The Purge Has Begun
As Biden exits stage left, Trump enters stage right—and promptly clears the stage.
Your regular newsletter-er, Andrew Egger, is taking some much-deserved time off as he welcomes a new member of his family into the world. Congrats, Egger! But the news doesn’t stop, even if Andrew has. And, so, neither shall we. He’ll be back once changing diapers is no longer preferable to scrolling through X. It could be a while.
Happy Thursday!
Trump Takes The Axe to Turner
by William Kristol
As Donald Trump has said many times, he loves loyalty.
But as John Bolton has pointed out, the word “loyalty” isn’t quite right. In the United States, loyalty to a party leader or even a president doesn’t preclude loyalty to the law and the Constitution, or even loyalty to great causes like protecting our nation at home and helping Ukrainians defend theirs abroad.
No, Trump doesn’t demand loyalty as it should be understood in what has been, in what should be, the American meaning of the term. Trump demands personal loyalty to him. He wants lackeys.
That’s been made obvious by Trump’s nominations to key positions in the executive branch. Trump also wants it to be true with respect to Congress.
Yesterday, at Trump’s behest, Speaker Mike Johnson removed Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. The speaker called Turner—a veteran member of Congress and respected committee chair—into his office yesterday afternoon and told him he was out. As Turner told Margaret Brennan of CBS, Johnson cited “concerns from Mar-a-Lago” as justification for the removal.
What were those concerns?
First, Turner hasn’t been a Trump lackey. Though in my judgment he’s accommodated Trump more than he should have, he has also, as the New York Times put it, “on several occasions spoken critically about the president-elect.” Turner criticized Trump’s 2019 phone call with President Zelensky (though he voted against impeaching the president for the contents of that call). He voted to certify the 2020 election results (though he ended up supporting Trump’s re-election in 2024). He criticized Trump for calling January 6th convicts “hostages” and said that Trump’s taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago was “of grave concern.”
Perfectly reasonable assessments. Also, unacceptable to Trump.
Second, Turner took seriously the oversight responsibilities of the committee he chaired. He knew that knowledgeable congressional oversight of the executive branch’s intelligence agencies is important. He worked closely with the committee’s ranking Democrat, Jim Himes of Connecticut, to make the committee effective. He was able to do this despite the fact that last year, against Turner’s wishes, Speaker Johnson appointed two unqualified but subservient Trump lackeys to the committee: Reps. Ronny Jackson of Texas and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. But the committee under Turner’s leadership remained independent.
Yesterday, Himes—a sober and responsible Democrat—said the purge of Turner “sends a shiver down my spine” and that he is “enormously concerned.”
Or, as David Frum pithily summed up Trump’s concern about Turner: “Knew too much, too patriotic, had to go.”
The need for a competent and independent oversight committee during Trump’s second term may be obvious. But also, it’s unacceptable to Trump.
The third reason for the purge of Turner is surely Ukraine. Turner has been a powerful champion for the cause of Ukraine in the House, including during last year’s fight over Ukraine aid. He said then that Kremlin propaganda had affected the Republican party, and that “anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages” were being uttered even “on the House floor.”
The sudden removal of Turner suggests Trump may well be planning to move quickly after assuming office to impose a bad deal on Ukraine, or simply to sell out Ukraine.
Having someone like Turner in charge of an important committee, someone who might be able to discover secret talks that have been held, unannounced concessions that have been made, secret deals that have been struck with Vladimir Putin; someone who would object to them? Unacceptable to Trump.
What is to be done? Nothing in the House, I suppose. But the Senate has confirmation hearings coming up for two Trump nominees for key positions in the intelligence community, Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Kash Patel as director of the FBI.
The purge of Turner and the gutting of congressional oversight makes it even more important to deny Trump mere lackeys in key positions of great sensitivity and power. What’s unacceptable to Trump should be more than acceptable, it should be desirable, to at least four conscientious Republican senators.
Biden’s Farewell: Will it Be Forgotten?
by Jim Swift
Last night, Joe Biden gave his farewell address to the nation, capping off a fifty-year run in politics. A kid with a stutter from Scranton, Pennsylvania, he started his career in elected office impressively young. A member of the New Castle County Council, he ran for and won a seat in the U.S. Senate, meeting its minimum age requirement between his election and swearing-in, becoming one of the youngest members in the past half century.
Last night’s speech was a lot like the Biden presidency itself: good, meaningful, but mostly ignored. While the delivery was rough in patches, reminiscent of the debate performance that ended his 2024 campaign, the words were sincere. Full of thanks, aspirational, Biden shared his hopes for reforming the country and an Eisenhower-esque warning about a budding oligarchy and artificial intelligence.
Biden struggled to define “dark money,” a term not popular since the days of Citizens United and McCain-Feingold, which seem not as long ago as they actually were. His calls for term limits on the Supreme Court, for meaningful ethics reforms, and to ban Congressional stock trading were reasonable, and (in some cases) achievable.
His warning about artificial intelligence, I think, is the most interesting one that history will look back on.
Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families, and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.
Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy, and our security, our society. For humanity.
All very correct, and depressingly, precisely the reason why Jeff Bezos made sure his newspaper didn’t endorse, and why Mark Zuckerberg, too, will be on that inaugural platform on Monday.
Biden closed by reasserting our duty as citizens, a glimmer in his eye, reminding us that the irascible Irishman from Scranton we’ve known all along is still there:
“Now it’s your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America. You love it, too.”
Say what you will about Biden’s presidency and career—he is a patriot.
QUICK HITS
DO WE—DO WE?—HAVE A DEAL?: There’s finally a ceasefire deal in Gaza . . . for now. On the homepage, Will Selber explains why we shouldn’t get our hopes up. It’s all about the difference between a ceasefire and actual peace:
The deal the two sides agreed on has reportedly not changed much from the framework crafted last year, which would mean that it will proceed in three separate phases. . . .
The last stage consists of a permanent ceasefire as Gaza rebuilds. If that sounds vague and overly optimistic to you, you’re not alone. . . .
Everyone loves peace. Everyone wants to see the hostages released and returned to their families (except Hamas, of course). But no one should be under any illusions that the “permanent ceasefire”—if we even get that far—will be anything of the sort.
Instead, Hamas will rebuild, heal, and prepare for more attacks. Israel will rest, recover, and prepare to take the fight back to Hamas before the terrorist group can attack again.
As if to prove Will’s point, between the time that piece was published and this newsletter was sent, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that a “last-minute crisis” with Hamas was holding up Israeli approval of the deal. Perhaps he’s just waiting for Trump to be inaugurated. Perhaps these things are tenuous at best. Either way, read the whole thing, and while you’re at it, check out Selber’s new charity, Afghan American Veterans Alliance.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT BIDEN: Tom Malinowski, former Democratic New Jersey representative, had some interesting thoughts about Biden’s and Trump’s relative strengths and weaknesses when it came to the Israel-Hamas truce. Malinowksi, a former assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration, wrote:
This was Biden’s deal, but as much as I hate to say it, he couldn’t have done it without Trump—not so much Trump’s performative threats to Hamas, but his willingness to tell Bibi bluntly that the war had to end by Jan. 20. . . .
This is an oversimplification, and there are exceptions to the rule.
But I think the problem with Biden is that he believed in our values but not our power. Whereas Trump believes in our power, but not our values.
As Democrats, I hope we will learn hard lessons from both.
Here’s the full (short) thread.
THE BIG LIE IS NOW GOVERNMENT POLICY: Honestly, there’s not much to say about Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee beyond how maddening it was. On the homepage, Kim Wehle has the details:
Bondi was repeatedly asked during the hearing whether Joe Biden was legitimately elected; she refused to answer, merely conceding that he is currently the president of the United States. When pushed, she hinted that the Pennsylvania election in 2020 had problems with fraud, a claim for which there is zero evidence. That she cannot admit that the law has spoken on that subject in her audition for the job of the nation’s top prosecutor is disturbing, to say the least. . . .
Worse, Bondi refused to answer whether she would refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders, defensively declaring that she has no reason to believe Trump would ask such a thing. Nor would Bondi state that she’ll decline prosecutions of former Special Counsel Jack Smith or former Rep. Liz Cheney, who has been a vocal critic of Trump and was an outspoken member of the House January 6th Committee.
Actually, there is one more thing to say: At least it’s not Matt Gaetz.
CHEAP SHOTS
Congratulations, Andrew!
I just want to say that I'm so glad the Bulwark is keeping an eye on these purges. I know this is incredibly important, but I also know there isn't a darn thing I can do about it. But Bill, if you ever wonder if what you're doing is meaningful, I can say sincerely that it's very meaningful to me.
We've erred by saying Trump has been looking for "loyalty" all these years. I believe "fealty" would be more appropriate.