On the
morning of March 6th, 2017, Donald Trump signed into law
for the second time an executive order attempting to stop the flow of
migrants and refugees into the United States from six (down from the
original seven) Muslim majority countries, this time excluding Iraq
on the advice of the Pentagon and the State Department on account of
its essential role in the ongoing campaign against ISIS (the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria).1
A year ago, under then-President Barack Obama, a move of unilateral
legal bombast of such blanket proportions emanating from the White
House would have seemed close to impossible, though most of the
American political landscape shares this same tinted veneer of
impossibility—an impossibility which, now fulfilled, has morphed
into a dangerous and unprecedented absurdity. This essay will trace
the foreign policy contours of both the Trump and Obama
administrations in order to contrast them and analytically
investigative what—and to what extent—has thus far substantively
changed in terms of America's policy dispositions in the realm of
international relations. Major contrasts in already implemented
policies of the Trump administration are plenty, many very dangerous
in implication; however, much of the underlying policy infrastructure
in foreign affairs remains both expectedly and unexpectedly
contiguous with the preceding Obama administration, such as a
strategically rhetorical caution with regards to North Korea's
missile testing, the continued existence of the detention centre at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the policy of unilateral American strike
intervention in places such as Yemen. Much else, however, has cleanly
broken from the previous administration, such as the scrapping of the
TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal, the above mentioned
hard-line xenophobia of the executive orders on refugees and
immigration, the advent of the far-right in a more general regard to
the executive branch and social landscape, the development of an
apartheid-style wall on the border between Mexico and the United
States, and an extremely friendly relationship with Israel under
Benjamin Netanyahu, extending so far as to probe the possibility of
moving the official American embassy to contested Jerusalem, which
both Israel and the decimated Palestinian Territories claim as their
rightful capital.2
Due to limitations on length, all of the above is sufficient only
towards scratching the surface of these issues; or, rather, towards
tracing their contours.
There is
much in President Trump's demeanour and tone that add to the
generally correct impression of discontinuity with previous political
orthodoxy, especially that practised by Obama during his time in
office. However, despite the tectonic shift in operative ideology,
policy content, and rhetoric, it can often be far too easy to
overlook some of the analogous similarities and continuity between
the two administrations when Donald Trump as an abrasively
overwhelming spectacle flaunts himself so readily and constantly
through the news media.3
In this time of unprecedented political instability, it is essential
to trace these continuities and catalogue said analogous similarities
as have been made apparent thus far in order to tease out a deeper
context from the web of volatile and widely misunderstood
socio-political complexity that is the American political landscape.
As such, we can start with Trump's promise, made as a candidate on
the campaign trail in April of 2016, to cancel remittance payments to
Mexico and redirect the money towards funding his wall on the
southern border.4
An important distinction, however, must be made between Trump's
rhetoric and truly enacted policy, as it is clearly enacted policy
that is of greater consequence than policy promises. This being said,
Trump has only been in office for a little over a month at the time
of writing, and has not enacted his pledged cancellation of
remittances, though he has officially begun development of the
southern border wall with Mexico, but has yet to concretely impose
any measures to force Mexico's payment for its construction. Rather
ironically, then-President Obama was quick to chastise candidate
Trump for such a promise when he said, “The notion that we’re
going to track every Western Union bit of money that’s being sent
to Mexico—good luck with that.”5
What is overlooked in this exchange is the fact that, under legal
directives implemented under his administration, Obama cancelled
remittance payments to Somalia from Somalis and Somali-American's
working in the United States. The intention was to cease these
payments so as to avoid the money falling into the hands of terrorist
organizations, though it facilitated quite the opposite when people
desperate to send portions of their earnings to destitute relatives
instead opted to pack suitcases full of money onto planes, often
unattended, in the hopes that it would make it to its intended
beneficiary.6
Not only did this mean that many Somalis did not receive the money
that acted as their primary source of income, but that when the
suitcases did not make it to their intended destination, they are far
more likely to have instead wound up in the hands of the same
terrorist groups the American government intended to financially
starve.
On
climate, Trump's rhetoric may be as good as policy insofar as the
agreement signed in Paris during November 2015 by 194 countries on
capping carbon emissions and weaning off fossil fuels over the course
of the coming decades is, for all intents and purposes, non-binding.
As was reported by the UK's Guardian newspaper this past
November, only 4 days prior to the 2016 American election, “The
Paris agreement is legally binding in forcing governments to accept
and cater for the [cap on global temperature increases by 2 degrees
Celsius]. But the commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions in
line with that goal are not legally binding. This means incoming
governments can renege upon them. There are no sanctions for
governments that flout the goals.”7
This means that Trump should have no real procedural issue
withdrawing the United States from the covenant if he decides not to
abide by its terms. There would have perhaps been a chance for the
agreement to enjoy a stronger legal standing in America had it been
presented as an official treaty and put to the Senate to ratify as
such, but as it stood in late 2015, the Senate was stacked with an
overwhelmingly obstructionist Republican majority bent on stymieing
President Obama's every move. Regardless of this, it is also true
that, even if it had been ratified as a national treaty, it could
have been repealed by a new composition of senators following another
election. Considering the recently-elected Republican majority in
both houses of government, the push to repeal would likely have
remained as much of a risk as withdrawal is today, and was thus not
likely something Obama could have worked to avoid.8
As it stands, however, it seems that Trump has yet to make up his
mind in as far as the Paris agreements are concerned, and is,
reportedly, being counselled to remain within the pact by his
daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, while being
advised to the contrary by former Goldman Sachs banker as well as
former Breitbart News executive and the first demonstrably
fascistic—or, cryptofascistic—White House chief strategist, Steve
Bannon.9
Alongside this, Trump appointed former Oklahoma Attorney General
Scott Pruitt to be the next administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), a man who, when asked whether he believed in
global man-made climate change, simply stated that “the climate is
changing, and human activity contributes to that in some manner.”10
More substantively, however, and more troubling, is that during his
time as Oklahoma's Attorney General, Pruitt sued the EPA as many as
14 times11
as part of his crusade against the agency he now leads as a
self-described “leading advocate against the EPA's activist
agenda.”12
In this respect, he attempted to clarify during his confirmation
hearings that he believed most environmental policy can be left
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states, distancing himself
from the more federalist approach taken by previous EPA
administrators such as Obama's last appointee, the air quality and
environmental health expert Gina McCarthy.13
Beyond all this, the elephant in the room would be Trump's 2012
Twitter remarks which alleged that “[t]he concept of global warming
was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S.
manufacturing non-competitive.”14
It is absurd past statements like these coming from none other than
the new President of the United States that paint a more ideational
concern for those in opposition, regardless of who Trump puts in
place to oversee matters of environmental and energy sustainability.
When Obama attended the signing of the Paris climate agreements, most
world leaders and dignitaries present assumed Trump was going to lose
the coming Republican primary contests and slip into political
obscurity. However, fear-mongering found further legitimization and
social license as only a few days prior to the congregation, the
French capital had been devastated by a series of coordinated
terrorist attacks that took the lives of 130 people, and injured
hundreds more.15
Immediately, the environment became fertile ground for political gain
through fear by the likes of the far-right French
Presidential-hopeful and National Front leader, Marine Le Pen.
Trump
himself, then just a candidate in the Republican primaries, also
capitalized on the Paris attacks, stating that things “would have
been different” if Parisians had been carrying guns.16
Thus far, despite incoherently belligerent pledges made on the
campaign trail, the Trump administration has kept anti-terrorism
policy and operations coherently contiguous with those of his
predecessor, having given the green light to a Navy SEAL raid on an
al-Qaeda branch (AQAP, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) compound
in Yemen in late January 2017. The raid itself had been developed
under Obama's administration, but the Pentagon advised waiting for a
moonless night to launch the operation, the next of which would not
come until after Obama's term ended on January 20th. In
itself, the raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL, as well as
several civilians including the 8 year old daughter of Anwar
al-Alwaki, an al-Qaeda operative who also happened to be the first
American citizen extra-judicially assassinated by drone strike in
2011 on the orders of President Obama.17
During
his time in office, Obama oversaw the rapid expansion of the
weaponized drone program begun in earnest under his predecessor,
George W. Bush. Intended as a strategy to deal with the proliferating
asymmetrical threats facing the American military machine without
putting any actual personnel in harms way, these remote drone
operations consist of two main tactical approaches. The first are
known as 'personality strikes,' the criteria for which “require the
operator to develop a high level of certainty about the target's
identity and location, based on multiple sources such as ... imagery,
cell phone intercepts and informants on the ground.”18
Personality strikes, then, are designed to be accurate and specific
in their choice of targets. On the other hand, the second main
tactical option are known as 'signature strikes,' which are
notoriously vaguer in their strike criteria. When planning and
orchestrating signature strikes, “the United States assesses that
the individuals in question exhibit behaviors that match a
pre-identified 'signature' (for example, pattern of observable
activities and/or personal networks) that suggests that they are
associated with al Qaeda and/or the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban
organizations. Because the identity of the target is unknown, even
during the strike, it is possible that these persons are innocent
civilians, a possibility that both [the Obama] and former [Bush
administration] officials concede.”19
As a result of such indiscriminate attacks, innocent victims are
galvanized by anger, fear, and despair, only to then become
radicalized and easily lured into joining—and thus growing and
perpetuating—extremist organizations like al-Qaeda, ISIS, or the
Taliban. This is one particular realm of American foreign policy and
its consequent blow-back that is unlikely to change under the Trump
administration, and the remote drone program in particular could see
significant growth in its military application as Trump looks to 'get
tough' on such groups as listed above. In this respect, many see the
new administration's so-called Muslim ban as a bit of cruel and
deliberate irony, insofar as the countries to which the travel ban
applies have been the target of American bombings, both discriminate
and indiscriminate, over the course of the past three decades.
It can
be soundly argued that the Obama administration was responsible,
alongside the preceding Bush administration, for fuelling violence
and chaos across the world which resulted in the continued
destabilization of these regions, thus contributing to the
circumstances conducive to the ongoing international refugee crisis.
It seems incontrovertible, however, that Obama was, on net, much more
open to and receptive of refugees and immigration from all corners of
the globe during his tenure than his successor is, or likely ever
will be. In 2016, under Obama's watch, the United States granted
entry to some 85,000 refugees, 38,901 of whom identified as Muslim.20
As it stands, this means “the U.S. has admitted the highest number
of Muslim refugees of any year since data on self-reported religious
affiliations first became publicly available in 2002.”21
This data set, however, belies a deeper and more disturbing point of
similarity between the Trump and Obama administrations: in the first
five years of Obama's Presidency, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement) issued deportation orders to over 2 million people, most
of whom were disproportionately Latin American including “hundreds
of thousands of parents of U.S.-born American citizens.”22
Trump, by contrast, has yet to truly begin his pledged mass
deportations of illegal immigrants, but already there has been debate
over so-called 'sanctuary cities' which have committed to denying
federal authorities the requisite information and access needed to
identify and deport undocumented immigrants within their local
jurisdictions. On its face, it seems strange that these cities did
not make themselves available as 'sanctuaries' at all during the
Obama era, but upon closer inspection, the nuance in deportation
criteria has indeed altered to an extent which may soon be stymied
due to legal overreach. Whereas the Obama administration gravitated
into a primary focus on the deportation of undocumented immigrants
who were shown to be involved with gangs or credibly accused of
serious crimes such as murder or drug trafficking, in mid-February
2017, the Trump administration broadened the criteria for deportation
so as to make “[a]ny immigrant who is in the country illegally and
is charged or convicted of any offence, or even suspected of a crime
[...] an enforcement priority, according to Homeland Security
Department memos signed by Secretary John Kelly. That could include
people arrested for shoplifting or minor offences.”23
It is a
challenge to attempt an ideological classification of Trump, as he
appears to exist primarily as a cult of personality deeply cultivated
through the media with a rather impulsive Presidential disposition
which, at its most coherent, seems to be operatively transactional.
He is against strictly globalized free trade, though he still
believes in American global imperialism as demonstrated in his adding
$54 billion to the military budget via dollar-for-dollar cuts in
other departmental funding, including the EPA and international
financial aid through the State Department.24
Obama, on the other hand, is much easier to categorize in terms of
his double neoliberalism, first in the form of his support of
neoliberal economic theory, and second, in the form of his operative
neoliberal multilateralism on the world stage. Both are demonstrated
aptly in his dedicated pursuit of the now-defunct Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which would have expanded global free trade and
integrated the markets between the signatory nations into the
international system to an unprecedented degree. On another level,
Trump's ascendancy represents the rise of what is broadly known as
the so-called “alt-right” (alternative right) to the American
political scene and, by implication, the globe. The most forward
example of said ascendancy would be the appointment of former Goldman
Sachs banker and Breitbart CEO Stephen Bannon as White House chief
strategist, a man known as an open white supremacist25
and anti-Semite.26
In this regard, the operative ideological composition of the American
executive branch is, in many ways, unprecedented. It is also in stark
contrast to the ideological make-up of the Obama administration, as
well as the entire political orthodoxy that has both implicitly and
explicitly reigned since the end of the Second World War. Through a
more constructivist lens, a certain cryptofascism of immense
ideational consequence has come to inhabit the American executive
branch, one that speaks broadly of 'taking back the culture' for
those of white and ultimately European descent. Though it would be
naive to explicitly define the new administration as openly and
operatively “fascist,” it is not only entirely fair, but is also
entirely true that all of the ingredients are now present, and if a
particular political, geopolitical, or domestic attack incident
appeared as a convenient catalyst, then the administration would
likely not only be required to
respond, but would respond vigorously and comprehensively via an
authoritarian and 'dystopian' overreaction. To clarify, it is
essential to define fascism so as not to allow the reader to
mistakenly conflate it with its other more specific historical
connotations. To do so, this paper will rely on the definition
synthesized and provided by Alex Schulman in his study for Human
Rights Watch titled
“PurgePolitik: The political function of decadence in fascism,”
in which he asserts that “we cannot circumscribe fascism as a
simply political system that held power and prestige from about the
early 1920's until the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, but rather as
a set of sociopolitical and cultural tendencies that, while
particularly ascendant in that period, threaten to break through in
various forms at any time.”27
Through his scholarly synthesis of multiple other academic sources
looking at fascism as a political phenomenon, Schulman comes up with
a list of nine demonstrable 'symptoms' or signs of fascism, eight of
which are disconcertingly applicable to the new Trump administration
and its political standard bearers. For the purposes of this paper,
only the eight applicable symptoms will be listed and elaborated on.
The first is a “virulent antiliberalism and anti-individualism,”
demonstrated quite presciently in the Trump administration's
aggressively adversarial relationship with the media, which Stephen
Bannon explicitly labelled “the opposition party” that should
“keep their mouths shut,”28
alongside the banning of multiple news organizations from White House
press briefings. Second is the “[e]mphasis on the aesthetic
structure of politics, on [...] emotion, usually involving some sort
of cult of personality at the center”; third, “[a] totalizing
system where a single party under a single “great leader” is
associated with the will of the entire nation-as-organism”; fourth,
the “[e]xaltation [...] of the new against the old, [and] of
charisma over rationality”; fifth, “[e]xcessive militarism,
whether imperialistic or simply focused on a fetishization of martial
discipline at home,” demonstrated in the increased military budget
and aggrandizement of imperialistic martial values; sixth, the
“[f]etishization of masculinity, defined as aggression and a
will-to-power, as a virtue”; seventh, the “[f]etishization of
continuous struggle as a virtue, variously defined”; and, finally,
the eighth and final symptom, a personal addition of Schulman's,
which is the “purgation of [social, cultural or political]
decadence” as an excessively prevalent motif.29
It
can be soundly argued that the United States has been a 'totalitarian
democracy' since the legal ratification of the U.S. PATRIOT Act (a
terrifyingly clever Orwellian acronym which stands for the “Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”) under the Bush
administration in 2001.30
As such, the first prerequisite circumstances toward a more fascistic
polity have been present since 9/11, but the machinery of state has
now, 16 years later, fallen into the hands of an unpredictable
ethno-nationalist administration under the helm of a dangerously
narcissistic and temperamentally unstable 'Great Leader' who has a
serious disdain for complexity. So, though it may not be explicit
fascism, it is operatively fascistic in a way that is entirely
unprecedented in the history of the United States of America. As
well, as a result of the unipolarity of American hegemony in a
largely globalized system, there is little to delineate the domestic
and international spheres due to the sheer scale and reach of
American imperial and economic influence.31
The Obama administration, though nominally liberal in contrast to the
invasively over-abundant right-wing political extremism so widespread
in the American body-politic, ultimately still worked primarily to
maintain and preserve American imperialism, thus acting as a bridge
between the regressive right-wing extremism of the Bush
administration and the fascistic ethno-nationalism of Trump and his
cabinet, and even working to inadvertently increase the tools of
coercion available in the arsenal of the executive branch. Much has
changed drastically in the transition from Obama to Trump, but
ultimately, the deeper machinery of the state has remained a
totalitarian democracy ready for further abuse by fascistic elements
of the far-right since the attacks of 9/11. Guantanamo Bay is about
to get a new and expansive lease on life.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AS AN ESSAY FOR MY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS COURSE.
Bibliography:
Cockburn, Andrew. "A
Policy Of Hypocrisy". Harper's Magazine, April 26, 2016.
Accessed March 6, 2017.
https://harpers.org/blog/2016/04/a-policy-of-hypocrisy/.
Connor, Phillip. "U.S.
Admits Record Number Of Muslim Refugees In 2016". Pew
Research Center. Last modified October 5, 2016. Accessed March 8,
2017.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/.
Davenport, Coral. "Top
Trump Advisers Are Split On Paris Agreement On Climate Change".
The New York Times. Last modified March 2, 2017. Accessed
March 7, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/climate-change-trump.html.
Dennis, Brady. "Scott
Pruitt, Longtime Adversary Of EPA, Confirmed To Lead The Agency".
The Washington Post, 2017. Accessed March 7, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/17/scott-pruitt-long-time-adversary-of-epa-confirmed-to-lead-the-agency/?utm_term=.f708ca1eab91.
Detrow, Scott. "Scott
Pruitt Confirmed To Lead Environmental Protection Agency". NPR.
Last modified February 17, 2017. Accessed March 7, 2017.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515802629/scott-pruitt-confirmed-to-lead-environmental-protection-agency.
Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump:
Paris Massacre Would Have Been 'Much Different' If People Had Guns".
CNN. Last modified November 14, 2015. Accessed March 7, 2017.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-terror-attacks-donald-trump-guns/.
Fair, C. Christine, Karl
Kaltenthaler, and William J. Miller. "Pakistani Opposition To
American Drone Strikes". Political Science Quarterly 131,
no. 2 (2016): 387-419. Accessed March 7, 2017.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1002/polq.12474/full.
"Gina McCarthy:
Executive Profile & Biography". Bloomberg. Last
modified 2017. Accessed March 11, 2017.
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=276590019&privcapId=5376654&previousCapId=5376654&previousTitle=United%20States%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency.
Harvey, Fiona. "Keep
It In The Ground: The Paris Climate Agreement Is Now Official".
The Guardian. Last modified 2016. Accessed March 7, 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/the-paris-climate-agreement-is-now-official.
Kellner, Douglas. "Donald
Trump And The Politics Of The Spectacle". American Nightmare
117 (2016): pp 3-6.
Lazaroff, Tovah. "US
Delegation In Israel To Study Relocation Of Embassy To Jerusalem".
The Jerusalem Post. Last modified March 4, 2017. Accessed
March 6, 2017.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/US-delegation-in-Israel-to-study-relocation-of-embassy-to-Jerusalem-483221.
"Legally Binding? It's
Nonsense! - COP 21 Paris Summit". COP 21 Paris Summit.
Last modified 2017. Accessed March 7, 2017.
http://climateparis.org/legally-binding.
Ofir, Jonathan. "Steve
Bannon’s Judeo-Christian ‘Camp Of The Saints’".
Mondoweiss. Last modified March 11, 2017. Accessed March 13,
2017. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/bannons-christian-saints/.
"Paris Attacks: What
Happened On The Night". BBC News. Last modified December 7,
2015. Accessed March 7, 2017.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994.
Sales, Ben. "Stephen
Bannon: 5 Things Jews Need To Know". The Times Of Israel.
Last modified November 14, 2016. Accessed March 13, 2017.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/stephen-bannon-5-things-jews-need-to-know/.
Schmitt, Eric and David
Sanger. "Raid In Yemen: Risky From The Start And Costly In The
End". The New York Times, February 1, 2017. Accessed
March 7, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html.
Schulman, Alex.
"PurgePolitik: The Political Functions Of Decadence In Fascism".
Human Rights Review 8, no. 1 (2006): 5-34.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders
Questions Scott Pruitt". C-SPAN. Last modified January
28, 2017. Accessed March 7, 2017.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4648453/sen-bernie-sanders-questions-scott-pruitt.
Street, Alex, Chris
Zepeda-Millán, and Michael Jones-Correa. "Mass Deportations And
The Future Of Latino Partisanship". Social Science Quarterly
96, no. 2 (2015): 540-552. Accessed March 8, 2017.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12158/full.
Steinhauer, Michael. "Trump
To Seek $54 Billion Increase In Military Spending". The New
York Times. Last modified February 27, 2017. Accessed March 11,
2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html.
Trump, Donald. "Donald
J. Trump On Twitter". Twitter. Last modified 2012.
Accessed March 7, 2017.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en.
"Trump Administration
Plans Could Lead To Vast Increase In Deportations". CBC News.
Last modified February 21, 2017. Accessed March 8, 2017.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-immigration-trump-1.3992271.
"Trump Aide Bannon
Lambasts US Media As 'Opposition Party'". BBC News. Last
modified January 27, 2017. Accessed March 13, 2017.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766620.
"Trump Signs New
Travel Ban Executive Order". CBC News. Last modified
March 6, 2017. Accessed March 6, 2017.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-revised-1.4011197.
Vukadinovic, Radovan.
"America In The New World Order". Medunarodne studije
1, no. 2-3 (2001): 5-20.
Zeljak,
Cathy. "The USA Patriot Act." Problems Of
Post-Communism 51, no. 1
(January 2004): 63-65. Military & Government Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 13, 2017).
1"Trump
Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order", CBC News, last
modified March 6, 2017, accessed March 6, 2017,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-revised-1.4011197.
2Tovah
Lazaroff, "US Delegation In Israel To Study Relocation Of
Embassy To Jerusalem", The Jerusalem Post, last modified
March 4, 2017, accessed March 6, 2017,
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/US-delegation-in-Israel-to-study-relocation-of-embassy-to-Jerusalem-483221.
3Douglas
Kellner, "Donald Trump And The Politics Of The Spectacle",
American Nightmare 117 (2016): pp 3-6.
4Andrew
Cockburn, "A Policy Of Hypocrisy", Harper's Magazine,
April 26, 2016, accessed March 6, 2017,
https://harpers.org/blog/2016/04/a-policy-of-hypocrisy/.
5Ibid.
6Andrew
Cockburn, "A Policy Of Hypocrisy", Harper's Magazine,
April 26, 2016, accessed March 6, 2017,
https://harpers.org/blog/2016/04/a-policy-of-hypocrisy/.
7Fiona
Harvey, "Keep It In The Ground: The Paris Climate Agreement Is
Now Official", The Guardian, last modified November 4,
2016, accessed March 7, 2017,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/the-paris-climate-agreement-is-now-official.
8"Legally
Binding? It's Nonsense! - COP 21 Paris Summit", COP 21 Paris
Summit, last modified 2017, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://climateparis.org/legally-binding.
9Coral
Davenport, "Top Trump Advisers Are Split On Paris Agreement On
Climate Change", The New York Times, last modified March
2, 2017, accessed March 7, 2017.
10"Sen.
Bernie Sanders Questions Scott Pruitt", C-SPAN, last
modified January 18, 2017, accessed March 7, 2017,
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4648453/sen-bernie-sanders-questions-scott-pruitt.
11Brady
Dennis, "Scott Pruitt, Longtime Adversary Of EPA, Confirmed To
Lead The Agency", The Washington Post, February 17,
2017, accessed March 7, 2017,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/17/scott-pruitt-long-time-adversary-of-epa-confirmed-to-lead-the-agency/?utm_term=.f708ca1eab91.
12Scott
Detrow, "Scott Pruitt Confirmed To Lead Environmental
Protection Agency", NPR, last modified February 17,
2017, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515802629/scott-pruitt-confirmed-to-lead-environmental-protection-agency.
13"Gina
McCarthy: Executive Profile & Biography", Bloomberg,
last modified 2017, accessed March 11, 2017,
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=276590019&privcapId=5376654&previousCapId=5376654&previousTitle=United%20States%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency.
14Donald
Trump, "Donald J. Trump On Twitter", Twitter, last
modified November 12, 2012, accessed March 7, 2017,
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en.
15"Paris
Attacks: What Happened On The Night", BBC News, last
modified December 7, 2015, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994.
16Jeremy
Diamond, "Trump: Paris Massacre Would Have Been 'Much
Different' If People Had Guns", CNN, last modified
November 14, 2015, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-terror-attacks-donald-trump-guns/.
17Eric
Schmitt and David Sanger, "Raid In Yemen: Risky From The Start
And Costly In The End", The New York Times, February 1,
2017, accessed March 7, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html.
18C.
Christine Fair, Karl Kaltenthaler and William J. Miller, "Pakistani
Opposition To American Drone Strikes", Political Science
Quarterly 131, no. 2 (2016): 387-419, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1002/polq.12474/full.
19Ibid.
20Phillip
Connor, "U.S. Admits Record Number Of Muslim Refugees In 2016",
Pew Research Center, last modified October 5, 2016, accessed March
8, 2017,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/.
21Ibid.
22Alex
Street, Chris Zepeda-Millán and Michael Jones-Correa, "Mass
Deportations And The Future Of Latino Partisanship", Social
Science Quarterly 96, no. 2 (2015): 540-552, accessed March 8,
2017,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12158/full.
23"Trump
Administration Plans Could Lead To Vast Increase In Deportations",
CBC News, last modified February 21, 2017, accessed March 8,
2017, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-immigration-trump-1.3992271.
24Michael
Steinhauer, "Trump To Seek $54 Billion Increase In Military
Spending", The New York Times, last modified February
27, 2017, accessed March 11, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html.
25Jonathan
Ofir, "Steve Bannon’s Judeo-Christian ‘Camp Of The
Saints’", Mondoweiss, last modified March 11, 2017,
accessed March 13, 2017,
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/bannons-christian-saints/.
26Ben
Sales, "Stephen Bannon: 5 Things Jews Need To Know", The
Times Of Israel, last modified November 14, 2016, accessed March
13, 2017,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/stephen-bannon-5-things-jews-need-to-know/.
27Alex
Schulman, "PurgePolitik: The Political Functions Of Decadence
In Fascism", Human Rights Review 8, no. 1 (2006): 5-34.
28"Trump
Aide Bannon Lambasts US Media As 'Opposition Party'", BBC
News, last modified January 27, 2017, accessed March 13, 2017,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766620.
29Alex
Schulman, "PurgePolitik: The Political Functions Of Decadence
In Fascism", Human Rights Review 8, no. 1 (2006): 5-34.
30Cathy
Zeljak, "The USA Patriot Act", Problems Of
Post-Communism 51, no. 1 (January 2004): 63-65, Military &
Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed March 13, 2017).
31Radovan
Vukadinovic, "America In The New World Order", Medunarodne
studije 1, no. 2-3 (2001): 5-20.