The Engine of Unmaking: Notes from a Capital of Intentional Ruin
By Earl Cotten for The Earl Angle Newsletter
Things are being taken apart. Deliberately. Systematically. One listens for the sound of tearing fabric, the groan of stressed metal, but the machinery of disassembly operates with a chilling, bureaucratic quiet. Only the human consequences, one suspects, will arrive with noise.
I.
The Supreme Court ruling on the Department of Education landed on the 15th with the weight of a tombstone sealing a vault. Not a surprise, perhaps, given the composition of the bench, but its finality possesses a gravitational pull. The lower court injunctions, those fragile levees holding back a planned flood, were swept aside. Cleared the path, the headlines said. A passive construction for an active demolition. The Department of Education, that sprawling, often sclerotic monument to federal aspiration in the lives of the young, is now slated for radical diminishment. Sixty percent. More than half its flesh. Thousands of careers, thousands of points of contact, thousands of monitors of compliance, slated for erasure.
One remembers Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearings. The steely resolve beneath the practiced pronouncements. She spoke of bloat, of states’ rights, of local control. Noble words, abstracted. The reality, now greenlit, is the severing of federal tendons. The fear, articulated not in hysterics but in the grim analyses of places like Chalkbeat, concerns the vulnerable: the children tethered to the promises of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Federal oversight, for all its inefficiencies, represented a baseline, a minimum guarantee against the vast disparities of local will and local wallet. What happens when the floor becomes sand? The Court, in its dry legalese, concerned itself only with the could, not the should, nor the what follows. The authority was affirmed. The consequences are someone else’s arithmetic. McMahon now holds the scalpel, authorized. The green light is blinding.
II.
The layoffs, of course, are merely the visible hemorrhage. The deeper incision involves the flow of money, or rather, its abrupt cessation. Here we encounter the term rescission. It sounds clinical, precise. An excision. In the hands of Russ Vought, the President’s budget architect, it functions less like a scalpel and more like a tourniquet applied to the aorta of appropriated funds. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, conceived as a check on presidential overreach after Nixon, has become the engine for it. Vought wields it not sparingly, as past occupants of his office might have, but with the vigor of a man dismantling a hated structure beam by beam.
The mechanism is elegant in its ruthlessness: Send a package to Congress demanding cancellation of already-allocated funds – billions, often targeting the non-defense domestic sphere, education a prime target. Congress then has 45 days. If it does nothing, the money vanishes. To save it, Congress must actively vote against the President’s cancellation. It forces a choice, a public stance. In a House held by Republicans, it becomes a test of loyalty masquerading as fiscal prudence. Senators like Thune find themselves walking a tightrope over a chasm of political retribution. Constitutional scholars murmur about an end-run around the power of the purse, a fundamental pillar. One notes the quiet exodus of Justice Department lawyers unwilling to defend the maneuver; their empty chairs speak volumes the legal briefs strive to mute. It is power concentrated, power asserted, power daring the other branches to resist. The dry term "rescission" belies the raw contest of wills it embodies.
III.
And then, amidst the calculated dismantling of institutions and budgets, the persistent, gothic hum of the Epstein files. It resurfaces, as it always seems to, a dark undertow pulling at the edges of the official narrative. The President posts. A vague, suggestive missive on his platform, hinting at deeper involvement elsewhere. It lands awkwardly against the strenuous efforts of certain Fox News voices to meticulously curate the Epstein narrative, minimizing any Trump adjacency and focusing the beam exclusively on political adversaries. The dissonance is jarring, a crack in the carefully constructed facade.
Simultaneously, Wired reports on the missing minutes. Three minutes excised from the FBI video of Epstein’s first night in custody. Before the suicide, or whatever transaction occurred in that cell. What transpired in those 180 seconds? The absence is a vacuum, sucking in speculation and conspiracy with equal force. The "list," that spectral roster of the powerful and the damned, continues its periodic eruptions, each mention of Trump’s name within its orbit triggering convulsions within the MAGA faithful. It is a distraction, yes, but also a symptom: a reminder of the unresolved, the hidden, the deeply compromised nature of the world in which this power operates. It underscores the fragility of any singular narrative, the ease with which reality fragments when probed.
IV.
From the gothic to the grotesque. The report emerged, seemingly from the bowels of bureaucratic indifference, in The Atlantic. Under orders traceable to the White House, USAID took emergency food aid – grain, fortified biscuits, life-sustaining calories intended for the famished in Sudan, in Gaza, in the shadowed corners where catastrophe unfolds – and incinerated it. Burned it. Tonnes of it. The internal justification cited "surplus" or unspecified quality concerns. Insiders, those anonymous voices who haunt such stories, call this fiction. The food was viable. The act was symbolic, they suggest, a brutalist performance: the rejection of aid, the rejection of global obligation, the literal destruction of sustenance in the name of cost-cutting and ideological purity.
It is an act devoid of ambiguity in its consequence, however shrouded the intent. Famine relief experts articulate a quiet horror. This food represented life, deferred death. Its destruction is an act not merely of waste, but of profound moral vacancy. It aligns perfectly with the rescission efforts targeting foreign aid, a pattern of withdrawal, of negation. It is policy stripped bare to its cruelest essence: not just a refusal to help, but an active eradication of the means to help. One sees the grain sacks burning in a Maryland warehouse and imagines the hollow eyes watching an empty horizon elsewhere.
V.
Closer to home, another silencing. The long-threatened defunding of NPR and PBS is now operative. The White House "Fact Sheet" announced the end of the "Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media." The funding spigot, already reduced to a trickle, has run dry. The familiar culture war framing – "propaganda" versus "essential public service" – plays out predictably. The immediate casualty is not the national broadcasts, but the local stations, particularly in rural stretches and hollowed-out urban cores. These were the outlets that, however imperfectly, filled voids left by the commercial retreat from local news. Their struggle for survival now intensifies, pushing them towards the embrace of larger, potentially agenda-driven donors or simply towards extinction. It is another thread in the tapestry of institutional unraveling, another voice modulated or muted. The accusation of bias is a familiar cudgel; the effect is the diminishment of a shared, non-commercial space. One recalls the static hiss between stations on a long drive; soon, that hiss may be all that remains in many places.
VI.
While domestic structures are deconstructed, the Pentagon shifts its gaze. The compass needle, oscillating for years, has been wrenched decisively towards China. Elbridge Colby is back, whispering strategic imperatives into receptive ears. His vision is stark, zero-sum: Ukraine is a costly diversion; all resources, all focus, must pivot to the Pacific, to the containment of Beijing, to the defense of Taiwan. This is not merely a policy adjustment; it is a tectonic realignment.
The recent, jarring pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine bears Colby’s fingerprints. It is a tangible manifestation of the doctrine. Inside the Pentagon, the friction is palpable. Generals schooled in the European theater, steeped in the logic of NATO solidarity and Russian containment, clash with the new China-centric hawks. The allies – particularly Australia, deeply invested in the AUKUS pact as a bulwark against China – are unnerved. Colby’s public musings about pressuring Australia to abandon Ukraine support only heighten the anxiety. Trust, that fragile currency of alliances, hemorrhages. The message resonates with the "America First" refrain, but its implementation feels less like prioritization and more like abandonment. It signals a willingness to sacrifice one front entirely to fortify another, a gamble with profound geopolitical stakes. The divisions within the US military reflect the profound uncertainty of the path chosen.
VII.
To step back, to attempt a vantage point above the daily dispatches of layoffs, rescissions, scandals, and strategic lurches, is to perceive not disparate events, but a coherent project. Stephen Miller, the persistent architect in the shadows, provided the blueprint recently: dismantle the "administrative state," defund the opposition (be it media or perceived ideological adversaries within the bureaucracy), prioritize a nationalist, confrontational posture abroad. The Supreme Court’s blessing on the DOE demolition was a critical linchpin secured. The rescissions are the bold, high-stakes tool for financial control, bypassing consensus. Burning food aid and silencing public media are acts of symbolic and practical negation, fitting the anti-globalist, anti-"elite" crusade. The Pentagon’s pivot fulfills the "America First" mandate in its most martial, isolationist iteration.
Historians murmur about Nixon, about his impoundment battles, about the paranoia and the power grabs. The parallels are there, in the legal audacity, in the centralizing impulse. But this feels different in velocity and volume. The ambition appears vaster, the constraints perceived as weaker, the Court more aligned. There is a ferocity to the unmaking, a sense of racing against some invisible clock. The constitutional tensions – the separation of powers strained by rescissions, the federal compact tested by the DOE’s evisceration – are not theoretical; they are the tremors preceding potential rupture.
VIII.
What comes next possesses the grim predictability of physics applied to a collapsing structure. The DOE layoffs commence; the human cost, particularly for students relying on now-frayed federal safeguards, will soon cease to be abstract. Lawsuits will fly – over union rights, over procedural violations in the layoffs – a rear-guard action against the inevitable tide. States, unprepared and unevenly resourced, will flounder or flourish based on local politics, guaranteeing disparity.
The rescission battles will migrate to the Senate floor, each package a miniature crisis, a loyalty test under the klieg lights. Can McConnell maintain discipline? Will Republicans fracture when popular programs face the axe? This is the crucible where Congressional relevance will be measured.
The silence will spread as NPR and PBS affiliates, particularly in the heartland and the forgotten corners, flicker and die, replaced by static or the curated noise of polarized alternatives. Internationally, the incinerated food aid becomes a potent symbol of American abdication. Allies will hedge their bets, distrust deepening as the Ukraine support falters and the AUKUS partnership strains under unilateral pressure. The trust bank is emptying.
The Epstein specter will return. It always does. New files, new interpretations, new fragments of missing time will fuel the perpetual outrage machine, a useful smokescreen or a persistent irritant, depending on the day.
And the courts. The courts will groan under the weight of challenges. The constitutionality of the rescission blitz will be tested in earnest. The legality of the layoff processes, the potential illegality of the aid destruction – all will land on dockets already burdened. The remaining Justice Department lawyers will defend positions their former colleagues found untenable.
The speed is vertiginous. The scale of the intentional unmaking is without modern precedent. It is not drift; it is direction. A deliberate dismantling of one conception of American governance and its role, domestically and globally, replaced by something leaner, harder, more centralized in the executive, more insular in its focus, more confrontational in its posture. The tremors we feel now are the footfalls of this new, unwanted thing approaching. The next months are not about policy debates; they are about the structural integrity of the republic itself. One watches, one records, one notes the temperature of the blood running through the gutters. It feels cold. The engine of unmaking thrums on.
Trump's Education, Media, and Defense Overhauls
By Katherine Mayfield For The Earl Angle Newsletter
Key Takeaways: Trump's Education Overhaul & Power Moves
* Supreme Court clears path for Trump to massively shrink the Department of Education (DOE), overturning lower court blocks.
* Layoffs target thousands of DOE employees, impacting programs supporting students with disabilities most significantly.
* "Rescissions" become key tool: Trump team aggressively claws back already appropriated funds, testing constitutional limits.
* Epstein files controversy resurfaces as Trump social media posts clash with MAGA narratives, while FBI video gaps fuel suspicion.
* Humanitarian aid scandal emerges as reports surface of USAID food destroyed under Trump orders.
* Media funding battle intensifies with Trump ending NPR/PBS funding, calling it "biased media subsidy."
* Military policy shift prioritizes countering China, impacting Ukraine aid and alliances like AUKUS.
So the Supreme Court Basically Said "Go Ahead" on Dismantling Education
Yeah, it happened. That big case everyone was watching? SCOTUS ruled just last week, July 15th, 2025. They lifted the injunctions that lower courts had put in place. Basically told the Trump administration, "Alright, you can go forward with your plan." Which is, like, massively shrinking the Department of Education. We're talking laying off thousands of people. The administration's argument was always that the DOE is bloated, does stuff states should handle, ya know? But critics, man, they're freaking out. They say this is gonna gut federal oversight, leave vulnerable students – especially those with disabilities – kinda hanging out to dry. The Supreme Court opinion itself is pretty dry legalese, but the effect is huge. It means Trump's team can really start moving fast now on their plans. Linda McMahon, his Education Secretary pick, she's been ready for this fight since day one, remember her confirmation hearings? (AP News - McMahon Confirmation). Now she's got the green light.
It ain't just about layoffs though. It's about shifting power. Less federal rules, more state control. Supporters cheer, say it cuts bureaucracy. Opponents see chaos, worry about equity dropping big time between states. Like, what happens to IDEA funding? The laws protecting disabled students? (Chalkbeat - Impact on Disabilities). That's the real fear. The court basically decided the administration could do this reorg, didn't really get into whether it should or what the fallout might be. They focused on the legal authority question. And they sided with Trump.
Okay, But How's This Actually Gonna Work? The Layoffs & Rescissions
Right, so the plan's been out there. Trump wants to cut the DOE workforce by, like, over half. Seriously. Reports say upwards of 60% reduction. That's thousands of jobs gone. Poof. (SCOTUSblog - Clearing the Way). They're gonna start sending out pink slips real soon. It's messy, unions are fighting it tooth and nail, but the Supreme Court ruling makes it way harder to stop administratively.
But here's the sneakier bit, the thing folks are calling a real "power grab": rescissions. This ain't your normal budget cut. Trump's budget guy, Russ Vought, he's pushing hard on this old, kinda dusty law called the Impoundment Control Act. (Axios - Vought & Rescissions). It lets the President ask Congress to cancel money they've already approved and set aside. Normally, presidents use it sparingly. Trump? He's using it like a hammer. He's targeting billions, especially in non-defense stuff like, surprise surprise, education programs. He sends these "rescission packages" up to Capitol Hill.
Thing is, Congress has 45 days to approve 'em. If they do nothing, the money still gets frozen! It forces Congress to actively vote against cancelling the funds to save 'em. And with Republicans controlling the House? It's a real tightrope for Senate Republicans too. They gotta decide: back Trump fully or risk looking like they're against cutting spending? (Politico - GOP Scramble, Politico - Thune & Rescissions). It's a way for the White House to effectively cut spending without going through the whole messy annual budget fight. Critics call it an end-run around Congress's constitutional power of the purse. Constitutional scholars are having field days, but the DOJ is defending it... even though a bunch of their own lawyers quit over it! (Reuters - DOJ Unit Quits).
Then There's That Epstein Thing... Again. And Trump's Post
Just when ya thought the Epstein stuff might fade, nah. Trump posted something on his social media platform about the Epstein files a few days back. It was kinda vague, but seemed to suggest maybe others were more involved than him. (Media Matters - Fox Contradiction). Problem is, this contradicted the narrative pushed by some top Fox hosts who've been trying real hard to downplay any Epstein-Trump links and focus solely on Democrats. Awkward.
Plus, there's this other wrinkle: the FBI video from Epstein's first night in jail before he died? Wired reported that nearly 3 minutes were cut outta that footage. (Wired - FBI Epstein Video). What was in those missing minutes? Nobody knows. Conspiracy theories went into overdrive, obviously. And the whole "Epstein list" thing? It keeps popping up, making some MAGA folks furious whenever Trump's name gets mentioned alongside it, even tangentially. (Wired - MAGA & Epstein List). It's a mess that just won't quit, distracting from everything else but also feeding this sense of hidden dealings among the elite.
Wait, They Did What With Food Aid? The USAID Scandal
This one's kinda shocking, honestly. Reports came out this month from The Atlantic about USAID – that's the US Agency for International Development. Under Trump's orders, apparently, they took emergency food aid meant for humanitarian crises overseas... and burned it. Incinerated it. (The Atlantic - USAID Food Burned). Like, tons of it. The justification floating around internally was that it was "surplus" or maybe not meeting some super strict quality control, but insiders say that's bogus. The food was perfectly fine. It seems like it was purely about cutting costs fast and making a point – symbolically rejecting aid programs.
This is happening while the administration is also pushing those rescissions to claw back foreign aid money Congress already approved. It fits a pattern: pulling back from global humanitarian efforts. Experts in famine relief are horrified. They say this food coulda saved lives in places like Sudan or Gaza right now. Destroying it instead is seen as not just wasteful, but morally pretty bankrupt. It's a stark example of how policy shifts under Trump have real, brutal human consequences far beyond DC arguments.
NPR, PBS Funding? Yeah, That's Gone Now
Trump's been gunning for public media funding forever. Well, he finally did it. Back in May, the White House put out a "Fact Sheet" proudly announcing the end of what they called the "Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media." (White House Fact Sheet). This means zeroing out federal funding for NPR and PBS. The fight's been simmering, but the funding actually ran out recently. (NYTimes - NPR PBS Funding).
Supporters of public broadcasting are scrambling. Local stations, especially in rural areas, rely on that federal cash to stay on air. They argue it's essential for non-commercial, educational content, news in places where other outlets have vanished. The Trump team calls it propaganda. It's a classic culture war battle. Critics see it as silencing dissent and undermining trusted news sources. The long-term impact? Likely a lot of local stations shutting down or becoming way more reliant on big donors, which brings its own problems. It's another brick in the wall of reshaping institutions.
And Over at the Pentagon... Shifting Gears to China
While all this domestic stuff is blowing up, there's a major strategic shift happening in defense too. Trump brought back Elbridge Colby, a super hawkish guy focused almost entirely on China as the threat. (The Atlantic - Trump Colby Defense). Colby's view? The US needs to stop pouring resources into Ukraine and focus everything on countering China in the Pacific. This has caused massive friction inside the Pentagon and with allies.
Remember that recent pause on some weapons to Ukraine? Reports point directly to officials aligned with Colby's thinking being behind it. (WSJ - Pentagon Official & Ukraine Pause). They argue Ukraine is a distraction from the main event: preparing for potential conflict with China over Taiwan or the South China Sea. This pivot is causing huge headaches for allies committed to Ukraine, like Australia who are deeply invested in the AUKUS submarine pact. Colby even seemed to try pressuring Australia publicly, which ruffled feathers down under. (MSN - Colby & Australia).
Inside the US military, opinions are split. Some senior officers see the China focus as correct but worry about abandoning Ukraine prematurely. Others think it's strategically short-sighted to let Russia win. (The Guardian - Divided US Military on AUKUS). It's creating real tension. Colby's influence signals a much more confrontational, zero-sum approach to foreign policy, prioritizing direct great power competition over everything else, including traditional alliances and ongoing conflicts.
So What's the Big Picture Here? Consolidating Power
When you step back, all these threads – the DOE dismantling, aggressive rescissions, ending media funding, the China pivot, even the Epstein noise – they kinda weave together. It shows an administration pushing hard to shrink the federal government's role domestically (except for defense), centralize power in the executive branch, and fundamentally shift America's priorities. They're using every lever they can find: executive orders, aggressive legal interpretations (like rescissions), budget mechanisms, and personnel choices.
Stephen Miller, Trump's longtime advisor, laid out a vision recently that fits perfectly: dismantle the "administrative state," defund opponents, and prioritize nationalist goals. (NYTimes - Stephen Miller Op-Ed). The Supreme Court decision on the DOE was a crucial win for that agenda. The rescissions are a bold, risky tactic to control spending without Congress. Pulling food aid and media funding fits the anti-globalist, anti-"elite" messaging. The Pentagon shift aligns with the "America First" in terms of focusing solely on perceived direct threats.
Historians keep drawing parallels to Nixon, especially his own failed attempts to impound funds. (TIME - Trump Repeating Nixon). But Trump's team seems more determined, more willing to test boundaries, and they've got a more sympathetic Supreme Court. The question is how far Congress, the courts, and public opinion will let them go. The constitutional tensions are real and escalating. It feels like uncharted territory, moving real fast.
What Happens Next? Buckle Up, It's Gonna Be Bumpy
Predicting is tough, but here's the landscape:
* DOE Bloodbath: Layoffs start immediately. Expect lawsuits challenging the process (like union bargaining violations), even if the reorg itself was greenlit. Programs will be disrupted. States will scramble. The impact on students, especially vulnerable groups, will become starkly visible soon.
* Rescission Showdowns: The Senate will be ground zero for battles over each clawback package. Can McConnell keep Republicans unified to let the cuts happen? Or will some break ranks, especially on popular programs? This is a direct test of Congressional power versus the Executive.
* Media Fallout: NPR and PBS stations will close, especially in less wealthy areas. The media landscape shrinks further. Expect louder accusations of bias from all sides.
* Humanitarian & Global Impact: Destroying food aid sets a terrible precedent. Allies are deeply worried by the Ukraine pullback and the singular China focus. Trust in US commitments is plummeting. The AUKUS pact faces serious strain.
* Epstein & Distractions: This won't go away. New file dumps or video "discoveries" will keep fueling outrage and conspiracy theories, used by all sides to attack opponents.
* Legal Challenges Galore: The rescission tactic faces major court challenges on constitutional grounds (Separation of Powers). The DOE layoff process will be litigated. The humanitarian aid destruction might spark lawsuits. The DOJ lawyers defending all this are already stretched thin after the resignations.
The speed and scale of these changes are unprecedented in modern times. It's a deliberate dismantling and reshaping of government functions and priorities. The next few months are critical. Will Congress push back effectively? Will the courts step in on rescissions? How will the public react as the concrete effects hit home? One thing's for sure: the political and institutional earthquakes are far from over.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What exactly did the Supreme Court decide about Trump and the Department of Education? A: On July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted lower court injunctions, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to drastically reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education, including laying off thousands of employees. The Court ruled the administration had the legal authority for the reorganization.
Q: How will shrinking the Department of Education affect students? A: Critics warn the deepest impact will be on students with disabilities. Federal oversight and enforcement of laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) will likely weaken, potentially leading to reduced services and protections as responsibility shifts more heavily to states with varying resources and commitment.
Q: What are "rescissions" and why are they controversial? A: Rescissions are when the President asks Congress to cancel funding that Congress has already approved and set aside. Trump is using this power aggressively to cut billions, particularly in non-defense spending like education. It's controversial because it forces Congress to actively vote against the cancellation to save the funds within 45 days, seen as an end-run around Congress's constitutional budget authority.
Q: What's the scandal involving USAID and food aid? A: Reports indicate that under Trump administration orders, USAID incinerated significant quantities of emergency food aid intended for humanitarian crises abroad. Internal justifications citing "surplus" or quality issues are disputed by experts who claim the food was usable, viewing the destruction as a cost-cutting measure symbolically rejecting aid programs.
Q: Did Trump really cut all funding to NPR and PBS? A: Yes. The Trump administration successfully ended all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS, as of recently. This follows a May 2025 White House announcement framing it as ending subsidies for "biased media."
Q: Why is the Pentagon's focus shifting to China causing problems? A: Officials like Elbridge Colby, influencing Trump's defense policy, advocate prioritizing China above all else, including significantly reducing support for Ukraine. This shift causes friction with US allies committed to Ukraine (like those in AUKUS), divides opinion within the US military, and raises concerns about abandoning Ukraine prematurely, potentially allowing a Russian victory.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit earlcotten.substack.com/subscribe
