The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Opinion The knives are out for Stephen Bannon, and his scam is getting unmasked

President Trump on April 5 removed White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon from the National Security Council. Here’s what you need to know. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post, Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)


Stephen K. Bannon has proven remarkably talented at creating a media mystique around himself. With his diligent assistance, he has been portrayed as both a virtuoso of deliberately orchestrated disruption and an avenging angel to working-class people (such as his father) who have been betrayed by global and financial elites. Bannon cleverly wields chaos to destabilize those elite foes in service of an economic nationalist mission that borders on Messianism.

But now Bannon is being primarily viewed inside the White House as a destructive force, and other senior advisers are trying to undermine him in the eyes of President Trump himself, according to multiple reports out this morning. Those reports undercut the narrative of Bannon as a Maestro of Disruption, and they also provide an occasion to probe the true nature of his self-ascribed economic nationalism.

The New York Times reports that Bannon’s removal on Wednesday from his post at the National Security Council is part of a broader internal push that may “diminish” his role. His position has been “undermined” by the failure of the immigration ban, which has been blocked by the courts. Trump “initially supported” Bannon when he delivered an ultimatum to House Republicans that they must vote on the GOP health-care bill or else (they didn’t vote), but then Trump handed off health care to Vice President Pence. And Bannon is clashing with Jared Kushner and irritating the Big Man himself:

Mr. Kushner … has said privately that he fears that Mr. Bannon plays to the president’s worst impulses, according to people with direct knowledge of such discussions.
Moreover, Mr. Bannon’s Svengali-style reputation has chafed on a president who sees himself as the West Wing’s only leading man. Several associates said the president had quietly expressed annoyance over the credit Mr. Bannon had received for setting the agenda — and Mr. Trump was not pleased by the “President Bannon” puppet-master theme promoted by magazines, late-night talk shows and Twitter.

In practice, Bannonite disruption is upstaging the president and being blamed for the failure of the immigration ban. Recall that allies of Bannon initially cast the ban as a masterful coup. A senior administration official (gosh, who could that be?) recently told Bloomberg that Bannon deliberately arranged the release of the first ban on a Friday so that opponents could stage massive weekend protests that would draw maximum attention. Wow, disruption! In reality, Bannon made a hash of it.

Five reasons why Bannon leaving the National Security Council matters

What’s more, Kushner now allegedly believes that Bannon — presumably his combative nationalism — is aggravating Trump’s worst impulses. Politico’s reporting indicates a similar dynamic, in which Kushner sees Bannon as an “ideologue whose advice to Trump is making it harder for the president to win popular support,” and an ally of Bannon sees the clash as one between the “nationalists and the West Wing Democrats.”

Bannon himself has talked a great game about his “economic nationalism,” which is supposed to distinguish him from both the squishy globalists inside the White House and the Ayn Randian limited government Paul Ryan Republicans in Congress. But what has it really amounted to so far?

Follow Greg Sargent's opinionsFollow

When the health bill was tanking, allies of Bannon leaked that he saw an opportunity to undermine Ryan, whose bill, Bannon believed, was “written by the insurance industry,” suggesting Bannon and Trump secretly harbor more populist impulses than Ryan on health care. But where’s the evidence of this? The White House fully embraced Ryanism at an absolutely critical moment, throwing in with a plan that would have hurt many lower-income Trump voters and rolled back coverage for millions, violating Trump’s pledge of “insurance for everybody” and his vow not to cut Medicaid, while delivering a huge tax cut for the rich. If Bannon has an actual plan or even a vague vision for a health-care alternative to the Ryanism that he supposedly disdains, we haven’t seen it.

Alexandra Petri: Every story I have read about Trump supporters in the past week

On taxes, Trump will forge ahead with a plan that delivers an enormous tax cut for the rich, and according to Robert Draper, Bannon may also be open to repeal of the estate tax. Populist! It’s possible we may see Bannon’s economic nationalism shape Trump’s coming agenda on infrastructure and trade. Bannon has vowed a massive public expenditure on infrastructure. But we still don’t know whether Trump’s actual plan will amount to much more than a tax break and privatization scheme. Perhaps Trump will get some species of border adjustment tax on imports. But we still don’t know whether Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA will do anything to empower workers — and union leaders are skeptical based on what they’ve seen so far.

Bannon’s economic nationalism deserves more scrutiny. He claims he’s angry at Wall Street elites, but Trump has already moved to gut Wall Street oversight. This is not necessarily contradictory — Bannon believes Wall Street needs to regain its sense of responsibility to workers on its own — but that isn’t a plan, and at any rate, Bannon’s true anti-elite ire seems aimed at administrators and bureaucrats. In practice, this seems to be translating into massive proposed cuts to environmental oversight (that won’t actually restore coal jobs), science and medical research, and programs that spur economic development in Trump country.

Stephen K. Bannon, chief strategist to the White House, has emerged as one of the most powerful figures in Washington. (Video: Alice Li/The Washington Post)

Based on what we’ve seen so far, what evidence is there that Bannon’s “economic nationalism” amounts to much more than the nativist nationalism we’ve seen — the travel ban, the immigration restrictionism, the wall on the Mexican border, and the support for assorted right-wing nationalist movements worldwide?


* REPUBLICANS ARE SET TO ‘GO NUCLEAR’: The Post reports that Mitch McConnell is reassuring fellow senators that ending the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations — which will happen this week — won’t lead to scrapping it on legislation:

McConnell has tried to reassure his GOP colleagues that will not happen. He says that all presidential nominees will now be free of the filibuster hurdle, returning the chamber to its traditional role of voting them up or down. “There’s not a single Senator in the majority who thinks we ought to change the legislative filibuster. Not one,” he said.

This is actually plausible, in part because ending the filibuster on legislation would likely be a lot worse for Republicans over the long haul than it would be for Democrats.

* REPUBLICANS IN ‘EMERGENCY’ SCRAMBLE ON HEALTH CARE: Politico reports that House Republicans may hold an “emergency meeting” today in a last-ditch effort to revive the repeal push before going on recess:

Two sources did not believe the hearing, if scheduled, would have an immediate impact on the legislative calendar. Lawmakers are slated to leave town for a two-week Easter recess starting Thursday … discussions of a potential last-minute hearing show that Republicans aren’t giving up yet and are feeling pressure to act quickly.

The reaction that Republicans get on recess to their deeply unpopular repeal push may end out outweighing that “pressure to act quickly.”


Members are scheduled to leave for their spring break Thursday without having voted on health care. They’ll return on April 24 to face another challenge — government funding runs out days after they come back, on April 28.

So after hearing from constituents, members of Congress will immediately plunge into a government shutdown fight, pushing any action on repeal further into the future.

* TRUMP’S LATEST CLAIM ABOUT SUSAN RICE APPEARS BOGUS: Trump is now saying that Susan Rice, the national security adviser under Obama, may have committed a crime. Glenn Kessler examines the claim and finds it doesn’t add up:

On the face of it, Trump’s assertion is absurd. Numerous former national security officials told The Fact Checker that Rice, as national security adviser, had every right to request the identities of U.S. citizens who were incidentally recorded or referenced in surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency.

As Kessler notes, it’s not clear what Trump is pinpointing as a possible crime: the incidental collection of data on U.S. citizens, or the leaking of info about it. It’s unlikely Trump himself knows.

* PRESIDENT SPENDS LOTS OF TIME ON HIS PROPERTIES: The New York Times has a useful tally of Trump’s visits thus far to his properties: He’s visited Mar-a-Lago 17 times; his Palm Beach golf course 10 times; and a few other spots a handful of other times.

Conclusion: “Ethics experts argue that Mr. Trump’s visits to properties that are owned, managed or branded by the Trump Organization amount to free publicity for the company, blurring the line between his family business and his presidential duties.” Actually, it’s taxpayer-funded publicity.

* ACTIVISTS PRESSURE TRUMP ON TAXES: NPR reports that activists are planning multiple marches on April 15 to pressure Trump to release his tax returns. He has said he intends to release them but can’t because he’s under audit (which is nonsense). NPR notes:

Here’s a way around the audit problem: The president can disclose his new return at the same time he files it — before the IRS can start an audit.

Surely Trump will leap at this opportunity to do what he himself claims to want to do.

* ONE QUOTE THAT SUMS UP THE SYRIA HORROR: The Post reports that the chemical attack that killed scores of Syrian civilians was likely a “banned nerve agent,” and talks to families who lost loved ones:

“If the world wanted to stop this, they would have done so by now,” a woman who gave her name as Om Ahmed said in a telephone interview. “One more chemical attack in a town the world hasn’t heard of won’t change anything.”
Then her voice cracked. “I’m sorry. My son died yesterday,” she said. “I have nothing left to say to the world.”

13 things you may not have known about Stephen K. Bannon

Stephen Bannon served on two deployments between 1978 and 1980.(Photo courtesy of the Bannon family)