Over the last decade, it’s become commonplace to describe President Donald Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party as hostile — as if the one-time New York real estate mogul was the political version of a corporate raider. That’s a gross mischaracterization, one that has contributed to a misunderstanding of the source of Trump’s hypnotic influence over the GOP.

Trump managed to upend the party because, long before he announced his first bid for president in June 2015, there was a robust faction of conservative populists inside the GOP yearning for a figure just like him. Populists who preferred a street fighter to a statesman; a domestic industrialist to a free trader; a quasi-isolationist to an internationalist. All they needed was a champion who could also appeal to enough Republican voters to win a presidential primary.

Trump’s takeover rebalanced power within the Republican governing coalition. The populists, long the junior partner, rose to take command, and the Ronald Reagan Republicans, for years the controlling bloc, found themselves demoted. Even after all this time, they find it disconcerting.

“I feel a bit politically homeless at times,” Republican operative Mike DuHaime told me. DuHaime runs a public relations firm in New Jersey and is a longtime adviser to Chris Christie, the Republican former Garden State governor who challenged Trump for the 2024 nomination. He concedes never voting for Trump but emphasized his continued support for the party down-ticket. His biggest gripe with the GOP’s new (populist) establishment?

“I never agreed with the party on everything, but there was some tolerance of differences of opinion from leaders in the party. Not so much anymore,” DuHaime said. “I find myself agreeing with Trump on some stuff and disagreeing on others. But there’s a purity test now. It’s sad to see so many people twist themselves into pretzels to comply with whatever Trump says.”

Kevin Madden, who spent years in Republican politics, first as a congressional aide and later as an adviser to 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, said feeling the party transform beneath his feet has been “humbling.”

“When you spend years working as a staffer in Congress, and then years working on political campaigns, it’s a seven-days-a-week, 18-hours-a-day lifestyle. That amount of time and devotion can lead you to convince yourself that you know everything about the party,” explained Madden, now a government relations executive in Washington, DC. “The party shift since 2006 to where it is today has been an education.”

There’s a misperception, especially among MAGA activists, that center-right opposition to the president equals “Never Trump.” But in dozens of conversations I had with Republican primary voters in 2024 on the campaign trail for The Dispatch, and in regular discussions I have about Trump and the state of the party with GOP operatives, I’ve discovered more nuanced views of the president.

After 10 years of Trump dominating American politics, everyone is familiar with the aspects of the president’s personal comportment and policy agenda that can cause some Republicans heartburn. Who knows; Trump’s expansive use of tariffs and belligerent treatment of American allies overseas may yet reopen fissures with elements of the center-right that bedeviled the president in his first term and helped sink his 2020 reelection bid.

But there’s also plenty about Trump that Reagan Republicans like: tax cuts, deregulation, military spending and support for Israel, to name a few, not to mention his decision to let technology titan Elon Musk take a hatchet to the federal bureaucracy. And even when their public scolding of Trump makes them outcasts in their own party, they don’t feel any more welcome in the Democratic Party, which they believe veered too far to the left — culturally, economically and on some foreign policy matters — to even consider jumping ship.

“While I love Liz Cheney and her courage, saying she was ‘proud’ to vote for Harris was dissonant to anti-Trump Republicans. What those Republicans would have identified with was that she hated that she had to vote for Harris,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican operative in Sacramento, recalling how Cheney, a former Wyoming congresswoman who disowned Trump after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, talked about her support for Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

Indeed, if Democrats are wondering how Trump won over Republicans who shunned him during his first term and in 2020, they need to look in the mirror, many Republicans, both voters and party insiders, have told me.

This anecdote from Stutzman, the rare Republican vocal about his opposition to Trump, was instructive: “When I was working with No Labels in hopes of recruiting a third (presidential) candidate, we would see in focus groups that GOP voters who didn’t like Trump were pushed to him by Biden. Biden, and then Harris, consolidated Republicans into Trump.”

“There is no doubt to me that the Democratic party of the past decade completely fertilized the ground that allowed Trump to grow,” Stutzman added. “I blame them.”

Neither Trump’s populist supporters nor the president’s displaced conservative skeptics are convinced the GOP’s current power dynamic is irrevocably locked in place. “It’s been a long fight; it continues every day,” Steven Bannon, a prominent Trump supporter — whose daily podcast, War Room, is ground zero for the president’s MAGA movement — told me during a recent telephone conversation. “I tell people: Don’t think we’ve ever won.”

Tim Chapman, veteran conservative activist and adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate in 2016 and 2020, is engaged in that fight, hoping to contribute to a restoration of the Reagan wing of the GOP.

“There’s a weakness to the national conservative populist position, which is that they really don’t have yet (ideological buy-in) across the board, but they have the power,” he told me recently.

“The question is: Can they hold onto the power long enough to change rank and file voters’ opinions on what it means to be a conservative?”

David M. Drucker is columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a senior writer for The Dispatch and the author of “In Trump’s Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP.”

A federal judge has held that Elon Musk and DOGE’s actions to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development likely violated the Constitution in “multiple ways.” U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang also ordered the reversal of many of the steps Musk directed to be taken to close the agency.

The decision could mark the beginning of the end for the extraordinary role Musk has played in the early months of President Donald Trump’s second administration. Although the ruling allows legally authorized officials to validate Musk’s actions after the fact, it effectively bars him from independently issuing orders to government departments and employees.

Musk could appeal and hope the Supreme Court eventually reverses the decision. However, it might be easier for him to begin his retreat from day-to-day government operations and get back to running his businesses, which appear to need him more than Trump does.

The basis for the court’s decision is the appointments clause of the Constitution, which says that “officers of the United States” must be appointed by the president “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The only exception to Senate confirmation provided is when Congress has “vested” the appointment of specific “inferior officers” in the president or someone else. As the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause, officials who exercise “significant authority” count as “principal officers” who must be confirmed by the Senate to do their jobs. Put simply, Musk functioned as a U.S. official without being appropriately appointed as one by Trump.

In court, Musk and the Trump administration did not claim that Musk was an inferior officer exempt from confirmation. Instead, they insisted Musk was a special adviser to Trump who exercised no actual authority to order anyone in the government to do anything.

Judge Chuang rejected that claim, pointing to Trump’s repeated statements that Musk is in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency and Musk’s own multiple brags of having achieved various results — including the closing of USAID — through DOGE acting under his direction. In essence, the court refused to accept the Trump administration’s legal argument that Musk didn’t do anything himself.

It’s important to understand that presidents are entitled to choose their advisers, who don’t have to be Senate-confirmed. In the modern presidency, those advisers include officials as powerful as the White House chief of staff and the national security adviser. Formally, these White House officials can’t order anyone outside their offices to do anything. In practice, their directives to departments and agencies are always channeled through Senate-confirmed officials in or at the top of those departments.

In his ruling, Chuang acknowledged that Musk could, in principle, function like those more familiar White House advisers. Thus, he held that if other legitimately confirmed officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, effectively validated Musk’s orders by ordering them independently to be carried out, that would be lawful. In practice, that means much of what Musk and DOGE have done is either already lawful or could become so.

But the court held that when it came to ordering the closure of USAID, neither Rubio nor any other official with authority initiated the agency’s shutdown, ordered the permanent closure of its headquarters, or ordered the taking down of its website. Those actions, the court concluded, were unlawfully ordered by Musk and must be reversed unless a lawfully appointed official subsequently validates them.

As it stands now, Judge Chuang’s decision would likely survive an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The appeals court isn’t allowed to revisit factual findings, and Chuang factually determined that no other government official ordered those USAID actions. Legally, the decision closely tracks existing law.

The Supreme Court could conceivably reach a different legal outcome by holding, as the administration urged in court, that the appointments clause doesn’t apply to Musk because he holds no formal legal authority. In effect, that would mean Trump would have the inherent authority to let Musk do whatever he himself could do. But that would be a stretch under the clause, which contemplates that the president’s main employees, his principal officers, would be confirmed by the Senate. As Chuang noted, this theory “would open the door to an end-run around the appointments clause.”

Chuang also noted evidence that “Musk and DOGE, despite their alleged advisory roles, have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials.” As examples, he mentioned the shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau headquarters and the firing of employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Nuclear Security Administration, and FEMA. These observations can be read as a warning that other courts would reach similar conclusions in cases arising from those DOGE actions.

Rather than fight it out through the appeals process, Musk and Trump may find it more convenient to declare victory and have Musk depart the field. They will be able to claim, with some justification, that Musk had a significant effect on various cuts and closures. Musk will have avoided, for now, the direct conflict with Trump that many observers have been predicting as inevitable between two men who both seem to believe they are running the show in their relationship.

Musk can still advise Trump; he just won’t be running a made-up government “department” without constitutional authorization. Some such end to DOGE will happen eventually. Musk’s job was never supposed to go past July 4, 2026. If it happens sooner, maybe no one will be unhappy — especially not Musk’s Tesla shareholders.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Martin Schram: Trump unwraps a Social Security exploding cigar

Liam Denning: China’s BYD cemented its lead on Tesla in five minutes

Pollard, Mendelson: We have nutrition labels on food. Why not alcohol?

Stephen L. Carter: Roberts was right to chastise Trump

Andreas Kluth: The US has a long history of bad peace deals

 

What organizers are billing as the “largest and most acclaimed breaking competition in the world” returns Saturday for its fifth Minnesota dance event.

“These are not choreographed routines,” event host and House of Dance studio owner Jake Riley said. “These guys and girls are going to be going off. If people are into extreme sports and if they’re into seeing really cool things live, this is going to be the place to be this upcoming Saturday.”

Red Bull’s first ever BC One World Final event took place in 2004 in Biel Switzerland and since then the company has sponsored over 60 qualifying events, known as cyphers or camps, and 20 world finals.

Saturday’s cypher, which starts at 6 p.m. and is located at Royalston Square in Minneapolis, will showcase 16 B-boys and eight B-girls who will compete against one another in men’s and women’s brackets for the opportunity to compete at the May National Final in Colorado and November World Final in Japan.

“The event is important because it’s like the Super Bowl of breaking,” Riley said. “Red Bull BC One is the most prestigious one-on-one breaking competition in the world and it has been now for well over 20 years.”

Breaking background

Breaking came out of New York City’s Black and Latin communities in the 70s, or the “James Brown funk era,” as Riley said.

“It’s music, movement, soul and athleticism, all tied into one,” Riley said. “It’s also art. Breaking celebrates individuality and creativity, so the vocabulary of breaking isn’t done yet.”

The dance style is often incorrectly referred to as “break dancing,” according to Red Bull. “Breaking,” its original name, was inspired by how “young people would go off on the dance floor, moving with more sporadic and dynamic energy during the break of a music track.” During the first international hip-hop tour, “New York City Rap tour,” the manager of Rock Steady Crew, Cool Lady Blue, called the style “breakdancing,” which caught on in popular media, according to Red Bull.

Riley, a dancer himself of over 20 years, said that in his biased opinion, breaking is one of the hardest dance forms in the world. He said something that makes it so dynamic is that dancers have to showcase their personality and individuality, which allows them to get creative. Still, the art is very community oriented, he said.

“You can create your own move and five, ten, 20, 30 years from now, kids can be doing your move that you created and coined,” Riley said.

What to expect

When doors open at 6 p.m., Riley said the warehouse will become an immersive space with dancing and social activities taking place in different pockets. The real show will begin at 7 p.m., when battles will take place in a “pit style seating area on the Red Bull BC One dance floor in the middle of the space,” he said. All ages can enjoy the family-friendly and highly energetic show.

“People are in for a treat,” Riley said.

Related Articles

Spring movies 2025 — here are 19 films to get excited about before popcorn season

Column: In ‘Cinema Her Way,’ female directors talk about struggle, survival and the industry

National Lego convention returning to Eagan for third year in April

Movie review: De Niro faces off with himself in mob movie ‘The Alto Knights’

A judge says Mariah Carey didn’t steal ‘All I Want For Christmas Is You’ from other writers

Riley, who grew up in Brooklyn Park and started dancing in middle school, said that as a breaker who’s competed in past competitions, including Red Bull BC One, he is excited to be an MC who’ll hype up and support the competitors as they battle to encourage a vibrant environment.

“The crowd can expect flying, high energy and incredible movement which is super entertaining, but also organically intense competition of both the women and men who are climbing the ladder,” Riley said.

Riley said someone he looks forward to seeing at the cypher is two-time Red Bull BC One World Champion and 2024 Olympic Bronze Medalist Victor, who will be one of the be judges.

“I admire his path, his work ethic and his success,” Riley said. “I’m really excited to see him in town.”

Minnesota’s first breaking studio

House of Dance owner Jake Riley, who will host the Red Bull BC One breaking cypher Saturday in Minneapolis, says “I’ve been breaking for over 20 years, born and raised here in the Twin Cities scene. I’ve watched breaking go through its ebbs and flows and now I’m considered one of the veterans,” Riley said. (Courtesy of ALL WAYS Films & Photography)

In 2014, Riley and his wife Bao Lee opened House of Dance in Minneapolis, the first breaking and hip-hop dance studio in Minnesota, he said. In his 10 years of running the studio, Riley said his team has impacted thousands of people through hip-hop and breaking.

“We’ve grown it in a tremendous way and I’m proud of that as well,” Riley said.

As one of the first breaking studios in the state, Riley said Red Bull reached out to him early on about collaboration, which has now grown into a full partnership. Riley said Red Bull has always had a strong relationship with the breaking community in uplifting the new Olympic sport.

“I’m excited to see the next generation of competitors,” Riley said. “Every generation seems to get better faster.”

‘Stay for the community’

A diverse, welcoming community of hardworking people who promote healthy lifestyles and value movement and art is how Riley describes breakers and he’s excited for others to share in the experience at the upcoming event, he said.

“I encourage people to come to the event to be entertained, but stay for the community,” Riley said.

Related Articles

‘The Threads That Bind Us’: Dakota County Historical Society hosts 30th annual quilt show

Skywatch: Your universe through binoculars

Literary calendar for week of March 23

Readers and writers: You say you want (to read about) a revolution?

National Lego convention returning to Eagan for third year in April

Red Bull BC One Minneapolis

What: Breaking (aka break dancing) competition to qualify for Nationals in Colorado

When: 6 to 9 p.m. Saturday, March 29

Where: Royalston Square, 501 Royalston Ave., Minneapolis

Tickets: General admission, $10

Information: redbull.com/bcone

By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that a proposed European armed force for possible deployment in Ukraine in tandem with an eventual peace deal could “respond” to a Russian attack if Moscow launched one.

Macron spoke in the evening after talks with Ukraine’s president and ahead of a summit in Paris of some 30 nations on Thursday that will discuss the proposed force for Ukraine.

“If there was again a generalized aggression against Ukrainian soil, these armies would be under attack and then it’s our usual framework of engagement,” Macron said. “Our soldiers, when they are engaged and deployed, are there to react and respond to the decisions of the commander in chief and, if they are in a conflict situation, to respond to it.”

Macron. has been driving coalition-building efforts for a Ukraine force with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. it is still far from clear exactly what kind of aid they are preparing that could contribute toward their goal of making any ceasefire with Russia lasting.

Macron is expecting 31 delegations around the table Thursday morning at the presidential Elysee Palace. That’s more than Macron gathered for a first meeting in Paris in February — evidence that the coalition to help Ukraine, possibly with boots on the ground, is gathering steam, according to the presidential office.

The big elephant in the room will be the country that’s missing: the United States.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has shown no public enthusiasm for the coalition’s discussions about potentially sending troops into Ukraine after an eventual ceasefire to help make peace stick. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has dismissed the idea of a European deployment or even the need for it.

“It’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic,” he said in an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

That’s not the view in Europe. The shared premise upon which the coalition is being built is that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine — starting with the illegal seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and culminating in the 2022 full-scale invasion that unleashed all-out war — shows that he cannot be trusted.

They believe that any peace deal will need to be backed up by security guarantees for Ukraine, to deter Putin from launching another attempt to seize it.