has already disbursed into private bank accounts.

That was the shocking news out of New York City, where the city’s chief financial officer, Comptroller Brad Lander, announced yesterday that his team had discovered an $80.5 million hole in their ledgers. Disbursed to the city on February 4, the money had been appropriated by Congress in 2024 and allocated to FEMA’s Shelter and Services program, which provides temporary accommodation to recently arrived migrants. A city official familiar with the matter told The Bulwark that the city’s funds are maintained in accounts at more than two dozen commercial banks, and that the disappeared FEMA money had been held in a private account at Citibank.

Around 5 a.m. the Monday after the money was disbursed, Musk wrote that he would be “making a clawback demand” to “recoup” money he claimed FEMA was using to pay for “high end hotels for illegals” in New York. FEMA fired four employees in the wake of Musk’s post, and by Wednesday morning, the money the city had received from FEMA for Shelter and Services had disappeared. In a post yesterday afternoon, DHS secretary Kristi Noem confirmed that her agency, which oversees FEMA, had taken it back.

“Let’s be clear: this is highway robbery,” Lander said during a press conference about the vanished funds yesterday afternoon. The federal government had already “allocated, authorized, awarded, invoiced, and paid” the full amount to the city, he said, “and then Elon Musk, with no legal authority, [seized] it.”

What’s more, Musk’s characterization of the way the FEMA money was used—to put immigrants up in luxury hotels—is false. Lander said the Shelter and Services program caps its expenditures for nightly shelter at $12.50, with the rest of the cost of a night spent in a tent or a hotel being made up out of the city’s own funds.

According to the person familiar with the matter, Citibank did not give any advance notice to the city before transferring its money back to the federal government, leaving Lander’s financial team to discover the missing money for themselves the morning after the money was already taken.

How was this seizure of money from a private bank account carried out, and why was no notice given to the city before $80 million was taken out of its pocket? Citigroup’s public affairs department did not respond to a request for comment.

Hanging over all of this is the awkward, evolving relationship between New York Mayor Eric Adams and the Trump administration. Lander criticized Adams for being Trump’s “pawn,” an apparent reference to the mayor getting corruption charges against him dropped by federal prosecutors just days ago. Adams, who has tried to improve his standing in Trump world by signalling more cooperation with the president’s deportation raids, said he was going to talk to the White House about getting the FEMA funds back.

“The Corporation Counsel is already exploring various litigation options,” Adams added.

---

Quick Hits

NOT WHAT THEY EXPECTED: Elon Musk and DOGE offered millions of federal employees a “fork in the road,” and, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, almost all of them didn’t take it.

Semafor reports that 75,000 federal employees accepted the administration’s “buyout plan,” which is really deferred resignation that may or may not have special incentives—namely, exemption from the administration’s return-to-work order and pay until September. (The figure comes from a “senior administration official,” so if you think the number might be inflated, you’re not alone.)

For context, the New York Times explains that, of the roughly 2.3 million federal civilian employees, about 146,500 quit or retire each year. To put it another way, roughly half the federal employees who could be expected to leave government service this year looked at Musk’s offer and said No thanks.

Musk had estimated that his offer could entice 5 to 10 percent of the federal workforce. Instead he ended up with something closer to 3.25 percent.

Musk’s goal of saving the government money by gutting it of its people will continue apace, as he’s now in the phase of mass-firing those who have the fewest workplace protections (those on so-called probation). But phase one (enticing them to leave) failed. The sturm und drang and litigation around his wacky buyout plan probably ended up losing money because of the costs of defending it in court.

---

LET LOOSE THE DOGE OF WAR: Musk and his band of twenty-something know-nothings have acquired their next target. But don’t expect shock and awe. After all, Musk has skin in this game. NOTUS reports that Senate Republicans are eager for the Pentagon to get the DOGE treatment—“so long as it isn’t like what Musk’s team did to USAID.”

“We can’t say, ‘It’d be more efficient,’ but not be ready to go fight a war. We’ve got to still be prepared,” Sen. James Lankford told NOTUS. . . .

Still, Sen. Joni Ernst told NOTUS she was “very, very excited … to see a lot of the waste eliminated. We’ll make it leaner, more efficient.” . . .

“I think it’s absolutely necessary,” Sen. Todd Young said. “If we can responsibly turn the Pentagon into a triangle, I’m all for it.”

Other Republicans mixed their support with a little more apprehension:

“While we’re certainly looking for efficiencies, there are security concerns,” Sen. Roger Wicker, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told NOTUS.

Wicker said he wants to see the department take steps to limit waste, but the fact that much of the military’s work is classified means its internal operations should be handled very carefully.

“I hope the administration and Mr. Musk can be mindful of that,” he said. . . .

The Department of Defense is such an enormous, sprawling, and complicated organization that it has never successfully completed an audit. How these Republicans expect a few junior engineers with no knowledge of government, defense policy, or accounting—and without security clearances (assuming they respect such matters)—to accomplish the feat without slashing and burning is a mystery.

When Musk’s team does arrive at the Pentagon and open the books, they’re likely to find some disappointing facts. While it’s easy to point to expensive weapons systems that never get built or too-cozy contracts with defense contractors as easy targets for cuts, acquisitions is not where DoD spends most of its money. The biggest cost category is operations and maintenance, followed by personnel costs.

Let’s see what Republicans say if DOGE starts cancelling maintenance or cutting pay. Or if they dare touch Elon’s projects.

---

STAYING SILENT DOESN’T WORK: As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cruises toward confirmation to be secretary of health and human services, Politico reports that the opposition cavalry never arrived. In fact, they never woke up:

From drugmakers to doctors’ organizations, groups thought to have the clout to steer policy and funding in Washington because they enjoyed bipartisan support and huge lobbying budgets have remained silent about Kennedy. They haven’t spoken up even though he has accused them of fraud and conspiracy, and promised to hold them accountable.

That’s not because they aren’t worried, but because they didn’t think they could stop him — or think the cost of speaking out would be too steep, five people representing health groups, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said. By staying mum, they hope to limit the fallout if Kennedy follows through on his plans to strip the industry to the studs. . . .

“They think he’s the wrong person for the job,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, one of the few groups to openly decry Kennedy’s bid to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. “With good respect to all my buddies, they’re making the false assumption that if they stay silent, they will get something in return.”

What Politico is describing is basically the same thought process that so many traditional Republicans had in the Trump years: If I pretend to go along with all of this, then somewhere down the line, when it really matters, I can oppose it. And it will mean something because I’ll have bought good will with the MAGAs. And then, at least, it will be responsible, sober me here, rather than some wacko MAGA who would have won their primary against me. And that’s better.

Except it’s obviously not better. Let’s break it down:

1. If I pretend to go along with all of this, then somewhere down the line, when it really matters, I can oppose it. How will you know when it really matters? You can’t see into the future. Chances are, when it really matters, you will do the same thing—go along to get along.

2. And it will mean something because I’ll have bought good will with the MAGAs. The MAGAs don’t care about good will. They care about power.

3. And then, at least, it will be responsible, sober me here, rather than some wacko MAGA.If anything, there’s an argument that the true MAGAs might be preferable, because while they’re dangerous and loony and morally offensive, at least they’re honest about who they are.

---

Cheap Shots