First, apparently after watching Bill O’Reilly on Fox, the leader of the free world tweeted out some statistics referenced by the gadfly and notorious purveyor of false information (here, here, here and here). The facts were wrong, and Trump added his own, bizarre vow: “If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!” The actual number is 37 killings — far too much — and the shootings, while too high, are on par with the previous year. (The Post reports: “According to a police department spokesman, there have been 38 killings through Tuesday night, up from 33 at the same point last year. Shootings were even, with 182 shootings through this date both years.”)

Trump’s disinterest in verifiable, credible figures doesn’t surprise us (although you would think he, as president, would have some interest in getting good data). Let’s consider, however: “I will send in the Feds!” What does that mean? Surely he does not intend to send the military into Chicago (which would likely be illegal) nor activate the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago, does he? If he is talking about sending the FBI or Justice Department into supervise or investigate local police practices, that would be a shocking violation of the spirit of federalism, unless he is seeking to curb constitutional or statutory misconduct by the police (as President Obama began). In point of fact, Trump likely does not know what he means; he makes idle threats and shoots from the hip. In doing so, he destroys his own credibility (what’s left of it) and makes actual cooperation with local authorities that much more difficult. At least one Republican, Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), rapped the president. One wonders why the others do not stage an intervention.

AD

AD

Moreover, at some point, someone will ask Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s attorney general nominee, or Defense Secretary James N. Mattis what this is all about. We are confident they will say that they have no intention of taking over the Chicago policing function.

Second, Trump’s team, agitated that federal departments are continuing to put out actual facts (e.g. the National Park Service on crowd size, the Environmental Protection Agency on climate change), went on a tear, telling them not to engage on social media and/or take down information. (We leave aside for the moment the counterproductive, anti-scientific assault on climate change data for now.) There is nothing whatsoever wrong with an administration redoing its communications to align with policies, but with no political appointees there to put up replacement materials, these moves are easily characterized as part of a “gag order.” Trump’s notion that he can shut up a sprawling, enormous bureaucracy will lead him into trouble again and again. Employees will simply disregard his directive to run everything through the White House and will leak incessantly.

One requires skill, the presence of people with years of experience in dealing with the government (e.g. not billionaire chief executives who shout orders to employees) and good timing to avoid embarrassing episodes such as this one. No senior figure in the White House — Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway, Stephen K. Bannon or Jared Kushner — has a moment of experience in the White House not any clue, we can see, as to how to turn a giant bureaucracy in a new direction.

AD

AD