When Senator John Fetterman got word that President-elect Donald Trump wanted to meet, the Pennsylvania Democrat didn’t have to think it over too long. Even though Trump had savaged Fetterman during the 2022 campaign—going so far as to allege he had an affinity for cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and fentanyl—Fetterman reasoned that he represents all Pennsylvanians, including the 3.5 million who had just voted for Trump. “If the President invites you to have a conversation and to engage, I'm not sure why anybody would decide not to,” Fetterman tells TIME. “I'm in the business of creating wins for Pennsylvania.” And so, the weekend before Trump returned to the White House, Fetterman jumped on a plane to Florida to spend about an hour with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. The two talked about immigration, the sale of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel, and the detention of Pennsylvania native Marc Fogel in Russia on drug charges. For Fetterman, it was about starting the next four years on productive footing. “There's plenty of things that we can work together on, and there are parts where we aren't agreeing,” Fetterman says. “And I am going to avoid just jumping online and just dropping a lot of cheap heat.” Eight years earlier, such a meeting would have drawn outrage in Democratic circles. This time the response to Fetterman’s pilgrimage, which caught most senior Democrats by surprise, was more ambivalent. Some party officials believe working more closely with Trump this time will be necessary as the 47th President takes office with political capital to spend and a Republican Congress lined up behind him. At the start of Trump’s second term, the Democrats are stuck somewhere between discombobulation and despair. Conversations with two dozen Democratic sources reveal a party still struggling to figure out how they found themselves losing the White House and Senate and stuck in the minority in the House. Prescriptions for a comeback abound: A more inclusive message, not just what plays well among activists and on college campuses. More spending on state parties and less on D.C.-based consultants. Serious investments in a progressive media ecosystem to rival the conservative one. A foreign policy that is as easy to explain as Republicans’ tried-and-true “Peace Through Strength.” Better polling. Less fear-mongering about the end of democracy. More podcasts. But those are all hunches at this point ahead of any comprehensive, sanctioned autopsy. In fact, some Democrats fear the party is in danger of overreacting to Kamala Harris’ loss. They point to how bad a year 2024 was for incumbents around the world, from the United Kingdom to South Korea to Botswana. They stress that recent inflation made incumbents vulnerable regardless of political leaning, allowing opposition figures in nations such as Panama, India, South Africa, India, and Japan to make significant inroads. Others point to the promise of Democratic groups like suburban-powerhouse Red Wine and Blue and recruitment machines like Swing Left, which are notching successes for candidates further down the ballot. As the debate churns, some say any remedies remain premature. “You can write a eulogy before someone dies. You cannot write an autopsy until the body is on the table,” says Jesse Ferguson, a strategist who formerly ran House Democrats’ outside spending program. In other words, the version of the Democratic Party that got killed in 2024 is still twitching. And the fact that no one in the party can agree on how to deal with Trump 2.0—or decide if Fetterman’s meeting was a shrewd move, a betrayal, or both—means Democrats are still at a loss for how to prevent more casualties. A party strategist who’s been among those searching for a way out of the wilderness has a PowerPoint he’s been delivering since Election Day. The slides are meant to cheer his fellow Democrats up. It starts with a grim New York Times story with the headline “Baffled in Loss, Democrats Seek Road Forward.” The piece begins: “The Democratic Party emerged from this week’s election struggling over what it stood for, anxious about its political future, and bewildered about how to compete with a Republican Party that some Democrats say may be headed for a period of electoral dominance.” The next slide reveals the date of that verdict: Nov. 7, 2004. Two years later, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman elevated to Speaker of the House. Two years after that, Barack Obama was elected the nation’s first Black President. From the ashes of John Kerry’s defeat by George W. Bush, Democrats were able to forge a swift and successful comeback. The strategist who has been delivering this message in seemingly endless Zoom sessions for colleagues and clients says the point is that Democrats can recover quickly if they figure out the right lessons to take from the defeat. Yet those gains 20 years ago were driven by two primary factors: the presence of Bush, who grew increasingly unpopular amid the Iraq war, and the rise of a transcendent political talent. As another strategist, Chris Moyer, a former aide to Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, puts it: “You cannot wait around for Obama to come around. We cannot act like it’s just going to happen. We have to make it happen ourselves.” In the meantime, Democrats are at odds over how to respond to a second Trump presidency. The so-called Resistance that propelled Democrats during his first term seems weary, if not depleted. In Congress, party leaders are settling into a strategy that focuses more on Trump’s expected failures to fulfill the promises he made to voters, and less on his norm-breaking provocations. As his latest TruthSocial posts and threats to invade Greenland make headlines, Democrats intend to stay on message: what’s he doing to curb inflation or bring down the cost of healthcare? A troll, some argue, can control the bridge only if someone feeds him. Others fear such strategies are an inadequate response to Trump’s agenda, including the possibility of deportation camps, military deployment in U.S. cities, and investigations into his political enemies. “The consequences are no joke. People are going to die,” says Yasmin Radjy, the executive director of Swing Left. “We are not The Resistance 2.0. That is not going to be enough.” Yet as Democrats brace for the return of Trump’s chaos, there is little agreement on where the party’s focus should be. Few see either House Leader Hakeem Jeffries or Senate Leader Chuck Schumer—both New Yorkers—as the unifying national figure the party needs. The pair is known to donors but hardly household names who can be stand-ins as an unrivaled spokesman. Until Democrats anoint their next presidential nominee, the party will lack a single leader, and that is probably more than three years away.

The first 24 hours of Donald Trump’s second term reflected what his supporters hoped for and his detractors feared: a willingness to follow through on some of his most radical and divisive ideas. That much was clear Monday night, when Trump made good on his pledge to exonerate the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the President pardoned or commuted nearly 1,600 of the defendants convicted or charged in connection with the attack, including those who carried out violent acts such as smashing windows and beating police officers. Among those reprieved were members of far-right extremist groups. Enrique Torrio, a Proud Boys leader, was sentenced to 22 years in prison after a jury of his peers found him guilty of seditious conspiracy. Stewart Rhodes, who founded the Oath Keepers, was serving an 18-year sentence on the same charges. By Tuesday afternoon, both men were free. But Trump’s move amounts to more than fulfilling a campaign promise. Former prosecutors and legal experts fear it has far-reaching implications for the rule of law in the coming years, sending a message to Trump fanatics that they can commit crimes on the President’s behalf with impunity. “I worry that it will embolden people to engage in political violence, so long as they are acting in service to the leader,” says Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney. “I think this provides license for people to engage in that kind of vigilantism, and that's a very dangerous place for a democracy to be.” To the MAGA faithful, the pardons are the culmination of a four-year saga to rewrite the history of that day. Trump and his allies have sought to recast the insurrection as an act of patriotism, and the prosecution of rioters as a grave injustice. The President, who often calls the defendants “hostages,” vowed as a candidate to clear them of criminal charges; in April, he told TIME that he would “absolutely” consider pardoning all of them. Trump’s sweeping order comes close. He commuted the sentences of 14 individuals charged with seditious conspiracy and issued "a full, complete and unconditional pardon” for all the rest—providing some form of clemency to everyone charged or convicted for the attack. To many, that’s a source of profound anxiety. Critics allege that Trump has often said just enough for extremists to think they have his blessing. After a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., he said there were “good people on both sides.” During a 2020 debate with former President Joe Biden, he told members of the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Scholars of the far right see the pardons as sending a conspicuous signal. “I think this is the most concrete instance of Trump conferring material benefits to people who are willing to serve as pro-MAGA vigilantes and who operate in these militia groups,” says David Noll, a Rutgers law professor and the co-author of Vigilante Nation. “I think the message they'll hear is that Trump is one of them—and Trump has their back.” After the Jan. 6 rampage, fears of violence spurred prominent anti-Trump lawmakers including Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to spend tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds on private security details. Trump “has quite literally released people who we know are ready, willing, and able to target Congress as it performs its constitutional functions,” says Noll. McQuade suspects Trump’s pardons could “cause a chilling effect” on everyone from legislators and federal bureaucrats to journalists and private citizens. “If they are worried that Donald Trump's rhetoric will unleash political violence against them and will then be pardoned,” she says, “I could see people engaging in self-censorship to avoid becoming a target of political violence.” That may have already happened. Romney told the journalist McKay Coppins that a Republican congressman confided in him that he chose not to vote for Trump’s second impeachment after the Capitol riot for fear of his family’s safety. The aftereffects may be most distressing to those directly impacted by the Jan. 6 assault. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who was rushed out of the House chamber after rioters breached the Capitol and whose husband was later battered with a hammer in a separate politically-motivated attack—called Trump's order "shameful” and “an outrageous insult to our justice system.” The brother of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died from a stroke the day after the attack, told ABC News the pardons were an affront. "The man doesn't understand [the] pain or suffering of others. He can't comprehend anyone else's feelings," Craig Sicknick said. "We now have no rule of law." For some of the President’s fiercest allies, though, Trump’s pardons reflect yet another triumph that stems from the power the American people have handed him. “I don't give a damn what Democrats say about Trump's Jan. 6 pardons and commutations,” says Mike Davis, who founded the conservative Article III Project. “We won, they lost. F**k you.”

Elon Musk was visibly bursting with excitement after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. At a celebratory rally on Monday at Capitol One Arena in Washington, he pumped his fist in the air and bellowed a “Yes!” to the raucous crowd. But another gesture soon after has sent observers questioning whether Musk was expressing just joy, or something more insidious. “I just want to say thank you for making it happen,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and X owner told the audience of Trump supporters. Musk then slapped his chest with his right hand, before flinging it diagonally upwards, palm face down. He turned around to audience members behind the podium, and repeated the gesture. “My heart goes out to you,” the 53-year-old billionaire said, palm back on his chest. — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 20, 2025 But the quick, salute-like movement drew attention as swiftly as it happened. In live commentary, CNN anchor Erin Burnett pointed the gesture out, and co-anchor Kasie Hunt noted, “It’s not something that you typically see in American political rallies.” Social media swarmed with confusion—and theories. “WTF?? What did Elon Musk just do??” one X user asked. Streamer and leftist political commentator Hasan Pike posted: “did elon musk just hit the roman salute at his inauguration speech?” Other users immediately drew comparison to a Nazi salute popularly used by Adolf Hitler. Public broadcaster PBS shared the clip on social media and reported it as “what appeared to be a fascist salute.” Musician and environmental activist Bill Madden posted: “If giving the Nazi ‘Sieg Heil’ salute was an Olympic event like gymnastics, Elon Musk would’ve received a perfect score of 10. Musk even nailed the facial expression. Seriously, Hitler would be jealous.” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University who self-identified as a “historian of fascism,” posted on Bluesky: “It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.” Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the gesture as a “Roman salute,” and said it will “only cause greater alarm among Jews who have expressed concern with the billionaire’s proximity to Trump’s inner circle while platforming views prominent with [the] far-right.” Rolling Stone magazine reported that neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists in America and abroad were “abuzz” after the gesture, citing celebratory captions of the clip from far-right figures such as “Incredible things are happening already lmao” and “Ok maybe woke really is dead.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) posted on X that he “never imagined we would see the day when what appears to be a Heil Hitler salute would be made behind the Presidential seal. This abhorrent gesture has no place in our society and belongs in the darkest chapters of human history.” While speaking on stage at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Switzerland, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was asked by a member of the press about his reaction to Musk’s gesture, to which he responded: “We have freedom of speech in Europe and in Germany, everyone can say what he wants, even if he is a billionaire. What we do not accept is if this is supporting extreme right positions.” (In Germany, performing the Nazi salute is illegal.) However, some others have come to Musk’s defense. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization whose mission is to combat antisemitism and which describes a “Hitler salute” as one with an “outstretched right arm with the palm down,” posted on X shortly after the incident that the billionaire Trump mega-donor “made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute,” and that “all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath.” Eyal Yakoby, a University of Pennsylvania graduate who campaigned against antisemitism on college campuses, called it “a stupid hand gesture” in a post on X, adding: “Anyone trying to portray him as a Nazi is intentionally misleading the public.” Aaron Astor, a history professor at Maryville College in Tennessee, posted: “This is a socially awkward autistic man’s wave to the crowd where he says ‘my heart goes out to you.’” (Musk has previously disclosed that he has Asperger’s syndrome, also known as autism spectrum disorder.) Newsweek opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon offered a similar explanation, adding: “We don’t need to invent outrage.” Musk has previously been criticized for allowing pro-Nazi accounts to flourish on his platform and for posting right-wing memes and seemingly supporting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which led to an exodus of advertisers from X in 2023, and for recently supporting Germany’s far-right populist AfD party, whose leaders have made “antisemitic, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic” statements, according to the ADL. The debate over Musk’s latest move has added fuel to other ongoing feuds, too. Progressive firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) targeted the ADL, which has been accused by the left of turning a blind eye toward Trump and his allies, in a post on X, saying: “Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity. People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all.” Staunch Trump supporter Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), meanwhile, threatened PBS by saying she would call it to testify before the oversight subcommittee she chairs that is set to work with the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk oversees. “I look forward to PBS @NewsHour coming before my committee and explaining why lying and spreading propaganda to serve the Democrat party and attack Republicans is a good use of taxpayer funds,” Greene posted. Musk did not directly address the controversy Monday night, though he replied to a number of posts on X about it—thanking the ADL, mocking Ocasio-Cortez, and agreeing with a post that said: “Can we please retire the calling people a Nazi thing? It didn’t work during the election, it’s not working now, it’s tired, boring, and old material, you’ve burned out its effect, people don’t feel shocked by it anymore, the wolf has been cried too many times.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. President Donald Trump used his second inaugural address on Monday to paint a grim picture of the country he now leads. And then he upped the ante by marching over to supporters nearby to give the speech he said his aides wouldn’t let him deliver: a rambling series of grievances, gimmicks, and gloating. “I think this was a better speech than the one I made upstairs,” Trump said as he circled for a much overdue closing. “I gave you the A-plus treatment.” Only an hour into his second term as President, Trump used his unscripted appearances to renew his claims about having won the 2016 election, his denials about what actually unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021, and his barbs against political foes Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, whom he branded “a super-cryer. I never saw the guy not crying.” Everything old is new again in Trump’s Washington, but that doesn’t mean it stands to be any less acrid. If anything, all signs point to a darker, more aggressive agenda. When Trump arrived in Washington eight years ago, he shocked the establishment with a speech now short-handed as “American Carnage.” This sequel was similar in its angry, bleak tone but amped up with little of the polish that some in Washington had hoped would signal Trump’s second term might be less spiteful than the first go-around. The caustic posture made it clear that the second Trump term would not be constrained in any meaningful way. “From this moment on, America’s decline is over,” Trump said in the vetted speech as his predecessor looked on. Even so, Trump said Vice President J.D. Vance and First Lady Melania Trump convinced him to tone down the main event. But after he took the oath and saw President Joe Biden leave the Capitol for one last flight on Marine One, Trump made his way to the Capitol Visitors Center to give the uncensored rough cut that sounded even more like the disjointed vamp he delivered a night earlier in a sports arena. “They said, ‘Please don’t bring that up right now. You can bring it up tomorrow.’ I said, ‘How ’bout now?’” Trump said during his do-over inaugural, mentioning looming pardons for those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It was a fitting end to a campaign season that included four indictments, one conviction, and two assassination attempts. The hype machine around Trump is hitting its high-water mark. In coordinated comments in recent weeks, those close to Trump have made clear anything resembling business as usual was too much to hope for after Monday at noon. “It’s goodbye, Joe Biden. Goodbye, Kamala Harris. Goodbye, Democrats. And hello to the golden age of America,” Trump deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said Sunday evening at that campaign rally. Elsewhere in the event, former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly used her turn at the podium to mock Jennifer Lopez, Meryl Streep, and Oprah Winfrey. “In America, we have the right to free speech, we have the right to offend, to provoke, to annoy, and to stand up for what we believe in even if you find it controversial,” she said. “We have the right not to use the words you try to force on us, like your preferred pronouns, or words like anti-racist or chest-beating.” That hostile default is one that pervaded all of the welcome-home events for Trump. As the crowds around Washington gathered, it was clear that much of the empowered political movement was ready for its time in control. It was a fighting spirit that stands to upend Washington in ways that are still unknown. Trump rode back to office with promises of cutting taxes, ending inflation, slashing prices, raising wages, and reopening domestic factories. Abroad, he pledged to end the war in Ukraine, tumult in the Middle East, and act as a stronger check on China. While he has since walked back some of those promises, they proved sufficient to mobilize voters to side with him over Kamala Harris, who sat in the front row Monday and watched her rival claim the prize she sought as he pledged to plant a U.S. flag on the surface of Mars. “This is what victory feels like,” the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, told a crowd Monday afternoon at a rally that followed the formal transfer of power. “I’m so excited for the future.” The promises of retribution were at the fore, too, including for former health czar Anthony Fauci, who received a preemptive pardon from Biden in his final hours. "I never met anybody in prison who did as bad stuff as those people,” former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro said, referring to Fauci and others. “Time for a little accountability perhaps.” That muscular threat started from the top with Trump pumping himself—and his supporters—up. “Here I am. The American people have spoken,” Trump said in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday.

Minutes after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump laid out a series of tough actions he’s taking to stop border crossings between ports of entry and begin deporting some of millions of people in the U.S. without authorization. Those policy changes were expected to start rolling in fast in the first hours and days of his second term after a campaign in which Trump vowed to launch the largest deportation operation in the country’s history. Among his first actions back in office, Trump declared a national emergency at the border, which will free up military funding to build more sections of a border wall, support operations to stop border crossings, and send troops to the southern border to, as he said in his Inaugural Address, “repel the disastrous invasion of our country.” In a sweeping proclamation that “the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States,” Trump proclaimed the suspension of physical entry of “aliens engaged in the invasion” across the southern border and directed his Cabinet members to “take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion,” including expressly revoking the right for migrants to invoke an asylum claim. In separate executive actions, Trump has attempted to redefine birthright citizenship, which is currently protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and he suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Trump also ordered the Secretary of Defense—for which his nominee, Pete Hegseth, is not yet confirmed—to assign the U.S. Northern Command, a joint military command set up after 9/11 to combat terrorism and attacks on the U.S., “the mission to seal the borders.” And he designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. In his Inaugural Address, Trump also said he would reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy that demands people seeking asylum wait outside the U.S. while their cases are considered—a move that will require cooperation from the Mexican government. Trump also pledged to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to pressure state and local police to arrest and help deport foreign-born people in the U.S. illegally. The impact on the border of Trump’s Inauguration was immediate. Moments after Trump was formally sworn in, people waiting at border crossings in Mexico reportedly had their asylum appointments canceled by Customs and Border Protection, and received messages that the federal program that used a phone app called CBP One to set up appointments for asylum seekers was now canceled. The Biden Administration started that program to create a more orderly system for people to seek asylum and deter migrants from crossing between points of entry and surrendering themselves to Border Patrol agents in order to have their claim heard. Many of Trump’s actions will likely be challenged in court, as they were during his first term. When Trump declared a similar national emergency on the border in 2019 in order to justify using military funds for building a border wall, courts blocked the move, saying a military construction project needed to be in support of a military deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, says that Trump is overreaching with his use of emergency powers, especially since the number of people crossing the border unlawfully has been declining in recent months. “This is an abuse of emergency powers for the same reason it was before,” Goitein says, “Emergency powers are not meant to address long-standing problems that Congress has the power to solve.”

One by one, they had all trickled into the walnut-paneled Mansfield Room. Donald Trump had just made another improbable return: his first visit to the U.S. Capitol since a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. Now, just days away from reclaiming power, the President-elect was there to meet with the 52 Republican Senators of the 119th Congress about advancing his legislative agenda: a massive border security package, extending his 2017 tax cuts, and dispensing with the debt ceiling. After more than an hour of wrangling over strategy, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, tried to wrap things up, according to one of the GOP senators present. “Sir,” she told Trump, “I want to respect your time and get you out of here so you can move on to your other commitments.” Trump raised his eyebrows and interjected. “I have no other commitments,” he said. “This is my legacy.” The Jan. 8 meeting lasted nearly another hour. Despite Trump’s visions of enhanced executive authority, it was a recognition that his success will rest on the cooperation—or capitulation—of others. Even before his inauguration, he has been racking up wins. When Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire after 15 months of war, Israeli officials credited Trump’s demand that the terror group release the hostages or else “all hell will break loose.” As President Biden warned in his farewell address of an ultra-wealthy oligarchy taking shape, the corporate titans he was referencing were cozying up to Trump in unsubtle displays of anticipatory obedience. Congressional Republicans similarly continue to bend to his will—whether it’s the few House members who threatened to derail Mike Johnson’s reelection for Speaker of the House, or the key Senator who expressed doubts about former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary. Ultimately, they all backed down. “The way he went to bat for Mike Johnson and cracked down on dissenters sent a message to me and a lot of others to back off,” says a Republican Senator close to Trump. “Don’t ruin this.” Even with all that political capital, Trump still faces limits to his power. Republican legislators balked at his request to use recess appointments to install his more controversial Cabinet picks. When it became clear there were enough holdouts to tank his choice of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Trump told the former Florida congressman to step aside. Today, he’s navigating the competing demands of Republicans in purple and ruby red districts as they try to carve out a legislative framework for his signature domestic priorities. And despite Trump’s GOP having full control of Washington, the threat of internecine divisions derailing his plans looms large. “When you have majorities in each chamber,” a Trump advisor says, “the worry is that it would become a circular firing squad.” That remains a possibility. For Trump, who won on a promise to reshape government, the greatest obstacle may be just how far his own party is willing to let him go. In private meetings, sources close to Trump say the President keeps expressing a desire to move fast, fully aware that the window for maximal disruption won’t stay open for long. “Your biggest opportunities for change are in the first couple of years, and even more so in the first 18 months, because that's ahead of elections,” says a senior Trump official. “He's at the apex of power now. Every month that goes by, he has a little bit less.” If you want to know how a candidate will govern, the clues are often in how they campaigned. Trump’s 2016 bid was marked by chaos, leaking, and vicious infighting. He trudged through three separate campaign managers. His 2024 campaign was far more disciplined; there was hardly any turnover and they succeeded in ways few saw coming: broadening the tent while pleasing his base, winning the popular vote, and clinching a decisive Electoral College victory. Much of that credit goes to Susie Wiles, his de facto underboss who will serve as White House Chief of Staff. So there was little surprise when Trump asked Wiles to take on the vital role. Inside the West Wing, she will be tasked with maintaining order and cohesion among the executive branch and Trump’s far-flung coalition. One of Trump’s deputy chiefs of staff, James Blair, will be a liaison to Congress. Another longtime advisor, Stephen Miller, will have broad discretion to shape executive policy, while Dan Scavino will manage Trump’s social media and be a constant presence by his side. Taylor Budowich, a seasoned MAGA stalwart, will oversee hiring in the executive branch and media strategy. All of them worked on the last campaign and will try to translate an operation that worked for them on the trail into a model for unconventional governance. As Trump’s Cabinet picks were sending shockwaves through Washington late last month, Wiles laid out a theory of her boss's unorthodox appointments in a call with senior transition staff: “RFK is going to be a disruptor, Elon Musk is going to be a disruptor. Kash Patel is going to be a disruptor.” One of Trump’s biggest regrets of his first term, he told TIME in April, was the people he hired who tried to block his most norm-shattering, and in some cases dangerous, ideas. But now he’s been elected on an unambiguous promise to wage war on the institutions of government and deliver sweeping transformations. His Cabinet nominees, Wiles told her underlings, according to two sources familiar with the call, were chosen to deliver on that promise. “He wants people that can disrupt alongside him.” Read More: Donald Trump’s Disruption Is Back To critics, Trump’s nominations reflect another impulse: to install obedient, often inexperienced, acolytes who will acquiesce to his demands to turn the government into an instrument for his own self-interest. In some instances, Trump’s antagonists see an explicit quid pro quo. In exchange for Kennedy endorsing Trump last summer, says Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the progressive government watchdog Public Citizen, Trump picked the vaccine critic to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. In exchange for Musk donating $250 million to his campaign, she alleges, Trump rewarded the billionaire whose businesses hold various U.S. government contracts with his own commission tasked with shrinking the size of government. “There is no clearer instance of a direct tit-for-tat interaction,” says Gilbert. Beyond Trump’s Cabinet and inner circle, the administration expects to harness an array of outside groups, social media influencers, and right-wing media personalities to shape narratives and apply pressure on Republicans who might obstruct the Trump agenda. They were already deployed in full force to squash any GOP squeamishness on Hegseth, who Trump wants to lead the Pentagon despite questions about his experience, his views, and accusations leveled against him of alcohol abuse and sexual assault that he’s denied. When Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a veteran up for re-election in two years, expressed reservation about Hegseth, who has said women should not serve in combat, she drew an onslaught of social media harassment, revved up by the likes of Steve Bannon and Gaetz, now an anchor for the pro-Trump One America News Network. “How do I make it stop?” Ernst asked one of her fellow Republican senators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “She toe-dipped in her opposition,” the GOP senator tells TIME, “and felt the immediate backlash.” Another source familiar with the matter tells TIME that a Trump ally informed Ernst that the President would support a primary challenge against her in Iowa—where Trump won the caucuses last year by roughly 30 points—if she blocked Hegseth. At the same time, Musk quietly back-channeled a message to Senators, according to two sources familiar with the matter: anyone who votes against Trump’s Cabinet secretaries will face a multi-million dollar Musk-funded Super PAC to oust them from office in their next primary. Ernst ultimately signaled she would back Hegseth. “That's the reality that all these members live in the next couple years here,” says a source close to Trump. “They all get in line at the end of the day.” There’s still always the potential for trouble in a MAGA paradise. There are competing factions within Trump’s orbit with their own agendas. Some of that has already spilled into public view, such as Bannon’s tussle with Musk over H1B visas, through which U.S. companies, including Musk’s, import skilled workers from other countries. To Trump, the argument is part of the fun—and his decision-making process. “He doesn’t mind the squabble,” says a Trump aide. “He likes to see the conversation hash out and see where the conversation online lives and where the base is on things.” In the end, Trump sided with the SpaceX founder over whether the H-1B program was worth continuing. Trump, after all, uses them at his clubs and hotels. Plus Musk has more than $300 billion. Bannon does not. But over the coming years, such quarrels may serve as a barometer for which voices in his ear will have the most influence, and the extent to which Trump remains sensitive to public pushback. Trump aides say he is more intent than he was in his first term on remaking the federal bureaucracy, and less concerned with appeasing those who might stand in his way. “His risk tolerance is higher,” says a senior Trump official.

President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in as U.S. President for the second time, along with Vice President-elect JD Vance, by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in an Inauguration Ceremony. The ceremony is followed by an Inaugural Address from Donald Trump. Trump and Vance are replacing President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

hen Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine’s victory was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time—supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”—was intentionally vague. It also raised the question: As long as it takes to do what? “We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” says Eric Green, who served on Biden’s National Security Council at the time, overseeing Russia policy. The U.S., in other words, made no promise to help Ukraine recover all of the land Russia had occupied, and certainly not the vast territories in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula taken in its initial invasion in 2014. The reason was simple, Green says: in the White House’s view, doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West. “That was not going to be a success story ultimately. The more important objective was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.” That was one of the three objectives Biden set. He also wanted the U.S. and its allies to remain united, and he insisted on avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Looking back on his leadership during the war in Ukraine — certain to shape his legacy as a statesman — Biden has achieved those three objectives. But success on those limited terms provides little satisfaction even to some of his closest allies and advisers. “It’s unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” Green says in an interview with TIME. “Because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” For the Ukrainians, disappointment with Biden has been building throughout the invasion, and they have expressed it ever more openly since the U.S. presidential elections ended in Donald Trump’s victory. In a podcast that aired in early January, President Volodymyr Zelensky said the U.S. had not done enough under Biden to impose sanctions against Russia and to provide Ukraine with weapons and security guarantees. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky told Lex Fridman, “I don’t want the same situation like we had with Biden. I ask for sanctions now, please, and weapons now.” The criticism was unusually pointed, and seems all the more remarkable given how much support the U.S. has given Ukraine during Biden’s tenure—$66 billion in military assistance alone since the February 2022 Russian invasion, according to the U.S. State Department. Combine that with all of the aid Congress has approved for Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian, and other needs, and the total comes to around $183 billion as of last September, according to Ukraine Oversight, a U.S. government watchdog created in 2023 to monitor and account for all of this assistance. Yet Zelensky and some of his allies insist that the U.S. has been too cautious in standing up to Russia, especially when it comes to granting Ukraine a clear path to NATO membership. “It is very important that we share the same vision for Ukraine’s security future – in the E.U. and NATO,” the Ukrainian president said during his most recent visit to the White House in September. During that visit, Zelensky gave Biden a detailed list of requests that he described as Ukraine’s “victory plan.” Apart from calling for an invitation to join NATO, the plan urged the U.S. to strengthen Ukraine’s position in the war with a massive new influx of weapons and the permission to use them deep inside Russian territory. Biden had by then announced that he would not run for re-election, and the Ukrainians hoped that his lame-duck status would free him to make bolder decisions, in part to secure his legacy in foreign affairs. “For us his legacy is an argument,” a senior member of Zelensky’s delegation to Washington told TIME. “How will history remember you?” The appeals got a mixed reception. On the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, Biden would not budge. But he did sign off on a number of moves that the White House had long rejected as too dangerous. In November, the U.S. allowed Ukraine to use American missiles to strike deep inside Russian territory. And in January, the Biden administration imposed tough sanctions against the Russian energy sector, including the “shadow fleet” of tankers Russia has used to export its oil. While these decisions fell short of what Zelensky wanted, they helped Biden make the case during the last foreign-policy speech of his tenure that the U.S. had met its goals in defending Ukraine. He remained careful, however, not to promise that Ukraine would regain any more of its territory, or even survive to the end of this war. Russian President Vladimir Putin “has failed thus far to subjugate Ukraine,” Biden said in his address at the State Department on Jan. 13. “Today, Ukraine is still a free, i The future that Zelensky and many of his countrymen have in mind is one in which Russia is defeated. But in rallying the world to the fight, the implication Biden embedded in his own goals was that defending Ukraine against Russia is not the same as defeating Russia. So it is not surprising if that goal remains far from Zelensky’s reach.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. An eternity stretches between now and any real moves in the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominating contest. But the early jockeying has started drawing donors’ imaginations, and so far, two charismatic leaders from the next generation of Democrats have emerged as figures to watch. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, whose recent marathon floor speech was hailed by peers and party activists alike as a turning point in the Democrats’ fight against President Donald Trump, has raked in $16 million since his 2020 re-election, putting him second only to Senator Jon Ossoff among Democrats running for re-election this cycle. While Booker’s haul is only a little more than half of Ossoff’s, the Georgian is Republicans’ top target for 2026 Senate races, while Booker’s seat is considered a safe one. Booker’s hefty fundraising tally came before he staged a record-breaking, 25-hour speech on the Senate floor that could be viewed as a less-than-subtle starting gun for a 2028 campaign. The spectacle started just hours before the fundraising quarter closed, so Booker’s $1 million start to the year is missing from the $12.4 million he has on hand heading into what is anticipated to be an easy re-election bid next year. Another Democratic fundraising standout who could come into play for higher office was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The 35-year-old New Yorker, whose district includes parts of the Bronx and Queens, has collected $9.6 million through the end of March, according to financial reports filed Tuesday. Among House candidates, Ocasio-Cortez ranks behind only Gay Valimont, a gun-safety advocate who earlier this month fell short in her bid for a Florida House seat vacated by Republican Matt Gaetz. Ocasio-Cortez has been touring the country with Sen. Bernie Sanders, drawing enormous crowds and huge numbers of low-dollar donors as she cements her status as a progressive star. It’s possible that both Booker and Ocasio-Cortez will ultimately take a pass on 2028. Booker’s 2020 bid for the presidential nomination failed to gain traction, and he dropped out before the first votes were even cast. Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, just cleared the age-minimum bar for qualifying for President, and many in New York are waiting to see if she chases that path or if she runs for the Senate seat currently held by Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is up for potential re-election in 2028. But a party trying to figure out its identity amid a second Trump era will surely see a crowded field of hopefuls. The list could include the likes of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, among many others.\ Despite that group, it’s worth watching Booker's and AOC's coffers. A dollar raised for the House or Senate can become instant seed money for a White House run, whereas money raised for state-office campaigns is a trickier conversion. Money is a big part of any ambitious politician’s decision about their political future. Booker’s struggles with fundraising in his first bid for the White House helped usher him out of the race. Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, began her career by sparking a small-dollar revolution that toppled a longtime incumbent who was being groomed to maybe take over House Democrats’ operations. If the pair keeps this up—and spreads some of that cash around to help on-the-margin incumbents or rising insurgents—they just might be the pace-setters for the Democrats heading forward.

Despite President Joe Biden’s former directive that U.S. flags would be flown at half-staff during President-elect Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day—a continuation of mourning after the death of former President Jimmy Carter—several Republicans have pledged to fly their flags at full-staff. In honor of Carter—who died on Dec. 29, 2024, aged 100—Biden proclaimed that flags at government buildings should be flown at half-staff “as an expression of public sorrow” for 30 days—a period of time that would have included Trump’s inauguration on Monday, Jan. 20. In Oklahoma, the flags have already been raised to full-staff, as Gov. Kevin Stitt only ordered the flags to remain at half-staff until Carter’s funeral on Jan. 9. When George H.W. Bush died in 2018, the governor at the time— Gov. Mary Fallin—directed that all flags be flown at half-staff for 30 days. Read More: Trump Reacts to Order Issued About of U.S. Flags Several Republican Governors have made statements over the past week, ordering flags at state buildings to be flown at full-staff on Inauguration Day in their respective states, then returned to half-staff the day after. “While we honor the service of a former President, we must also celebrate the service of an incoming President and the bright future ahead for the United States of America,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a staunch Trump ally, wrote in his statement on Jan. 13. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey also spoke out on that same day, announcing that she will raise the flags for the inauguration. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson followed suit on Jan. 14, ordering for flags at the United States Capitol to be raised to their full height for the inauguration, and then lowered the day after. In his statement, Johnson said that it was "to celebrate our country coming together behind the inauguration of our 47th President, Donald Trump.” Throughout Jan. 14, other Republican governors issued similar orders, including Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong , Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Florida Gov Ron DeSantis, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, and Idaho Gov. Brad Little. DeSantis, who presides over Florida where Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home is based, said the decision was “to honor the tradition of our founding fathers and the sacrifices made by those who have served to ensure the torch of liberty continues to burn strong.” On Jan. 15, Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox issued an order for "the flags of the United States of America and the great state of Utah to be flown at full-staff on all state facilities on Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in observance of Inauguration Day." The flags will return to half-staff at sunset, in continuance of the tradition honoring Carter. That same day, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster ordered the flags over the State Capitol and state buildings to fly at full-staff from sunrise to sunset on Jan. 20. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, and Alaska's Gov. Mike Dunleavy later issued similar instructions. And it’s seemingly not only Republicans who are said to be taking the position. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon has reportedly confirmed that the Democrat would join the fold of Republican governors in raising the flags on Inauguration Day, according to Associated Press. This comes after Trump complained in January about the flags on his social media app, Truth Social, saying that Democrats were “giddy” about the flag being flown at half-staff during his inauguration. “In any event, because of the death of President Jimmy Carter, the Flag may, for the first time ever during an Inauguration of a future President, be at half mast,” he wrote. “Nobody wants to see this, and no American can be happy about it. Let’s see how it plays out.”Several of the governors stated in their decisions to raise the flags during the mourning period that they are still within federal standards. Governors Lee and Ivey cited a section of the flag code that describes general times and occasions for displaying the U.S. flag, including Inauguration Day, But the code does not state that the flags must be at full-staff. The exact wording is “The flag should be displayed on all days, especially on…Inauguration Day, January 20”—the day included in a list of several other federal holidays. Biden’s proclamation, though, is in accordance with a section of the flag code which states that “The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President.”