Hard to predict how low can trump.2.0 sink, but this newly redesigned “Presidential Walk of Fame” sets a (temporary) record, with plaques (written in his appalling social-media style or lack thereof) by the Agent Orange himself that demean his predecessors and self-agrandizes his own actions, while rewriting history. Hard to find a precedent, except in the most sinister dictatures!
It was clear from day #1 of the Trump -2.0 presidency (or day #25 if waiting for JB Vance’s attacks at the 61st Munich Security Conference) that it no longer considered Europe as a de facto ally, that the European Union should be terminated for being “set up to take advantage of” the USA, and that that its regulations and institutions were attacking freedom of opinion—for far-right parties—and of conducting business—for American companies. The November National Security Strategy published by the White House makes this even clearer and shows how deeply it is aligned with the “great replacement” conspiracy theory of these white supremacy parties, as well as downsizing the Russian menace. Ghastly.
Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP (…) partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness. But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.
The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. (…) The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis. Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States (…) Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism. Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent (…) The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.
Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.
Read La Maison des veilleurs (last part of Le Cycle de Syffe) by Patrick K. Dewdney, still a pleasure to read (and even more to complete) if a wee too much skewed towards self-inspection by the main character, Syffe, and some unnecessary and homely episode. (And with a profusion of characters that I have mostly forgotten since Volume 1.) It remains an original series, the closest being Robin Hobb’s The Soldier Son trilogy, (Without the boarding school almost compulsory episode!) Alas, thrice alas, it is not yet over!!!
Given the profusion of cherries in our cherry tree (didn’t even bother with the second tree producing smaller and tarter cherries), made clafoutis, preserve, and marmalade for a ten-days, before a succession of rain and hot weather ruined the few kilos remaining in the tree, all at once. But raspberries, blackcurrants, rhubarb, and juneberries are still around for the picking, enough for all meals! I also planted buckwheat, hopefully more successfully than last year, when it did not appreciate my fortnight away in Venezia….
Watched The Residence, hilarious Cluedo-style sleuthing (and birding) taking place in the White House, “132 rooms. 157 suspects. One dead body”! With no connection with the current and all too real (if similarly unimpressive) resident and no political intent (except for the satire of a congressional hearing). With Uzo Aduba as The Detective and Giancarlo Esposito as The Murdered. There are plenty of characters (albeit not 157 of them!) and I am definitely missing on famous actors and other show references. Very light, obviously, but nonetheless funny.
In this new presidential order of 23 May 2025, Trump pretends to
“restore the scientific integrity policies of my first Administration and ensures that agencies practice data transparency, acknowledge relevant scientific uncertainties, are transparent about the assumptions and likelihood of scenarios used, approach scientific findings objectively, and communicate scientific data accurately”
repeating his goal in
“restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available”
where
““Weight of scientific evidence” means an approach to scientific evaluation in which each piece of relevant information is considered based on its quality and relevance, and then transparently integrated with other relevant information to inform the scientific evaluation prior to making a judgment about the scientific evaluation. Quality and relevance determinations, at a minimum, should include consideration of study design, fitness for purpose, replicability, peer review, and transparency and reliability of data.”
While the order that
“science [in a federal agency should be] conducted in a manner that is:
(i) reproducible;
(ii) transparent;
(iii) communicative of error and uncertainty;
(iv) collaborative and interdisciplinary;
(v) skeptical of its findings and assumptions;
(vi) structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;
(vii) subject to unbiased peer review;
(viii) accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and
(ix) without conflicts of interest”
sounds nice and dandy, incl. even a Popperian item!—while I highly doubt the Agent Orange has ever read anything from the author of Open society and its enemies—as well as an assessment of uncertainty and a critical look at the role of models—as if we were not, as a whole, following or trying to follow these tenets!—, the true intent of this order is to submit all research produced by federal agents and federally funded researchers to a vetting by political appointees before submission to a (vetted) scientific journal. As already been put into practice in some Departments. The rosy terms that set how science should be done are turned tupsy-turvy to the Trump administration Newspeak, while the purges in said administration render quality control more illusory than ever… Even the use of the term Gold Standard in a US policy declaration shows how little Trump understands about the term, given the USA abandoned at least twice the gold standard, in 1933 and 1978.
A few days after I wrote this piece, the New York Times published an article pointing out the above (in better terms) and reporting on an open letter from Stand Up for Science signalling the dreadful consequences of the executive order. With a primary correction to the above picture. And the central message that
We view this Executive Order as an escalation of the ongoing assault on science. The first six sections employ common scientific language to spell out a “gold standard” for science that would not strengthen science, but instead would introduce stifling limits on intellectual freedom in our Nation’s laboratories and federal funding agencies. Notably, the order comes from an administration that has already defunded areas of research they do not agree with, pushed vaccine misinformation despite widespread evidence, lied about the impacts of climate change, and incorrectly defined sex determination as binary, when biology proves it is not, in their own Executive Order. Throughout the document, scientific language is hijacked, and ideas are turned on their heads.
And then Andrew decided to discuss its ridiculness on 03 June and again on 03 June. (Which made me realize polygraphs are still used by US law enforcement agencies!)
 | David on Bayesian workflow [book review… |
 | Ewan on Tidy up, Claude! |
 | xi'an on Tidy up, Claude! |
| Ewan on Tidy up, Claude! |
| Ewan on Já við viðræðum. Já við Evrópu… |
