Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There are three things that Joe Biden cannot shake off: his Secret Service guards, his own shadow and the phrase “ . . . since Lyndon Johnson”. He is described as the most consequential Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson. He is said to have brought about the largest expansion of the federal government since Lyndon Johnson. The historical comparison is meant well. In fact, it undersells him.

In turning ideas into statute, LBJ had lavish advantages. Democrats outnumbered Republicans around two-to-one in both houses of Congress for much of the 1960s. Having replaced the slain John F Kennedy, he began with the nation’s goodwill, and could present his reforms as his predecessor’s unfinished work. Biden had neither the numbers nor the moral head-start. Still, last week, the Ukraine aid package joined the American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act and a vast infrastructure splurge in Biden’s canon of important (or at least expensive) laws.

What are we to learn from this prolific doer of things? What, as we near its end, is the lesson of this startlingly fertile presidential term?

One thing above all: eloquence is overrated. So is charisma, vision-setting and all the other “performance” aspects of politics. Biden was an average-to-poor communicator even before his age-related deterioration. He has no signature speech or even epigram to show for half a century in frontline politics. What he does have is more inside experience of Washington — its details, its unwritten codes — than any president ever. The result is a one-term legacy that exceeds what such silver-tongues as Bill Clinton managed in two.

The haggling over Ukraine was instructive. For weeks, Biden applied private pressure on Mike Johnson, the House Speaker, showing him intelligence briefings but never badgering him in front of voters or Republican colleagues. Biden understood, as his more outwardly gifted predecessors didn’t always, the importance of face. Something else, too: he can count.

A leader can’t be so presentationally inept as to be unelectable. But once that low standard is met, there are diminishing returns to star power. Britain’s two greatest postwar leaders were the taciturn Clement Attlee and the plodding communicator Margaret Thatcher. (Much of her charisma has been ascribed to her in retrospect.) Their nation-changing qualities — stamina, focus, certitude — were in the private side of politics, which is most of politics.

Liberals need to hear this more than most. American ones in particular can be crashing snobs about education and speech. In The West Wing, they got to create their ideal president. The result? A hyper-articulate Yankee Brahmin. Similarly, it took decades to correct the overvaluation of Kennedy, with his polish and fluency, as against Johnson. (Camelot. What a tellingly aristocratic metaphor.)

But the ultimate beneficiary of this liberal obsession with rhetoric was Barack Obama. It wasn’t even profound rhetoric. “In no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” What? In no other country can the son of an African immigrant become a provincial lawmaker? (Obama was an Illinois senator when he said it.) This is nice-sounding hokum. But it was enough to blind people to the faults of an administration that is now undergoing a downward revision. Biden is to Obama what Johnson was to Kennedy.

In the distant past, when the state did little outside of war, inspiring people was the core task of leadership. Hence the study of rhetoric in classical education. Once government took a welfare and economic role, the mechanics of lawmaking mattered more. But the perception of what constitutes a leader never caught up. Because people overvalue what they themselves are good at, the educated politico-media class overvalues eloquence.

I say all this as no particular admirer of Biden’s domestic bills. If he loses re-election, the culprit will be inflation, to which his spending has probably contributed. His protectionism almost guarantees immense waste and fragments the world trade order that allowed the postwar US to bind countries to it. What now is its offer to nations gravitating into China’s orbit? And while Johnson’s work lasted — God help the politician who touches Medicare — Biden’s might not. The US debt position won’t allow for endless further subsidies.

Still, there are other moments to discuss how Biden uses his political skill. Just recognise that skill, and how little it relies on words. If a “great” leader is one who changes things, for better or not, this is an administration of mumbling, tongue-tied greatness.

janan.ganesh@ft.com

When Donald Trump began to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, many legal analysts ABC News spoke with considered it a weak argument.

But last week, in nearly three hours of oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices seemed open to some limited protection for former presidents from criminal liability for official acts they undertook while in the White House.

It was a shocking turn of events, according to some veteran court observers.

“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”

“That’s exactly the part that I think most of the American public is going to find fairly incredulous,” said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota and national expert in constitutional law. “The idea of saying that the president of the United States is above the law compared to the rest of us.”

While the justices seemed poised to reject Trump’s more sweeping claim of “absolute” immunity, how they attempt to devise what official acts are and are not exempt from criminal prosecution will set a new standard for presidential power.

“That is a whole new territory for the court that we’ve never seen before,” Schultz said, “and will make major new law in the United States.”

The justices grappled with the unprecedented nature of the case during Thursday’s hearing. Justice Neil Gorsuch said what they decide will be a “rule for the ages.”

While Trump is the first ever president to be criminally charged, the arguments were largely devoid of references to the former president and the specific allegations against him.

The immunity question came before the Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, alleging election interference; Trump is facing four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing.

Puzzlingly, “in some sense, Trump did not seem to be important in this case,” Schultz said.

Instead, the debate largely focused on hypothetical scenarios as justices expressed concern about the consequences of too much or too little protection for future presidents.

“The question quickly became, ‘What’s the scope of official conduct?’ And that’s where, I think, the disagreements among the justices were revealing,” said Gerhardt.

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.

“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” said Gerhardt.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Sauer if a president could order the military or someone else to kill a political rival, which Sauer also said could be considered an official act depending on the circumstances.

“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked.

On the other side, several conservative justices appeared primarily concerned about future bad faith prosecutions against former presidents and whether that would hamper their ability to make the “tough decisions” entailed by their job.

Trump’s attorney also made that case in his opening statement, stating the looming threat of prosecution would “distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed.”

Justice Samuel Alito even posited if, without immunity, presidents would be incentivized to commit crimes in order to stay in power rather than peacefully retire because of concern they will be prosecuted by a “bitter political opponent” after leaving office.

“Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Alito asked.

One expert described Alito’s line of questioning as stepping through the looking glass into an alternate reality.

“The fact that we haven’t had something like this happen before is consistent with the government’s position that there are institutional norms that have largely held,” said Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School. “So, to upset that delicate balance because, in the words of Justice Alito, we can’t hold the president accountable for trying to subvert democracy in the fear that a future president might try to subvert democracy is just totally Alice in Wonderland.”

Though Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel and now an attorney for several former Trump aides, said he considered Alito’s question “timely.”

“What about Joe Biden when he leaves office? Is a Republican Department of Justice going to allege that some of the things he did were illegal? So I don’t think that was a hyperbolic or imaginary concern,” Brand said.

The conservative justices also highlighted controversial conduct by previous presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to inter Japanese Americans during World War II and John F. Kennedy’s scheme to undermine Fidel Castro’s rule in Cuba, and whether they could have been subject to prosecution.

“Presidents have to do a lot of things that in retrospect or under the microscope of a lawsuit might not look very good,” said Brand. “You have to look carefully at those, and I think that’s certainly what at least five of the justices expressed concern over.”

The back-and-forth reflected the difficult road ahead for the court in crafting an opinion.

“The path that they went down the other day is a very messy one and I don’t know how they’re going to come up with a clean answer on it,” said Schultz.

A trial for Trump’s election subversion case was originally set for March 4 but is delayed as the immunity question works its way through the courts. The Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump’s immunity claim and its approach in crafting an opinion, which is not expected until well into June, is largely seen as a win for the former president as it makes it less likely than ever that the trial will proceed before the November election.

In some previous high-profile opinions involving presidential authority, including U.S. v. Nixon (in which the court said a president does not have executive privilege in immunity from subpoenas or other civil court actions) and Clinton v. Jones (which said a president has no immunity from civil damages for acts done before taking office or unrelated to the office) the Supreme Court ruled in unanimous fashion.

But experts said in this case, whatever the court decides, it is likely to be divided.

“It’s clear to me that this will likely be a split decision,” said Schultz. “I saw clear divisions and that’s just not good for the court and it’s not good for America in such an important case like this.”

Elon Musk appears to be on the cusp of deploying Tesla’s “full self-driving” system in the world’s biggest car market.

Musk flew out of Beijing on Monday after meeting China’s premier, Li Qiang, on Sunday and sealing a deal with Chinese tech giant Baidu to use the group’s mapping and navigation systems. Hours earlier, a Chinese industry group said Tesla’s EVs were among more than 70 cars that had been successfully tested for data security compliance.

Taken together, Musk appears to have smoothed the path for the US company’s semi-autonomous driving technology to be rolled out in China. Tesla’s share price closed 15.3 per cent higher on Monday at $194.05 on reports of the Baidu deal but remains at half of its 2022 peak.

Here is what the billionaire’s trip to China means for Tesla and the government in Beijing.

How much is Chinese approval worth to Tesla?

As sales fall and competition grows fiercer, Tesla has increasingly talked up the commercial opportunities that its self-driving technology offers.

“Going balls to the wall on autonomy is a blindingly obvious move,” Musk wrote on X, his social media platform, this month.

Tom Narayan, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said income from autonomous driving accounted for a fifth of his share price target for Tesla. The carmaker charges US drivers $99 a month to activate “full self-driving”, a partially autonomous system that ostensibly chauffeurs drivers but still requires motorists to pay attention.

Being allowed to offer the same service in China, where the company has about 1.6mn cars on the road, “would unlock a significant fleet of Tesla vehicles able to charge subscription fees”, said Narayan.

The move into China would also “push Tesla further to be an industry standard for software,” he added, and encourage other carmakers to license its technology.

Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush, said Musk’s trip resulted in the “long-awaited FSD approval”, which amounted to a “watershed moment” for the company. Tesla’s long-term valuation “hinges” on income from autonomy, he said, and China had been a “missing piece of the puzzle”.

“This is a key moment for Musk as well as Beijing at a time that Tesla has faced massive domestic EV competition in China along with softer demand,” he added.

Will new technology turn around slowing sales growth at Tesla? 

Tesla has put significant stock in the value of globalising its self-driving technology as its core EV line-up ages compared with newer products from its Chinese rivals.

While arch-rival BYD aims to launch cars within 18 months of conception, it has been four years since Tesla released the Model Y, its best-selling car. The company announced the Roadster sports car in 2017 but has yet to begin production.

Musk last week promised that a new lower-cost model was coming next year. But despite a “refreshed” Model 3 entering production this year, the company is still nurturing a product offering that is significantly older than that of its competitors.

“The Tesla range is looking quite old,” said one former Tesla executive. “The [battery] tech is fine, but there are others out there, especially the Chinese, who are arguably better. The question [if he deploys FSD], is how much longer does he have a technology advantage on that?”

Expansion in China will be a test of how Tesla’s self-driving technology stacks up against local rivals. “They are betting it is the tech that makes or breaks a purchase decision,” said the former executive. 

But it is not clear how confident consumers outside of urban areas are in the technology. “FSD works in Silicon Valley but not in Illinois,” added the former executive. “For the mass market it is still witchcraft.”

Why is helping Tesla important to China?

Under President Xi Jinping, many experts believe China has prioritised security over economic growth and domestic technology independence over integration with the outside world.

Angela Zhang, a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong and author of two books on Chinese technology regulation, said there were signs that Beijing was “easing” its approach as it needed foreign investment to shore up an economy in “deep trouble”.

Chinese EV producers want to dominate global markets and Beijing has a “strong incentive” to show the world that data security issues are not a barrier to international trade for Chinese EVs, she said.

Feng Chucheng, a partner at China-focused Hutong Research, said allowing Tesla’s self-driving technology had “strategic value” to Beijing.

The Cyberspace Administration of China has for several years been rolling out a sweeping legal framework for how businesses collect and use data, with strict rules on cross-border data flows and data viewed as a risk to Chinese security or citizens.

Despite western concerns about “over-securitisation”, the recent development of China’s data rules has been more “pro-growth”, Feng said. Beijing has been aligning its rules on outbound data transfer in line with the CPTPP and DEPA, two key regional trade pacts.

“Tesla’s rollout in China will be much desired for Beijing to prove that its data regulatory regime is gaining traction,” he said.

Can Tesla win back the Chinese market?

China is Tesla’s biggest market outside the US, a vital part of the supply chain for its electric vehicles and of growing importance as a regional export hub. Musk’s decision in 2018 to build a multibillion-dollar factory in Shanghai is credited with helping to spearhead the rapid growth of China’s EV industry.

But since then, the Chinese EV industry has stormed ahead. Tesla’s share of new electric vehicle sales stands at 7.5 per cent compared with 33 per cent for Warren Buffett-backed BYD. A core complaint from Chinese consumers has been the dearth of new Tesla models and high-tech features.

Despite the share price jump on Monday, analysts in China voiced caution.

Tom Nunlist, an expert in Chinese technology regulation with Beijing-based consultancy Trivium, said China’s regulatory environment was “still emerging”. “The folks that are overseeing the safety of automatic driving on highways are highly professional. They’re not going to relax their standards because of this [Musk’s visit],” he said.

Tu Le, founder of the Sino Auto Insights consultancy, said local rivals including Xpeng, Nio and Li Auto had their own self-driving systems and would drop their prices “the second” they thought consumers favoured Tesla’s technology. “Western analysts think Tesla automatically wins,” he said. “There are no guarantees.”