Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump: A bigger factoid president than Nixon? – Salon

The word factoid has now become a factoid. In an ironic, postmodern twist, most people now confuse the definition of the term, believing that it represents a small piece of statistical data. In the past week alone, writers for TheWashington Post,Houston Press and thePhiladelphia Tribunehave misused the word in the implication that a factoid is something that is true or empirically verifiable. Matt Bruenig, in a recent column, provides a typically maddening example while attempting to analyze demographic information aboutsupporters of Donald Trump: So, in addition, to the above factoid, its also true that most of Trumps voters are not white working class people.

Ignorance of the actual meaning of factoid is a perfect demonstration of Americas contemporary failure to separate the authentic from the artificial, and the demonstrable from the deceptive.

Norman Mailer coinedthe word factoid in 1973 to describe ideas or information perceived by the publicas facts but actually dubious or instruments of obfuscation. Writing in his brilliant and almost psychedelic biography of Marilyn Monroe, Mailer described an earlier book on the Hollywood starlet as a book with facts embellished by factoids, that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority.

During an interview shortly after the publication of Marilyn, Mailer surveyed the sociopolitical damage of factoids: A factoid is a fact which has no existence on earth other than whats appeared in the newspaper and then gets repeated for ever after. So people walk around as if it is a blooming lively fact.

As one of the pioneers of literary journalism, Mailer not only inventeda word but deployed it against his critics and as a weapon against the so-believed supremacy of traditional, objective journalism. Marilyn, as many readers pointed out immediately afterits release, is full of exaggerations, innuendos and interpretive license. The difference between Mailer and the dispensers of factoids, as he would explain, is that heembraced and advertised his subjectivity, often calling even his nonfiction books, such as his masterpiece The Executioners Song, true life novels. Mailer described his account of the 1967 anti-war march on the Pentagon, The Armies of the Night, with the subtitle History as Novel, The Novel as History.

Mailer, along with Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion and other new journalists, convincingly argued that celebrating subjectivity and personal narration, while introducing the tactics of fiction in reportage, leads to more honest journalism. Human nature renders even the most seemingly and intentionally neutral reporting as biased and narrow. Too many writers and commentators, suffering under the strain of a small imagination, pollute the atmosphere with factoids. Members of an uninformed and incurious public inhales the pollutant, then proceed to cough it up in every room thattheyenter. Public discourse soon becomes sick.

The injection of factoids into the American ecosystem is not merely the fault of reporters, but often the deliberate assault of politicians who seek to advance a dangerous agenda through the manipulation of a frightened and gullible citizenry. It is possible, for example, Mailer wrote, That Richard Nixon has spoken in nothing but factoids during his public life.

Mailers indictment of the Silent Majority as particularly vulnerable to the theatrics and theories of paranoia is illuminative, given that throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump the large print, abridged, childrens version of Richard Nixon continually referred to his whining constituency as the silent majority. It was one of many Nixonian phrases that Trump resurrected, but even more than the rhetoric, Trump re-engineered Nixons tactic of persuasion through factoid for an electorate with a shortened attention span and enlarged appetite for cruelty and vulgarity.

Crooked Hillary, Trumps nickname for his election opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was nothing more than the weaponization of the factoid that Clinton was irredeemably corrupt. A large percentage of Americans believe that she is guilty of everything from murder to running the State Department as a sophisticated Mafia operation on behalf of her husband. Actual evidence that is, facts instead of factoids verifying the charges is in short supply.

The two main issues of the Trump platform, aside from misogyny and bigotry, were immigration and trade. While Trump has taken the dishonesty to new sewer-level depths, he did not create, but only took advantage of, the parochial and false perceptions about globalization among the American public. Almost entirely built from factoids, national opinion on immigration imagines masses of Mexicans invading the United States, threatening to destroy civil society. At some point the factoid naming illegal immigration as a crisis emerged, and even many Democrats feel its necessary to acknowledge the problem of porous borders before advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. The truth is that illegal immigration is at a low pointand, as many studies have proved, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

Trump, who even worse than Nixonseems incapable of uttering a truthful sentence, launched his campaign with an insane declaration aboutstopping the so-called illegal Mexicans who are rapists bringing crime and drugs.

The factoid abouttrade is that it costs Americans millions of jobs. It is certainly true that trade has resulted in the loss of some jobs, but factual research has demonstrated that this is a mere fraction when compared withthe jobs being eliminated through technological automation. TreasurySecretary Steve Mnuchin recently boasted of the Trump administrations separation from reality, telling an interviewer curious about his response to artificial intelligences inevitable disruption of the job market that it is not even on our radar screen. It is 50-100 years away.

President Trump continually bemoans the sad state of the depleted military, allowing another dangerous factoid to thrive in political debate. The American military is the most highly funded public institution in the United States and possibly the entire world, given that the U.S.budget is roughly the size of the nextseven military budgets combined, according to NationalPriorities.org.

The United States under Donald Trumps influence is one where beliefs and policies form entirely out of factoids (Obamacare is imploding, etc.), and dramatic anecdotes. Rather than dealing with the reality of declining immigration and the lack of criminality among most immigrants, Trump and his sycophants discuss horrific stories of illegal immigrants murdering innocent citizens. The Trump administration governs with a combination of the worst persuasive tactics, creating an amalgamation of the con man, the Madison Avenue adman and the shallow newsman.

Norman Mailer once announced his modest literary goal of making a revolution in the consciousness of our time. For all of his flaws, he understood that culture is an invention and that something like a factoid is not easily erasable. Once it exists, its lifespan is long and ugly.

A revolution in consciousness requires that people rescue art from advertisement, truth from lies and facts from factoids. Getting right the meaning of the word factoid is a good place to start.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump: A bigger factoid president than Nixon? - Salon

I made an exact replica of Donald Trump in ‘The Sims 3’ and a lot of wild things happened – Mashable


Mashable
I made an exact replica of Donald Trump in 'The Sims 3' and a lot of wild things happened
Mashable
Donald Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Does he love Paul Ryan? Does he want the Speaker of the House to step down? Will the whole world be a barren wasteland by the time my future children are in 8th grade? The Sims 3, on the other hand, is a ...

Read the rest here:
I made an exact replica of Donald Trump in 'The Sims 3' and a lot of wild things happened - Mashable

How Donald Trump crippled U.S. technology and science policy – Recode

It took a mere seven days before Silicon Valley called off its truce with Donald Trump.

The first shot came in the form of a highly anticipated executive order, Trumps Jan. 27 directive prohibiting travelers and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from coming to the United States. Trumps initial ban would eventually be overturned, but his political salvo drew a swift and sharp rebuke from a tech industry that relies on foreign workers and had been seething for months over his election.

Googles chief executive, Sundar Pichai, fretted in a note to staff about the painful cost of this executive order on our colleagues. Facebooks founder Mark Zuckerberg opined publicly that he was concerned. Apple CEO Tim Cook even said the iPhone maker wouldnt exist without immigration: Steve Jobs, he reminded, was an immigrant, too. Each of the companies sought to arm employees they believed to be at grave risk.

The groundswell of opposition quickly reached the aides at one of the White Houses little-known nerve centers, the Office of Science and Technology Policy. An advisory arm to the president, the office began compiling the statements steadily flowing out of Silicon Valley, hoping to show Trump and his tightly knit circle that the nations tech heavyweights had vehemently opposed the presidents most consequential decision to date.

The OSTP normally serves as a liaison between the science and tech communities and their government regulators in Washington. Under Trump, however, aides who tried to provide the new president with insight on immigration say they couldnt get their message through to the Oval Office.

One White House source, who described OSTP this week as disempowered, said they had no idea if anyone in the new presidents inner circle ever saw their work and, as a result, perhaps did not appreciate the tech backlash to come.

Ten weeks into his nascent administration, Trumps Office of Science and Technology Policy isnt much of an office at all. As Trump forges ahead with his controversial economic agenda, hes done so without the support of the White Houses army of engineers and researchers, who are best equipped to assess what his cuts mean for the future of the United States.

Theres still no leader at OSTP, a job that can double as the chief science adviser to the president. That means Trump currently has no immediate expert on hand whose entire remit is the future of the environment, the effects of climate change and the direction of research in key areas, like HIV and cancer cures. The other leadership jobs within OSTP overseeing issues like energy policy, innovation and more similarly remain unfilled. And the few who remained at OSTP werent consulted as Trump took his first steps in those fields, including the creation of the budget for 2018 that cut significant chunks from federal research agencies, according to eight current and former White House sources.

The office is a critical feature of any administration. Under President Barack Obama, OSTP boasted a chief technology officer who personally had about 20 aides focused on issues like net neutrality, artificial intelligence and self-driving cars. (That includes Megan Smith, who was married to and is now separated from Recode co-founder Kara Swisher. Smith was not interviewed for this story.) As of Friday, however, only one aide there remained: Michael Kratsios, an acolyte of Peter Thiel, who entered government with no tech experience. His closest complement in the West Wing? Reed Cordish, who similarly lacks a technical pedigree but does know Trumps daughter, Ivanka.

In Obamas White House, the OSTP spearheaded his administrations most far-fetched or future-focused initiatives, from studying the effects of artificial intelligence to facilitating the private sectors efforts to map brains and improve drinking water. It helped chart the governments course on research and development. And when crises arose including the resurgence of Ebola, which threatened in 2015 to encroach deep into the United States it was the hidden hand of the OSTP that sought to shape how the lumbering, sprawling U.S. bureaucracy focused its dollars in response.

Asked about those darkened offices and positions, a spokeswoman for Trump stressed Thursday he had candidates for OSTP in mind but didnt name anyone, or allow anyone at the White House to be interviewed for this story.

The office is staffed by scientists and engineers with years of experience, close working relationships throughout the Federal departments and agencies, and deep connections to the broader science and technology community, she said.

Its Trumps Washington, of course. He has flexibility to name candidates for the positions he chooses. And he campaigned on the notion that he would reduce the footprint of government, not expand it. But his tepid embrace of science and technology is all the more striking, given OSTPs roots as one of the only elements of the White House that Congress actually wrote into law. Lawmakers established the OSTP in the 1970s, after another Republican president, Richard Nixon, vehemently swore against tapping a science adviser. Turns out, Nixon didnt much like academics.

There are many policy issues that come up across the spectrum ... where technical expertise and connections to the tech community are important, said Ed Felten, a top academic at Princeton University who served under Obama as a deputy chief technology officer.

Thats why I asked Felten during an interview this month whether his former office and its quiet struggles should matter to Americans. If OSTP is not well staffed, he told me, it will be difficult to make policy well in the areas where science matters.

Trump does not use a computer. He thinks they have complicated lives very greatly, he said last December. (He might not be wrong.) Im not an email person, Trump remarked earlier in July, an admission that came amid his attacks on his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, for using private communications while leading the State Department.

When asked in 2015 about the threat of online extremism and its antagonists, like the Islamic State, then-candidate Trump said hed recruit Bill Gates to close that internet up. Trump, however, is a devout creature of the web, an unrivaled master of Twitter, whose colorful 140-character exclamations helped him win the highest office in the United States.

Some in liberal-leaning Silicon Valley consequently derided Trump in 2016 as a Luddite unfit for public office in an age when questions about self-driving cars and cancer cures no longer seem the distant stuff of science fiction. To the policy wonks of Washington, Trumps greatest sin wasnt just his abrogation of technology many of his voters shared his digital reluctance anyway. Rather, it was Trumps absent science or technology agenda and his missing complement of aides advising him on the issues.

Trumps apostasies may partly explain why he hasnt been able to fill the ranks of the OSTP unlike Obama, who in the early days of his 2008 campaign labored to pay homage to the Valley, complete with a visit to Google headquarters. Thats how Obama, mere days after his election, could pluck from a deep bench of experts for ideas and confidantes.

His first chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra, had helped during the 2008 campaign. His first chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, had been a law school classmate as well as an innovation adviser and prolific fundraiser. And Obamas first director of the White Houses venerated nerd hub, Dr. John Holdren, helped Obama prep to enter the White House after Election Day.

But Trump entered the White House with no command of science and tech policy issues. He had only a loose web of ideas, a series of scattershot meetings and public statements from which Washington types struggled to derive meaning. A private huddle last summer with leaders in the anti-vaccine movement, for example, generated early fears that Trump might have shared their beliefs. (It remains unclear.) His comments on the campaign trail that climate change was a hoax appeared at the time to presage big cuts to science, energy and environment programs. (It happened.)

It wasnt until the summer that he began to count on the support of Thiel, the controversial, contrarian Valley venture capitalist who helped birth PayPal and still serves on Facebooks board of directors. But even Thiel, who visited the nations capital in October to discuss his rationale for supporting Trumps ascent, could only point to the GOP candidates propensity for political disruption as his greatest asset to the tech industry and the country at large not any actual positions on science and technology that Trump may have publicly or privately held.

He points even beyond the remaking of one party to a new American politics that overcomes denial, rejects bubble thinking and reckons with reality, Thiel instead told reporters gathered at the National Press Club.

In a blitz to recover lost ground, Trumps aides invited lobbying groups for companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google to private meetings in Washington beginning in 2016, steps from Capitol Hill, to solicit their thoughts on what he should tackle first, sources told me at the time. Privately, they had no idea who Trump would tap on science and technology or what he would do on the issues that mattered the most to their companies. After all, they had spent months preparing for a Clinton presidency anyway.

For his part, Thiel soon assumed a formal role with the team that helped Trump transition into government, becoming the only prominent member of the newly elected presidents organizing effort who had any knowledge of Silicon Valley, its issues and the myriad industries it touches. Thiel, of course, helped organize the so-called tech summit at Trump Tower last December, a bid to mend fences between Trump and the very companies he derided at times on the campaign trail. He and his aides also set about finding, recruiting and vetting candidates for some of the governments top tech gigs.

For all their work, though, the Trump administrations most resonant contribution might have come in the form of a gaffe from Trumps new secretary of the Treasury Department, Steve Mnuchin, who stunned Valley types and labor experts alike when he said in March that AI was more than 50 years on the horizon an issue, he continued, that was not even on our radar screen.

But what has Trump accomplished so far in tech policy? By the end of the month, Congress passed a measure that wiped online privacy rules from federal law. Unnamed White House aides in a formal, public statement issued Tuesday articulating the administrations views recommended Trump sign the bill.

Meanwhile, theres still no director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Under federal law, Trump has some flexibility in how he structures his own White House. He can decide, for example, to shed key positions in science, medicine and energy under OSTPs umbrella, as his priorities evolve. Many of the White House sources who spoke with me on the condition of background for this story said they believed he would do just that quietly kill many science jobs within his own administration. That has left its veterans unsettled. Cristin Dorgelo, the former chief of staff there under Obama, stressed in an interview this month she wishes the current administration keeps the same science focus as her former boss.

By the time Trump took the oath of office, roughly 50 staffers less than half of what it was under Obama remained at the White Houses technical nerve center. In the early days of the administration, some aides to the outgoing Obama White Houses chief technology officer, Smith, even offered to stick around until March. But the few who stayed quickly opted to leave, feeling flustered and distrusted by Trumps inner circle, which had spent months casting public doubt on the integrity of any government employees who served during the Obama administration.

The only remaining employee is one of Thiels deputies Kratsios, a former chief of staff at Thiel Capital.

A finance type by background, Kratsios had been toiling silently to aid Trump, who hadnt yet taken office, from the new presidents unofficial New York City hub at Trump Tower. He first surfaced at the White House in January without a formal title in hand, sources said, before becoming deputy chief technology officer.

Except, Kratsios has little or no direct knowledge of key issues like net neutrality, cyber security and artificial intelligence, multiple current and former aides said in interviews.

A politics graduate from Princeton, Kratsios appears to have at least some access to the decision makers in Trumps inner circle. (He knew and supported, for example, the effort to show Trump evidence that his immigration order had riled the tech set, sources say.) Sources described Kratsios positively as affable and helpful and motivated, and many believe his ambition and connections through Thiel in Silicon Valley will eventually serve Trump greatly.

But many former White House aides and observers insisted they remain leaderless, with almost no connection to Trump a distance they felt most acutely as the president prepared his first budget.

After taking office, the president and his team raced to produce their plan for funding the government in 2018, a document that hoped to give life to the presidents campaign promises, including Trumps proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In planning it, White House officials borrowed heavily from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation. For months, experts at the organization had quietly served on the teams advising Trump on how to staff his future government, and the presidents budget ultimately included many of the spending cuts that Heritage historically has championed. Among them: Almost $6 billion in cuts at the National Institutes of Health.

Previously, the Heritage Foundations political arm, Heritage Action, had railed against a bipartisan bill in Congress to grow NIH. (It became law anyway.) The 2018 budget also sought to eliminate research dollars at the Energy Department, a longtime target of conservative critics, on top of programs at NASA and the countrys weather hub, NOAA.

In doing so, however, Trump did not consult even a slimmed-down OSTP at all, multiple sources said. In other words, the cuts to NIH and the Energy Departments version of DARPA that Pentagon money hub that has spawned so many startups, like the Thiel-backed data giant, Palantir came about largely without the input of anyone familiar with those fields. Some policy aides only got to see the budget after it had been published online, multiple sources said.

Few science experts like it. Im very disappointed in the presidents first budget so far, said Kei Koizumi, who served as the Obama administrations research-and-development budget guru. He departed OSTP on Jan. 31.

Although I understand where its coming from, an overall desire to shrink domestic spending, its going to have devastating effects on the U.S science and engineering enterprise, which is such a source of economic competitiveness, and our ability to make progress on solving health care, security and natural resource challenges, he said.

Some have tried to find solace in the presidents other recent moves like the newly announced Office of American Innovation, led by Jared Kushner, and the appointment of Matt Lira, an innovation policy expert whos helped senior Republicans in the U.S. Congress on digital issues.

Lira has his knocks, but Democrats laud his expertise. The appointment of Matt Lira on the innovation side is an extremely positive sign that the president will build on the progress the Obama administration began on harnessing the power of the potential of the internet for the American economy, said Chopra, the first CTO under Obama, during an interview.

While the White House said it plans to consult with the Valleys best minds, however, their involvement might not be as regular as administration officials first suggested.

After the initial story about their participation appeared in the Washington Post, a spokeswoman for Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, named as one of Trumps tech confidantes, told Recode he doesn't have a formal role in the Trump Administration but offers his thoughts and ideas when they are sought on topics on which he can be helpful. Apple declined to comment.

Other senior leaders in the Trump administration also lack technical or policy expertise. That includes Reed Cordish, named the assistant to the president for intragovernmental and technology initiatives.

Cordishs portfolio includes a mandate to rethink the way government spends money buying tech services and systems. But Cordish has never worked in that world. In fact, he arrived from the fields of real estate and hospitality, and met Trump through his father, who had hosted a fundraiser for the soon-to-be president. His father once asked Trumps daughter, Ivanka, to help set his son up on a date.

Already, the Trump administration is pivoting to its next major economic priority infrastructure reform and thats where the stakes could get higher for technology and science spending.

Publicly, Trump has promised to spend big on a package to upgrade the guts of the United States, like its roads and airports and bridges. Yet such a measure could also include major upgrades to U.S. cities, for example, to create smart roads for self-driving cars. It could feature critical investments in high-speed broadband internet to ensure better connectivity in the countrys hardest-to-reach rural areas. It could seek to put aside new dollars for advanced manufacturing, or help fund research in artificial intelligence. It could provide a big boost for the most audacious ideas, like moonshots to cure cancer, or inject new life into the fodder of contemporary tech-news fiction, like underground tunnels and magnet-powered hyperloops, as Elon Musk hypes so often. (At least he stays in touch with the Trump White House.)

An infrastructure bill could be big, in other words, not only in its cost but also in its ambition. But without experts in these far-reaching, future-focused fields, the Trump administration currently lacks the staff to advocate such ideas and figure out how to transform them into reality, many sources said. And the few who remain at OSTP already have struggled to break into Trumps inner circle, multiple White House sources said.

"I am worried any time science and technology expertise are not at the table when decisions are made," said Koizumi, the Obama budget veteran. "But I don't know what to do about that. I can't tell the administration to stop until you have people on board, because I also know decisions get made anyway because they have to get made even in the absence of scientific information [and] economic information."

Originally posted here:
How Donald Trump crippled U.S. technology and science policy - Recode

Donald Trump, call Nancy Pelosi – CNN

Turn to Nancy Pelosi.

I know. I couldn't have been the only one who caught what looked like a snarl on his lips when he looked in her direction during his February speech to Congress.

Last week he blamed the Democrats -- and implicitly her -- for the GOP's failure to replace Obamacare. And on fundamental issues like tax cuts for the rich, undermining Planned Parenthood and denying climate change, turning toward her will likely be a complete non-starter.

But here's a secret: When it comes to passing legislation that's in the best interest of the American people and reflects the priorities of the House Democratic Caucus and candidates, Nancy Pelosi will work to deliver the votes, no matter who's holding the speaker's gavel or sitting in the Oval Office.

As a member of the House Democratic leadership, I saw firsthand that the path to a majority vote often went through the minority leader's office. I would sit in leadership meetings, in that room, amid baseball bats signed by her beloved San Francisco Giants and bowls filled with her favorite chocolates (I always appreciated the symbolism of sweets and baseball bats), while elsewhere, House Speaker Paul Ryan or then-Speaker John Boehner were struggling to round up Republican votes to pass legislation vital to the administration of our government.

Whenever they fell short on their side of the aisle, her phone would ring.

In every instance, her calculation was clear: If the bill advanced the national interest, reflected consensus in her caucus and didn't deviate from the strategic imperative of achieving a Democratic majority, she produced the necessary votes.

President Trump's negotiating options will be increasingly limited if his plan is to write off 193 Democrats as he tries to advance an agenda, especially as Freedom Caucus members flex their muscles, leaving Republicans in moderate districts with the sense that they are losing their grip.

The fact is, the next vote on the debt ceiling, a government shutdown, or sending emergency funds to a blue state ravaged by a natural disaster will require the President to deal with Democrats.

Regardless of whether it's done behind closed doors or in front of a camera, if President Trump has any interest in governing, then sooner or later he will have to invite Leader Pelosi to the table.

And if that sounds to President Trump like "fake news," then perhaps he should call Speaker Ryan or former Speaker Boehner to ask them how many times Nancy Pelosi has bailed them out in order to advance the country.

Then, call Pelosi.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump, call Nancy Pelosi - CNN

A brief history of how America feels about Donald Trump – Washington Post

This isnt the article I planned to write.

What I had wanted to do was to see if Donald Trumps use of exclamation points bore any relationship to how he might be faring in the polls. That was prompted by a tweet from my colleague Chris Ingraham, who separately is breaking out Trumps enthusiasm in that regard. As it turns out, there isnt a correlation: no correlation to his primary polling, his general polling, his favorability polling or his approval polling. Or, for that matter the relative lead or deficit in that polling or net favorability or approval.

To check that, though, I ended up pulling all of that data. And, as it turns out, the data by itself is interesting.

For example, here is the actual primary and general polling average, the daily average favorability ratings and the daily Gallup rating Trump has seen since he announced his candidacy in June 2015.

Youll notice that at no point, save for a few individual days of favorability ratings, has Trump been above 50 percent. Trumps favorability ratings ticked up after the election, but even so remained under 50 percent. His polling average in the primary was never above 50 percent, nor was it ever above 50 percent in the general. Trump was also the only candidate in the modern era of presidential primaries to win despite earning less than 50 percent of the vote in both the primary and the general.

If we look at those relative values, the picture is slightly different. This shows Trumps lead in the primary average, deficits in the general and net favorability or job approval over time.

During the general election, he almost always trailed. His favorability was almost always underwater, often significantly. His Gallup approval rating started about even and then trended down.

The primary, though, was a different story. The Republican presidential primary has been the apex of Trumps political strength so far, with a consistent national lead that powered him through the those contests (although often only narrowly). Put another way: Trump has only being doing well when the pool of people being considered consists only of Republicans.

In Gallups weekly averages since inauguration, its Republicans that have kept his approval ratings as high as they are.

Only a third of independents approve of how hes doing. Only 8 percent of Democrats agree.

Its enough to make anyone tweet angrily.

See original here:
A brief history of how America feels about Donald Trump - Washington Post