The Washington Post - 23.08.2019

FRIDAY, AUGUST 23 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A

T

he flood of bizarre pronounce-

ments and behavior from Presi-

dent Trump is likely to get

worse, I fear. He is now com-

pletely unfiltered — and, apparently,

increasingly untethered to reality.

Quick, can you name the White House

press secretary? Do you have any idea

what she looks or sounds like? Stephanie

Grisham has held that job for nearly two

months now, but if her name doesn’t

ring any bells, it’s because she hasn’t yet

given a single official press briefing.

Trump has foolishly decided to act as his

own exclusive spokesman, putting all

his prejudices, misconceptions, resent-

ments, insecurities, grudges and fears

on ugly display.

The result is what we witnessed

Wednesday on the White House lawn.

On his way to the waiting Marine One

chopper, Trump paused and took ques-

tions from reporters for 35 minutes,

unfazed by the midday 89-degree heat

and smothering humidity. He made

much news and little sense.

When he looked to the sky and pro-

claimed that “I am the chosen one,” he

was clearly referring to his trade war

with China. But you had to wonder

whether his egomania, which we’re

accustomed to, might have blossomed

into full-scale delusions of grandeur.

Again and again, he tried desperately

to compare himself favorably with his

predecessor, Barack Obama. He did so

by telling ridiculous lies that are easily

disproved by the historical record — no,

Obama didn’t institute the cruel policy

of separating thousands of migrant fam-

ilies at the border, Trump did; no,

Obama wasn’t denied permission to

land Air Force One in the Philippines.

You had to wonder whether Trump, who

was the loudest voice in the racist

“birther” movement, might have some

kind of obsession with Obama and his

continuing popularity around the

world.

Trump said he canceled his planned

state visit to Denmark because the Dan-

ish prime minister was “nasty” in calling

Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland

“absurd.” It is absurd, of course, but

leave that aside. It happens that Obama

is scheduled to visit Denmark in Sep-

tember. Might Trump have feared that

he would be met with protests and then

have to watch Obama bask in the adula-

tion of much bigger crowds?

We also heard Trump repeat and

amplify his offensive claim that Ameri-

can Jews who vote for Democrats are

being “disloyal” to Israel. The notion of

dual loyalty is a vile anti-Semitic trope

that goes back centuries. Does Trump

think dredging it up somehow helps him

politically? Or is it one of a host of

deep-seated ethnic and racial stereo-

types that he now blurts out because no

one is empowered to stop him?

If the president seems to be spiraling

out of control, it’s no doubt because he’s

frantically worried about losing his bid

for reelection — but also because the

insulation that once surrounded him

has been stripped bare.

Insider accounts of the Trump White

House have spoken of the rages, obses-

sions, fixations and biases that spill out

of the president behind closed doors.

But there were officials in place who

could temper his rashest impulses.

When he was chief of staff, John F. Kelly

even managed to establish some meas-

ure of control over the flow of informa-

tion to and from the president — a

necessity for any administration to be

able to set priorities and follow through

on them.

But Kelly is gone, along with everyone

else who had the stature, experience and

courage to at least try to make this mess

into a functional presidency. The infor-

mation flow? Now it’s whatever Trump

watches on Fox News — or hate-watches

on CNN or MSNBC — and immediately

tweets about.

Trump’s most influential remaining

adviser is Stephen Miller, the anti-

immigration zealot who survives by ap-

plauding and reinforcing Trump’s worst

instincts. When Trump said Wednesday

the administration wants to end birth-

right citizenship (which the Constitution

guarantees), everyone could guess where

that was coming from.

Cabinet members are like the guy in

the parade who walks behind the

elephant with a broom and dustpan.

After Trump abruptly canceled his trip

to Denmark, Secretary of State Mike

Pompeo hurried to offer words of reas-

surance to the Danish foreign minister.

Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, a

strident budget hawk his entire career,

has apparently just given up as the

deficit soars toward $1 trillion.

The nation and the world need a

competent, capable White House but

won’t have one anytime soon. Instead,

we’ve got a teetotaling president who

sounds like the angry guy at the end of

the bar, mouthing off about whatever he

sees when he looks up at the television.

Closing time can’t come fast enough.

[email protected]

EUGENE ROBINSON

An unfiltered,

untethered

presidency

A

s the Group of Seven prepares to

gather this weekend in Biarritz,

France, President Trump has ex-

pressed hope for the return of

Russia, the missing guest at the table.

But any consideration of this issue re-

quires dealing with Trump’s least favor-

ite subject — Russian cybermeddling in

U.S. elections.

The stark reality is that the United

States is now fighting a low-level cyber-

war to combat Kremlin political interfer-

ence and other malign actions.

U.S. Cyber Command launched this

“hunt forward” campaign last summer

to deter Russian meddling in the 2018

midterm elections. It’s part of a broader

strategy of “persistent engagement”

with adversaries.

If Trump truly wants to invite Presi-

dent Vladimir Putin to the 2020 version

of a re-christened G-8, there’s an obvious

price he should demand from Putin: a

verifiable commitment to stop Russia’s

egregious cyber-interference in the elec-

tions of the United States and other

members of the current G-7.

Trump this week floated the idea of

readmitting Russia, which had been

expelled from the then-G-8 in 2014 fol-

lowing its invasion of Crimea. “I could

certainly see it being the G-8 again,” he

told reporters before a meeting with

President Klaus Iohannis of Romania,

“because a lot of the things we talk about

have to do with Russia.”

That’s not a crazy idea. Gen. Joseph

F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, maintains a regular dia-

logue with his Russian counterpart.

After the latest meeting this week, a

Pentagon statement cited “the inherent

value of regular communication in order

to avoid miscalculation and promote

transparency.”

Meanwhile, the invisible cyberwar

continues, with Cyber Command dis-

patching teams to work with key allies to

identify and expose Russian malware. A

senior defense official provided new

details of this operation in an interview

this week.

The timeline of the 2018 elec-

tion-security effort is intriguing, because

it unfolded while Trump was publicly

discounting Russian election meddling

in 2016. The push began in May 2018,

when then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

tasked Gen. Paul Nakasone, the newly

appointed head of Cyber Command, to

work with the FBI and the Department

of Homeland Security to defend the

midterm elections.

The “Russia Small Group” was the

anodyne name given to the joint task

force created by Cyber Command and

the National Security Agency, both un-

der Nakasone’s command. By govern-

ment standards, it moved quickly: It was

formed in July, got legal operational

authority in August and began deploying

forward teams abroad in September and

October. Each of the teams was small,

and fewer than 50 people were sent

abroad in total.

The Pentagon has disclosed three

countries where Cyber Command teams

were deployed: Ukraine, Montenegro

and Macedonia (now called North Mace-

donia). With permission from these host

governments, the teams operated inside

their networks to collect malware the

Russians had planted on supposedly

secure systems. It was a treasure trove,

according to the senior defense official.

“What surprised us was how blatant

they were,” said the senior defense offi-

cial. “The activity was so pervasive.” The

forward-deployed teams discovered new

pieces of Russian malware, including

“rootkits,” which can allow an adversary

to control a target’s computer system

without being detected, “tunneling”

software that hides communications in

public networks, and other dangerous

tools.

The Russians were sloppy in attacking

networks of countries close to their

borders, the defense official said. “If you

think nobody is watching you, you don’t

try to cover your tracks.”

Then came public exposure: After the

malware had been analyzed at Fort

Meade, some of it was sent to an Internet

clearinghouse called VirusTotal, where

computer-security professionals could

analyze it and adopt countermeasures.

In October and November, 10 of these

malware tools were posted online, and a

half-dozen more have been added since,

the defense official said.

The campaign objective was to im-

pose costs on the Russians. “When you

lose a tool, somebody has to re-create it,”

which takes time and money, the official

said. Cyber Command also dropped call-

ing cards, so to speak, personally mes-

saging some of the hackers at the Inter-

net Research Agency in St. Petersburg.

The Post has reported, without rebuttal,

that Cyber Command operatives also

briefly shut down the Internet Research

Agency’s computer systems.

Cyber Command’s forward-deployed

campaign will continue to protect the

2020 election, the defense official said.

The message to Moscow is threefold, he

said: “We know what you’re doing. We

are united against you. Your behavior

has consequences.”

Even with this new U.S.-led campaign,

Putin isn’t likely to disarm what has been

such an effective cyber-campaign. But

the G-7 leaders, Trump most especially,

should make clear that’s the first re-

quirement for getting back in the club.

Twitter: @IgnatiusPost

DAVID IGNATIUS

A proviso for

Russia’s G-

readmittance

BY RUTH DEFRIES

AND DOUG MORTON

J

ust over 16 years ago, on a swel-

tering day along the southeast-

ern fringe of the Amazon forest,

we sat down to catch our breath

on a half-burned log. Plumes of

smoke on the horizon wafted toward

the sky, and the sound of chain saws

whirred in the distance. We couldn’t

have known that we were sitting in a

time and place that was rapidly ap-

proaching peak deforestation in the

Amazon this century. It was July 2003

in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso.

That moment comes to mind this

week, with reports that Brazil’s Ama-

zon has experienced a record number

of fires this year — the result of both

drier conditions and intentional burn-

ing to clear the forest. As smoke from

deforestation fires blankets the Ama-

zon once more, those in power have

responded by attacking government

scientists and attempting to bury facts

that the satellite record makes clear.

But lessons from Brazil’s own past

highlight the importance of these data

— and could show the path forward.

In 2003, we were on a mission with

our colleagues from the Brazilian

space agency, INPE, as part of a

collaboration between U.S. and Bra-

zilian scientists. The goal was to un-

derstand how the Amazon forest

stores massive amounts of carbon

that would otherwise trap heat in the

atmosphere and how trees recycle

water into clouds that sustain forests

and water crops far away.

Before we headed into the field, we

had huddled with our Brazilian col-

leagues around computers to analyze

data from a recently launched satel-

lite that sent images of the forest

every day. The new data were full of

promise, suggesting it might be possi-

ble to shrink the time between a

chain-saw crew cutting a forest tract

and INPE’s ability to map where that

deforestation occurred. With older

satellites, the gap between the event

and the information could be weeks

or months.

Could we trust the algorithms? The

only way to find out was to see for

ourselves. So we marked on a map the

places to check. After crossing rivers

on shaky wooden bridges, changing

numerous flat tires and pushing vehi-

cles out of the sand, we arrived at one

of the spots marked on the map. Sure

enough, a thick chain dragged be-

tween two tractors had ripped out the

trees by their roots. At a second spot,

piles of dead trees still smoldered. A

third spot also had telltale signs of

recent deforestation. And a fourth, a

fifth and a sixth. Each clearing was as

big as an Iowa cornfield. The algo-

rithm was spot on.

As we sat on the log, we looked at

each other in dismay. We were thrilled

with the accuracy of the algorithm,

but distraught at what it meant. Pas-

ture for cattle and fields for soy to ship

to Europe and Asia were replacing

towering trees. Satellite images pro-

vided the big picture. The Amazon

forest was disappearing before our

eyes.

Our Brazilian colleagues put their

technical skill and dedication to their

mandate into action. For decades, the

Brazilian government has had the

best system in the world to track its

forests. INPE’s estimates are the gold

standard to officially document

changes in the forest. The key has

been transparency: Satellite images,

methods and results are all shared

with the world. And their work made

a difference. Data alone cannot keep

the forest standing, but without data,

even the best policies cannot go into

action.

In the following years, deforesta-

tion rates plunged with government

policies that combined carrots and

sticks for ranchers and farmers. The

tired rationale that standing forests

get in the way of progress toppled.

With better-managed pastures and

fields, ranchers and farmers pro-

duced even more beef and soy despite

restrictions on new clearings. Brazil

became the shining example for other

countries blessed with vast remaining

tracts of lush tropical forest. Tracking

deforestation from satellites became

nearly as routine as an annual check-

up.

With the seemingly pervasive shift

in political winds, the shining model

of Brazil’s success is losing its sheen.

Deforestation is inching upward, an

observable fact known from INPE’s

own system and other sources. Brazil-

ian President Jair Bolsonaro — who

has made opposition to environmen-

tal policies a pillar of his platform —

doesn’t like these facts. Because the

reality gets in the way of unearthing

valuable minerals, satisfying the

clamor for cash crops and building

massive infrastructure, he is using the

all-too-familiar tactic of claiming

truth is a lie and cutting off the

fact-checkers. Yet this comes at great

cost.

In the years since we sat on the log

at the edge of the deforestation fron-

tier, Brazil demonstrated to the world

that effective policies can curb the

damage. But our planet’s most vital

assets can never be completely safe

from political upheavals that reverse

course on earlier gains. Successes

take years of hard work and technical

expertise from many talented people,

such as our INPE colleagues. As the

chain saws buzz once again, we stand

in solidarity with the truth — the

satellite record of forest loss for the

world to see.

Ruth DeFries is the Denning university

professor of sustainable development at

Columbia University, a MacArthur fellow

and the author of “The Big Ratchet: How

Humanity Thrives in the Face of Natural

Crisis.” Doug Morton is chief of the

Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s

Goddard Space Flight Center. The views

expressed are their own.

The Amazon is on fire. But

Brazil’s history offers lessons.

©2019 MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A satellite image shows fires burning in Brazil’s Rondonia state in the Amazon River basin on Aug. 15.

T

here are lots of reasons to worry

about how President Trump

would handle a recession, should

we tip into one. There’s his in-

competent economic team. Or the limited

fiscal policy tools at his disposal, given

that Republicans already spent nearly

$2 trillion on tax cuts. Or his efforts

to discredit the Federal Reserve just when

we’ll need it most.

One underrated concern: Trump’s ten-

dency to double down on stupid and

destructive ideas, despite — perhaps be-

cause of? — overwhelming evidence of

their stupidity and destructiveness.

Trump’s worst policies, economic or

otherwise, tend to follow a pattern. First,

he posits something like: Sure, the ex-

perts say that <insert bad idea> has

predictably high costs and bad conse-

quences. But ignore them! Believe me, it’s

a great idea, and it’ll be completely

costless.

To wit: Tax cuts will pay for themselves,

without injury to deficits. China will pay

all the tariffs, without harm to U.S. im-

porters, manufacturers, retailers, farm-

ers. Mexico will pay for the wall, without

costs to U.S. taxpayers or international

relations.

Free lunches, all around.

Then when it becomes clear those

lunches weren’t free — in fact, they were

quite pricey — the pitch changes. Okay,

Trump and his cronies admit, maybe

we’re suffering some pain now. But that

pain will be worth it, because eventually

it will pay off.

Someday the tax cuts will pay for

themselves. Someday the trade war will

pay off. Someday Mexico will pay for the

wall.

In fact, to get us closer to someday, we

just need more tax cuts, more tariffs,

more fights with neighbors to the south.

Because, hey, you know what they say: If a

bad idea doesn’t work out, just make that

bad idea even bigger.

Learning from mistakes and reversing

course are never options; wishing away

the foreseeable fallout always is. That

wishing-away is also a team effort, and

one that predates Trump. Republicans

have for years been lying that tax cuts will

eventually pay for themselves, if we’re

only patient.

Ask Kansas how that worked out.

Even so, Team Trump has lately elevat-

ed this goal-post-moving to an art form.

Consider how White House aides first

publicly dismissed any indication that

recession risks were rising, insisting that

Democrats and the media were fabricat-

ing such fears. Then White House acting

chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowl-

edged to GOP donors this week: Okay,

okay, we might have a recession, but it’ll

be “moderate and short.”

Sounds an awful lot like, “Recessions

are short and easy to win.”

Other Republican officials have been

aiding and abetting Trump’s pigheaded-

ness, too, in some cases hoping to turn it

to their advantage.

On Thursday, for instance, Sen. Rick

Scott (R-Fla.) cheerfully tweeted that he’d

spoken with White House National Eco-

nomic Council Director Larry Kudlow

about the economy. Scott concluded from

their discussion that Congress should use

Treasury’s supposed tariff revenue wind-

fall to come up with a plan to cut taxes

elsewhere. Kudlow recently confirmed

Trump’s interest in this idea.

Which raises a couple of questions.

First of all, isn’t that tariff revenue

allegedly already earmarked for farmers?

And second, tariffs are themselves taxes;

so if you want to use Trump’s tariffs as an

excuse to cut taxes, why not just... cut

the tariffs? After all, it’s these very import

taxes — and not taxes on capital gains,

corporate profits, even payrolls — that are

threatening economic growth.

Oddly, Republicans always seem to

believe that tax cuts will pay for them-

selves through higher growth — except

when the taxes in question are Trump’s

tariffs.

The reason, of course, is that positing

this would require forcing the president

to admit error, something he’s less and

less likely to do the worse things get.

Indeed, should economic growth not just

slow (as it already has) but reverse, one

could imagine him becoming even more

protectionist, more isolationist, more in-

sistent that the world is zero-sum.

We got a glimpse of this Thursday,

when Trump complained how unfair it

was that Germany, one of nine major

economies now in or on the brink of

recession, enjoys the privilege of offering

negative sovereign debt yields. Trump

sees this not as a sign of a country in crisis

but rather a country somehow trying to

cheat the United States.

The possibility of a synchronized glob-

al downturn would require some sort of

coordinated global policy response, just

as it did a decade ago during the Great

Recession. But rather than evaluating

how we got to the present situation, or

how to make amends with the allies we

might need to help get us out of it, we

already know what Trump’s objective will

be: proving his very wrong ideas were

very right all along.

[email protected]

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Would Trump double down in a downturn?

The insulation that once

surrounded Trump

has been stripped bare.