in social
impact consulting
to start a career aimed
at revitalizing America’s
industrial base.
Opinion
The Editorial Board
a New
Definition of
Service
Bailey Baumbick knew she wanted to serve her country when she graduated from Notre Dame in 2021. Ms. Baumbick, a 26-year-old from Novi, Mich., didn’t enlist in the military, however. She enrolled in business school at the University of California, Berkeley.
Ms. Baumbick is part of a growing community in the Bay Area that aims to bring high-tech dynamism to the lumbering world of the military. After social media companies and countless lifestyle start-ups lost their luster in recent years, entrepreneurs are being drawn to defense tech by a mix of motivations: an influx of venture capital, a coolness factor and the start-up ethos, which Ms. Baumbick describes as “the relentless pursuit of building things.”
There’s also something deeper: old-fashioned patriotism, matched with a career that serves a greater purpose.
In college Ms. Baumbick watched her father, a Ford Motor Company executive, lead the company’s sprint to produce Covid-19 ventilators and personal protective equipment for front-line health care workers. “I’ve never been more inspired by how private sector industry can have so much impact for public sector good,” she said.
Ford’s interventions during the Covid-19 pandemic hark back to a time when public-private partnerships were commonplace. During World War II, leaders of America’s biggest companies, including Ford, halted business as usual to manufacture weapons for the war effort.
For much of the 20th century, the private and public sectors were tightly woven together. In 1980, nearly one in five Americans were veterans. By 2022, that figure had shrunk to one in 16. Through the 1980s, about 70 percent of the companies doing business with the Pentagon were also leaders in the broader U.S. economy. That’s down to less than 10 percent today. The shift away from widespread American participation in national security has left the Department of Defense isolated from two of the country’s great assets: its entrepreneurial spirit and technological expertise.
Recent changes in Silicon Valley are bringing down those walls. Venture capital is pouring money into defense tech; annual investment is up from $7 billion in 2015 to some $80 billion in 2025. The Pentagon needs to seize this opportunity, and find ways to accelerate its work with start-ups and skilled workers from the private sector. It should expand the definition of what it means to serve and provide more flexible options to those willing to step in.
The military will always need physically fit service members. But we are headed toward a future where software will play a bigger role in armed conflict than hardware, from unmanned drones and A.I.-driven targeting to highly engineered cyber weapons and space-based systems. These missions will be carried out by service members in temperature-controlled rooms rather than well armed troops braving the physical challenges of the front line.
For all the latent opportunity in Silicon Valley and beyond, the Trump administration has been uneven in embracing the moment. Stephen Feinberg, the deputy secretary of defense, is a Wall Street billionaire who is expanding the Pentagon’s ties with businesses. Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, his “warrior ethos” and exclusionary recruitment have set back the effort to build a military for the future of war.
America has the chance to reshape our armed forces for the conflicts ahead, and we have the rare good fortune of being able to do that in peacetime.
Elias Rosenfeld had been at Stanford for only a month and a half, but he already looked right at home at a recent job fair for students interested in pursuing defense tech, standing in a relaxed posture, wearing beaded bracelets and a sweater adorned with a single sunflower. Rather than use his time in Stanford’s prestigious business school to build a fintech app or wellness brand, Mr. Rosenfeld has set his sights on helping to rebuild the industrial base on which America’s military relies.
It’s a crucial mission for a country that is getting outbuilt by China, and Mr. Rosenfeld brings a unique commitment to it. Born in Venezuela, he came to the United States at age 6 and draws his patriotism from that country’s experience with tyranny and his Jewish heritage. “Without a strong, resilient America, I might not be here today,” Mr. Rosenfeld says. Working on industrial renewal, he says, is a way to “start delivering as a country so folks feel more inclined and passionate to be more patriotic.”
Not on Mr. Rosenfeld’s agenda: enlisting in the military. In an earlier era, he might have been tempted by a wider suite of options for service. In 1955 the U.S. government nearly doubled the maximum size of the military’s ready reserve forces, from 1.5 million to 2.9 million, in part by giving young men the chance to spend six months in active duty training. Today the U.S. ready reserve numbers just over a million.
Other countries provide a model for strengthening the reserves. In Sweden, the military selects the top 5 percent or so of 18-year-olds eligible to serve in the active military for up to 15 months, followed by membership in the reserve for 10 years. The model is so effective that recruits compete for spots, and according to The Wall Street Journal, “former conscripts are headhunted by the civil service and prized by tech companies.”
America’s leaders have argued for a generation that the military’s volunteer model is superior to conscription in delivering a well-prepared force. The challenge is maintaining recruiting and getting the right service members for every mission. There are some examples of the Pentagon successfully luring new, tech-savvy recruits. Since last year, top college students have been training to meet the government’s growing need for skilled cybersecurity professionals. The Cyber Service Academy, a scholarship-for-service program, covers the full cost of tuition and educational expenses in exchange for a period of civilian employment within the Defense Department upon graduation. Scholars work in full-time, cyber-related positions.
The best incentive for enlisting may have nothing to do with service, but the career opportunities that are promised after.
It was a foregone conclusion that Lee Kantowski would become an Army officer. One of his favorite high school teachers had served, and his hometown, Lawton, Okla., was a military town, a place where enlisting was commonplace. Mr. Kantowski attended West Point and, in the eight years after graduating, went on tours across the world. Now he’s getting an M.B.A. at U.C. Berkeley, co-founded a defense tech club with Ms. Baumbick there and works part-time at a start-up building guidance devices that turn dumb bombs into smart ones.
The military needs recruits like Mr. Kantowski who want to support defense in and out of uniform. Already, nearly one million people who work for the Department of Defense are civilians, supplemented by a similar number of contractors who straddle public and private sectors. Both paths could be expanded.
A rotating-door approach carries some risk to military cohesion and readiness. The armed services are not just another job: Soldiers are asked to put themselves in danger’s way, even outside combat zones. America still needs men and women who are willing to sign up for traditional tours of duty.
The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps serves as the largest source of commissioned officers for the U.S. military. For more than five decades, R.O.T.C. has paid for students to pursue degree programs — accompanied by military drills and exercises — and then complete three to 10 years of required service after graduation. In 1960 alone, Stanford and M.I.T. each graduated about 100 R.O.T.C. members. Today, that figure is less than 20 combined. The Army has recently closed or reorganized programs at 84 campuses and may cut funding over the next decade.
This is exactly the wrong call. R.O.T.C. programs should be strengthened and expanded, not closed or merged.
It remains true that the volunteer force has become a jobs program for many Americans looking for a ladder to prosperity. It’s an aspect of service often more compelling to enlistees than the desire to fight for their country. In the era of artificial intelligence and expected job displacement, enlistment could easily grow.
Most military benefits have never been more appealing, with signing and retention bonuses, tax-free housing and food allowances, subsidized mortgages, low-cost health care, universal pre-K, tuition assistance and pensions. The Department of Defense and Congress need to find ways to bolster these benefits and their delivery, where service members often find gaps.
Standardizing post-service counseling and mentorship could help. Expanding job training programs like Skillbridge, which pairs transitioning service members with private sector internships, could also improve job prospects. JPMorgan has hired some 20,000 veterans across the country since creating an Office of Military & Veterans Affairs in 2011; it has also helped create a coalition of 300 companies dedicated to hiring vets.
When veterans land in promising companies — or start their own — it’s not just good for them. It’s also good for America. Rylan Hamilton and Austin Gray, two Navy veterans, started Blue Water Autonomy last year with the goal of building long-range drone ships that could help the military expand its maritime presence without the costs, risks and labor demands of deploying American sailors.
Mr. Gray, a former naval intelligence officer who worked in a drone factory in Ukraine, said Blue Water’s vessels will one day do everything from ferrying cargo to carrying out intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. This summer, the company raised $50 million to construct a fully autonomous ship stretching 150 feet long.
Before dawn on a Wednesday morning in October, military packs filled with supplies and American flags sat piled on a dewy field near the edge of Stanford University’s campus. Some of the over 900 attendees at a conference on defense tech gathered around an active-duty soldier studying at the school. The glare of his head lamp broke through the darkness as he rallied the group of students, founders, veterans and investors for a “sweat equity” workout.
“Somewhere, a platoon worked out at 0630 to start their day,” he said. “This conference is all about supporting folks like them, so we are going to start our day the same way.” The group set off for Memorial Church at the center of campus, sharing the load of heavy packs, flags and equipment along the way.
That attitude is a big change for the Bay Area, not just from the days of 1960s hippie sit-ins but also from the early days of the tech revolution, when Silicon Valley was seen as a bastion of government-wary coders and peaceniks. Now it’s open for business with the Defense Department. “The excitement is there, the concern is there, the passion is there and the knowledge is there,” says Ms. Baumbick.
There are some risks to tying America’s military more closely to the tech-heavy private sector. Companies don’t always act in the country’s national interest. Elon Musk infamously limited the Ukrainian military’s access to its Starlink satellites, preventing them being used to help in a battle with Russian forces in 2022. Private companies are also easier for adversaries to penetrate and influence than the government.
Yet in order to prevent wars, or win them, we must learn to manage the risks of overlap between civilian and military spheres. The private sector’s newly rekindled interest in the world of defense is a generational chance to build the military that Americans need.
Portraits by Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times; Carlos Osorio/Associated Press; Mike Segar/Reuters; Maddy Pryor/Princeton University; Kevin Wicherski/Blue Water Autonomy; Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times (2).
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
Published Dec. 12, 2025
This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered “stereotypes”. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men. God created men in the image of His courage and strength, and He created women in the image of His beauty. He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind.
It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes. I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live. It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans. It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender “stereotypes” because that is how God made us. The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way. In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His
Welcome to Lit Trivia, the Book Review’s regular quiz about books, authors and literary culture. This week’s challenge tests your memory of random facts and information you may have picked up, especially from reading book coverage from The Times in recent years. In the five multiple-choice questions below, tap or click on the answer you think is correct. After the last question, you’ll find links to the books if you’d like to do further reading.
Since the start of his second term, President Trump has cut budgets, made demands on public institutions, and attacked the media and speech in actions regularly called unprecedented.
In April, we asked presidential historians if they could come up with comparable examples in previous administrations — and to tell us when they couldn’t. You can read that earlier article here.
We went back to the historians (and some political scientists) to help us categorize the administration’s actions and pronouncements that have happened since: whether they’re unprecedented, relatively common or somewhere in between.
President Trump has taken some actions that do not have a comparable historical example, according to historians.
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has ordered the military to kill people aboard boats he says have been smuggling drugs, claiming the power to redefine drug trafficking as armed conflict.
IN THE PAST
Historians said the closest parallels to Mr. Trump’s strikes in international waters were attacks on pirates — from Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on Barbary corsairs to Barack Obama’s use of military force against Somali pirates in 2009. But President Obama’s efforts were largely rescue missions; Jefferson was also responding to the capture of American ships.
“Since the 1970s, presidents have claimed the right to take military action, including murderous assaults, against nonstate actors who threaten the United States,” said Jeremi Suri, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. However, he said, “the United States has generally not targeted drug smugglers in this way.”
“The U.S. has helped other governments in Central America to apprehend drug traffickers. No presidents have unilaterally killed alleged drug smugglers in international waters.”
Manisha Sinha
Professor of American History, University of Connecticut
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary, the Trump administration has begun to overhaul American vaccine policy. A vaccine skeptic, Mr. Kennedy replaced a vaccine advisory panel with handpicked members. The panel ended a decades-long recommendation to vaccinate babies against hepatitis B at birth. Mr. Kennedy also canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and contracts to develop mRNA vaccines. Mr. Trump hailed Covid vaccines as a miracle during his first term but has since questioned whether they work, and Mr. Kennedy has called them “the deadliest vaccine ever made.”
IN THE PAST
Previous presidents have typically promoted vaccines. The government has changed the vaccine schedule and pulled recommendations for vaccines before, including for a rotavirus gastroenteritis vaccine in the 1990s. And manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn vaccines from the market. But no presidential administration has made such an effort to dismantle vaccine policy.
“Other presidents tried to expand vaccines. This goes all the way back to George Washington during the Revolutionary War, who mandated smallpox inoculations for his army.”
Robert Watson
Professor of History, Lynn University
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump and his aides have pushed for lawmakers across the country to redraw maps in favor of Republicans.
IN THE PAST
This has not been done publicly, though an adviser to George W. Bush, Karl Rove, was reported to have lobbied state legislators to redistrict in 2003.
“No previous president has done this so overtly, but gerrymandering for political advantage has been a basic tool of political parties since the earliest years of the republic.”
Kendrick Clements
Professor, University of South Carolina
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
Earlier this year, a state-controlled United Arab Emirates firm used $2 billion of cryptocurrency issued by World Liberty Financial — a start-up owned by the Trump family — to invest in a crypto exchange. That effectively serves as a huge deposit for World Liberty, which can then generate returns in the tens of millions of dollars each year.
IN THE PAST
Historians said there was no comparable example.
“Past presidents took pains to put their holdings in a blind trust or to divest entirely from identifiable individual companies.”
Andrew Rudalevige Professor of Government, Bowdoin College
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump tried to fire a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, accusing her of mortgage fraud. (The Supreme Court stopped the firing until it could hear arguments in January, and she maintains her innocence.) It’s part of a broader, stated effort to gain more influence over the board.
IN THE PAST
Presidents have fought with the Fed before; under President Harry Truman, the head of the Board of Governors resigned amid a disagreement with the administration. But no president has directly fired a Federal Reserve official.
“They have often put pressure on the Fed, but I don’t know of any president who has claimed the power to fire a sitting governor and tried to carry it out.”
David Greenberg Professor of History, Rutgers University
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The Trump administration has stopped or plans to stop collecting data on environmental disasters, climate change, food insecurity, emissions from polluters and more.
IN THE PAST
No president has stopped data collection at such a scale.
“There have been other presidents who have appointed people as heads of agencies but who opposed the missions of those agencies. But that is a far cry from eliminating the government’s longstanding practices of producing reliable data, on nearly everything of concern to the public and for which the government is responsible.”
Michael Gerhardt
Professor of Jurisprudence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Law School
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The White House told the Smithsonian Institution — a museum group founded and funded by the federal government — that it would have 120 days to change any content that the administration found problematic in “tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.”
IN THE PAST
There’s no comparison for such a broad and public demand on the nation’s museums, historians said.
There have been instances of perceived pressure, or limited influence. A former Smithsonian administrator claimed that the National Museum of Natural History toned down an exhibit on climate change during the George W. Bush administration. And it was reported that the Nixon administration told what is now the National Museum of American History to close an exhibit on voting rights ahead of a ball that was part of Nixon’s second inauguration.
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump claimed without evidence that weak job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were “rigged” and fired the agency’s commissioner.
IN THE PAST
No president has done this publicly and so directly in the years the Bureau of Labor has been collecting and publishing data. (Since the late 1800s.) Ronald Reagan once said a framing of B.L.S. data was misleading, but didn’t question the data itself. Richard Nixon’s administration made some changes to how B.L.S. reported monthly data. But when he threw doubt on the B.L.S., it was in private conversation. (It was eventually revealed that he had blamed Jewish people working at the agency for unfavorable statistics.)
“Presidents have always spun bad numbers; few have declared war on arithmetic itself.”
Alexis Coe
Presidential historian and senior fellow at New America
No clear precedent
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump is reported to have demanded that the Justice Department pay him $230 million in compensation for past investigations into his actions.
IN THE PAST
There’s no real comparison, historians say. Andrew Jackson was once fined for suspending habeas corpus; he lobbied Congress for a refund. But that lobbying took place after his presidency, said Matthew Warshauer, professor of history at Central Connecticut State University. (It was successful.)
In several cases, Mr. Trump’s actions are precedented, but there are details that make them different: scale, context, motivation or results.
The following are events in which our scholars did not always agree on the extent of a precedent.
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has expanded the role of the National Guard, deploying its troops to cities as part of a stated federal crackdown on crime. In several cases, governors or local officials have sued to block the deployments.
IN THE PAST
Presidents have deployed the National Guard to cities numerous times, including to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma to Montgomery in Alabama; to enforce Brown v. Board of Education in Little Rock, Ark.; in response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots; to quell a riot in Detroit in 1943; and to help Hurricane Andrew relief efforts in Florida.
But in most cases, unlike President Trump, presidents deployed the National Guard at the request of, or with the cooperation of, state lawmakers. (That was not the case when presidents used the National Guard to support integration in Arkansas and protect civil rights activists in Alabama.)
“With the exception of using troops to protect American citizens during the height of civil rights reform, American presidents have typically respected the authority of states and only mobilized troops at the request of state lawmakers.”
Nicole L. Anslover
Associate Professor of History, Florida Atlantic University
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi and his Justice Department to investigate or seek criminal charges against his perceived enemies, including George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor; the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; and the New York attorney general Letitia James.
IN THE PAST
Nixon also tried to use the federal government — including the Department of Justice — to go after his “enemies list” through investigations and other legal harassment. One memo from his White House counsel describes “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”
But “it was on a limited case-by-case basis, and many of his own appointees and federal workers thwarted his illegalities,” said Robert Watson, a professor of history at Lynn University.
“Nixon tried to act in secrecy and deny his vendettas.”
Jeremi Suri
Professor of History and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
Federal agents have conducted immigration enforcement raids in several Democrat-led cities, arresting and detaining thousands in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and Charlotte, N.C., among others.
IN THE PAST
Eisenhower carried out deportations of illegal immigrants, known at the time as “Operation Wetback.” These targeted Mexican migrants, and they were more focused on agricultural border areas than major cities.
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The Trump administration allowed Japan’s Nippon Steel to take over U.S. Steel in exchange for a “golden share” giving the White House a permanent say in the company’s business. (The Trump administration has also purchased shares or options in other private companies involved in minerals, nuclear energy and semiconductors.)
IN THE PAST
The U.S. government received shares of auto companies while bailing them out during the Great Recession in 2009, but it sold those within a few years to recoup some of the money it had spent.
The Trump effort has centered on national security concerns. Prior administrations have taken control of the private sector briefly during wartime, but those were not ongoing ownership stakes.
“I can’t think of an example when companies were forced to pay premiums of this sort to the U.S. government — even giving federal actors formal long-term decision-making authority for corporate behavior — as a cost of doing business.”
Andrew Rudalevige
Professor of Government, Bowdoin College
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The Trump administration took down the East Wing of the White House to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
IN THE PAST
The White House went through a demolition and renovation under President Truman, when the building was in danger of physical collapse.
Other presidents have made renovations — including significant expansions — but historians could not name another demolition of a major part of the building.
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has tried to lower prescription drug prices through two primary channels: He has made deals with numerous major drugmakers (including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly) to sell drugs to Medicaid at lower prices; and he has committed to starting TrumpRx, a portal through which patients can buy drugs directly from drugmakers.
IN THE PAST
Previous presidents have tried various strategies to make prescription drugs more affordable, including negotiating with industry. (Most recently, the Biden administration brought drugmakers to the negotiating table.)
A marketplace with the president’s name on it is new.
“Earlier efforts to cut drug costs — Bill Clinton’s aborted price-control proposals, George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D expansion, Barack Obama’s negotiation push under the Affordable Care Act — were policy fights, not product launches.”
Alexis Coe Presidential historian and senior fellow at New America
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The Trump administration has frozen and terminated grants for infrastructure that were largely set to be in districts that vote Democratic, and the president has bragged about it. “A lot of good can come down from shutdowns,” Mr. Trump said in October. “We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want, and they’d be Democrat things.” (Some Republican districts have also lost projects.)
IN THE PAST
Pulling back funds already allocated is unusual, scholars told The Times. Presidents have often directed government benefits to key constituencies and favored states and districts, but not in such a public and direct manner.
When Nixon’s administration made large cuts to military bases in the early 1970s, states in the Northeast were hit the hardest, leading to speculation that politics played a role.
“Presidents have always played politics with public monies, although often as discreetly as possible.”
Stephen F. Knott
Emeritus Professor of National Security Affairs, United States Naval War College
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The sprawling policy bill pushed by the president and passed by Republicans in July contained more than $1.1 trillion in cuts to health care programs, including roughly $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid — about 11 percent of projected spending on the program over a decade.
IN THE PAST
Under President Reagan, Congress reduced Medicaid and Medicare spending. Medicaid cuts in the early 1980s totaled $1 billion each year, around 5 percent of annual Medicaid spending. The cuts came in the form of smaller payments to states, which then cut services. (People forced off welfare rolls by Reagan’s administration often lost Medicaid benefits, too.) George W. Bush signed into law policy changes that made smaller reductions in Medicaid spending.
The Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in 2010, included more than $700 billion in reductions to Medicare, though the bill increased spending on health care overall.
“Since the beginning of federal health care programs in the 1930s, policymakers have been more likely to expand than cut such programs.”
Kendrick Clements Professor, University of South Carolina
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
Mr. Trump invited people who spent the most on his personal cryptocurrency to a White House gala dinner.
IN THE PAST
Many presidents have rewarded their major donors with special privileges. (Bill Clinton gave some top donors meals, outings and overnight stays; major fund-raisers also stayed overnight in George W. Bush’s White House; and inaugurations have long been a way for donors to get close to the president.) But Mr. Trump, not his campaign, personally benefited from the crypto investments.
“The standards of White House conduct related to maintaining proper distance from acts of bribery, perceived or real, have demonstrably deteriorated over the years. In 1958, White House chief of staff Sherman Adams was forced to resign from the Eisenhower administration because he had accepted a vicuña overcoat and a rug from a Boston businessman under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.”
Russell Riley
Professor of Ethics and Institutions, University of Virginia’s Miller Center
Has happened, but under different circumstances
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has directed defamation lawsuits against The Wall Street Journal and The Times. He has also sued Paramount (before starting his second term) over a Kamala Harris interview; blocked reporters from parts of the White House where they’ve been allowed for decades; threatened to pull broadcasters’ licences over late-night hosts he dislikes; imposed restrictions on military reporters; and persuaded Congress to cut funding for public media.
IN THE PAST
No other sitting president has specifically filed a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper. (Theodore Roosevelt did sue a small-town newspaper for libel for accusations of drunkenness, but only after leaving office.)
There is, however, a long history of attempts by presidential administrations to pressure the news media over critical coverage. Abraham Lincoln shut down pro-Confederacy newspapers during the Civil War and arrested their editors; in World War I, the government charged some journalists who opposed the war under the Espionage Act; the Nixon administration tried to stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Nixon also listed journalists on his “enemies list” and ordered wiretaps of reporters.
“White House grumping about critical coverage is an age-old feature of the Washington community. But rarely has this gone beyond a sharp elbow in the press room or maybe a back-channel call to the publisher to yelp.”
Russell Riley
Professor of Ethics and Institutions, University of Virginia’s Miller Center
A few of Mr. Trump’s moves are, if not standard practice, still actions that other U.S. presidents have taken in recent decades.
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
In June, President Trump presided over a procession of troops, weaponry and military vehicles in Washington in commemoration of the Army’s 250th birthday and his own 79th.
IN THE PAST
Large-scale military parades aren’t uncommon, though they often happen during or at the close of a war. Among other examples, George H.W. Bush held a large military parade in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War, and John F. Kennedy hosted one during his inaugural in 1961, at the height of the Cold War.
Not uncommon
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The president has launched a program that is intended to allow people to buy legal residency in the U.S. with a $1 million “contribution” to the U.S. government.
IN THE PAST
The U.S. has long had a program that allows entrance to wealthy immigrants: the EB-5 program, for people willing to invest $1 million (less in some circumstances) in a business that would hire Americans. President Trump’s program is new in style — it’s called the “gold card” — but not in function.
“Bill Clinton created the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, with Obama extending the idea to the Regional Center Pilot Program. It’s actually not a new thing what President Trump is doing.”
Thomas Balcerski
Presidential Historian, Eastern Connecticut State University
Not uncommon
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
The administration’s deal between Hamas and Israel in October — which Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, helped broker — resulted in a cease-fire and the release of the remaining Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
IN THE PAST
It’s common for American presidents to step in and help negotiate deals between Israel and Arab nations; President Biden negotiated a cease-fire and prisoner exchange, though the deal fell apart.
“President Trump should be applauded for his effort in the Mideast. This is his greatest foreign policy achievement so far.”
Wilbur C. Rich
Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College
Not uncommon
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump has withdrawn or frozen U.S. funding for several agencies within the U.N., including the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council.
IN THE PAST
The Reagan administration, claiming mismanagement at the U.N., withheld funds in the 1980s. George W. Bush withheld money from the U.N.’s Population Fund over concerns about abortion and other family planning issues.
“The anti-U.N. rhetoric has been part of the Republican political discourse for some time.”
Manisha Sinha
Professor of American History, University of Connecticut
Not uncommon
TRUMP’S ACTIONS
President Trump ordered an attack on three key nuclear sites in Iran in June, without seeking congressional authorization.
IN THE PAST
Though Mr. Trump was the first to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, previous administrations have engaged in sabotage of Iranian nuclear systems — including the George W. Bush and Obama administrations’ development and use of the computer worm Stuxnet. (That was a destructive program that targeted centrifuges and delayed Tehran’s ability to make nuclear weapons.)
More broadly, presidents have long taken military actions without congressional sign-off.
About the data
For this project, we reached out to dozens of historians and political scientists, including some participants of C-SPAN’s Presidential Historians Survey. We asked them to provide us with relevant precedent to specific Trump actions, if there were any, and to describe how those precedents were and were not similar to what Mr. Trump has done.
We received responses from 36 experts. In addition to those we quoted, we used notes and research from: Andrew Bacevich, Paul Brandus, Vernon Burton, Jeffrey Engel, Michael A. Genovese, Harold Holzer, Chandler James, Scott Kaufman, Thomas J. Knock, Douglas L. Kriner, Allan Lichtman, Bruce Miroff, Barbara Perry, Gary Richardson, Robert Schmuhl, Craig Shirley, Brooks Simpson, Robert Strong, Tevi Troy, Mark K. Updegrove, Ted Widmer, B. Dan Wood and David B. Woolner.
We categorized actions based on the overall responses, along with additional reporting and research.
Justin Vaughn and Brandon Rottinghaus of the Presidential Greatness Project assisted in establishing a list of historians and constructing the initial survey.
Hamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
Indianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
Google is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
Two attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
Most shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’
Roads could remain slick, icy Saturday morning in Philadelphia area, tracking another storm on the way
Podcast: The 2025 EU-US relationship explained simply
Marijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time