Round-up: Shutdown messaging wars. Trump and the Nobel. Tariffs are back.

Analysis of the week's events

Thanks for reading America Explained! Paid subscriptions are what keeps this newsletter a going concern, so please upgrade if you’re able to spare a few dollars or euros or whatever (I’m not picky!) a month to support independent journalism and to access all of our posts. And as always, students and educators can get a full subscription for free - just drop me a line.

Muddying the shutdown message

The U.S. government is still shut down. And the way the politics is developing, this could turn out to be a very long shutdown indeed.

Usually government shutdowns follow a predictable script. One side refuses to pass a budget, citing some policy disagreement. The government shuts down, and the other party holds to a consistent refrain that goes something like “we don’t know what these other clowns are up to, but we just want to reopen the government”. That message lands pretty well with the public, who gradually turn on the side causing the shutdown, and eventually that side folds.

This time looks different, mainly because the Trump regime has a slightly different message. They don’t want to just reopen the government, they want to use the shutdown as an opportunity to inflict as much pain on the bureaucracy - and Democrats - as possible.

The White House has gone about doing this in roughly three ways. Firstly, it has used the shutdown as an opportunity to cancel funding which benefits blue states. Secondly, it has begun plans for mass layoffs of government workers under a dubious legal theory which says the shutdown allows it to fire anyone it wants. Thirdly, Trump has suggested that the White House might seek to not give furloughed workers back pay once the government reopens.

These moves are flipping the shutdown script. Usually, the side opposed to the shutdown presents it as a sad and regrettable occurrence that they want to end as quickly as possible. The Trump White House is instead gleefully using it as an opportunity to attack its enemies.

And that is bound to change how the politics of this shutdown unfolds.

For a start, the White House’s approach is making the messaging war more complicated than usual. The fact that Trump seems to be revelling in the shutdown makes it harder to shift all of the blame onto the Democrats. And indeed, polling is showing that Republicans are currently getting more blame than Dems, even if the latter hardly get off scot free either.

Secondly, the White House’s approach is going to make it even harder for Democrats to back down. Democratic leadership is currently largely motivated by the desire to look tough to the party’s base, and folding in the face of the White House’s tactics would strongly undermine that image. Democrats want to draw a line against Trump’s abuses of power, so surrendering in the face of them is the last thing they want to do.

Thirdly and finally, it also matters that much of what Trump wants to do is if dubious legality. Giving back pay to furloughed workers is not some sort of act of charity - it is required by law. Using the shutdown to lay off tranches of civil servants is most likely not legal either. This only intensifies points one and two - the politics and messaging around this is bad for the White House, and Democrats don’t want to legitimize the White House’s illegal actions.

All of this is to say that we could well be in for a long shutdown. The politics are more complicated than usual, and give Democrats greater incentive to hang on. So while thing can always turn on a dime, right now I don’t see much room for optimism.

Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize

The campaign for Trump to get the Nobel Peace Prize was classic MAGA: something that seems perfectly reasonable if you stew in the far right worldview but which looks like gaslighting or a bad joke to the rest of us.

Start by considering what the Nobel Peace Prize is usually awarded for. There have certainly been examples of it being awarded for feats of international diplomacy, such as when it went to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their efforts to end the Vietnam War in 1973. But generally the prize is awarded for efforts to advance peace within countries - specifically, for opposing dictatorship. Other times, it goes to individuals or organizations that work on transnational challenges like poverty.

Recent winners include Narges Mohammed, “for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all”, Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, “for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace”, and the World Food Programme, “for its efforts to combat hunger”.

This is a group that Trump clearly does not fit into. You get the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to transition countries from dictatorship to democracy, not the other way around.

Tariffs are back

Trump has once again imposed massive tariffs on China. Sort of.

Yesterday, in response to China placing new export restrictions on rare earths, Trump announced that he would will place 100% tariffs on all goods from China beginning November 1st. Markets were already down amid earlier signs of escalating tensions between the two countries, and Trump waited until they were closed before making this announcement.

In case you missed it, in July I wrote a two-part piece called ‘Trump is losing the trade war with China’. I like to think it still holds up pretty well, so I won’t repeat it all here. But this latest move is an example of what I was talking about back then.