Editorial Roundup: United States
News > National News
Audio By Carbonatix
2:02 PM on Monday, June 29
By The Associated Press
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
June 27
The Washington Post on the federal government's real estate problem stifling local economies
The federal government is the largest owner of U.S. real estate, including more than half a billion square feet of office space. That is far more than it needs, and the cost of maintaining it has ballooned to unsustainable levels.
The Public Buildings Reform Board recently identified 26 buildings across 15 states — totaling more than 7.3 million square feet — as potential candidates for the government to dispose due to poor usage and high maintenance costs. It’s the third set of disposal recommendations since Congress created the board in 2016.
That’s a great start, but the government needs to go much further to dump unneeded properties. Doing so is essential not only to protect taxpayers but to unlock valuable real estate that cities could use for more housing and economic development.
The government’s bloated property portfolio only gets worse as buildings age. The total backlog of maintenance and repairs was $370 billion in 2024, the Government Accountability Office estimated. That was more than double what it was in 2017.
Just the General Services Administration, which manages about 40 percent of the government’s office space, has accrued $50 billion in such backlo. That’s because the government has chronically underfunded the upkeep of buildings. Industry standards recommend property owners spend 2 to 4 percent of a building’s replacement value on maintenance each year, but the GSA has historically spent an estimated 0.4 percent.
The result is deteriorating work conditions: leaky roofs, malfunctioning elevators, poor air control systems. The problem is particularly acute for properties constructed during the middle of the last century, when the government went on a building binge to house the growing administrative state.
Even more frustrating is that many of these buildings are barely used. A law enacted last year requires the GSA to start collecting data on how well agencies utilize their buildings, based on a standard of 150 square feet of working space per person. The first set of data, which reviewed more than 9,700 buildings, found that none met the law’s 60 percent usage threshold. Many are far lower.
The underutilization alone wastes $1.34 billion a year, according to the Public Buildings Reform Board.
The GSA’s data is imperfect, but the problem has been known for years. It worsened with the surge in remote work following the pandemic. A GAO report on 24 federal agencies in D.C. found that over the course of three weeks in 2023, 17 agencies used on average a quarter or less of their headquarter buildings. None used more than half their capacity.
The Trump administration, to its credit, has been pushing to quickly sell federal properties. It’s also laid out plans to relocate agencies, either by consolidating them in federal offices or moving them to leased spaces.
But disposing large amounts of real estate is difficult work that will take years, complicated by aggravating bureaucracy. Making the government’s property portfolio sustainable will require long-term commitment from Congress and future administrations.
___
June 25
The Wall Street Journal on Donald Trump, refugees and SCOTUS
The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded President Trump’s power over immigration—or so the press proclaims. The White House no doubt wishes that were true, but the six conservative Justices merely ruled that judges can’t usurp power that Congress delegated to the President.
At issue in Mullin v. Doe was Mr. Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian refugees. A 1990 law lets the Secretary of Homeland Security provide quasi-legal status to migrants if they can’t safely return to their home countries because of armed conflicts, natural disasters, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”
Foreigners with TPS are protected from removal and can receive work authorizations. Congress required the DHS Secretary to periodically review country determinations with extensions limited to 18 months at a time, though they are often extended for decades. Trump officials say Democratic Presidents have abused the program to provide de facto permanent legal status. The Trump team has sought to end TPS for foreigners from a dozen or so countries, including some 360,000 Syrians and Haitians who first received protections during the Obama Presidency. Cue an onslaught of lawsuits.
These legal challenges should be open and shut cases since the TPS law says there “is no judicial review of any determination of the (Secretary) with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” But some judges have ignored the law and blocked the Administration’s termination based on procedural quibbles.
One court ruled that the DHS Secretary inadequately consulted the State Department about conditions in Syria before terminating TPS. In the view of lower courts, the bar on judicial review doesn’t apply to “procedural errors” underlying the terminations. But as Justice Samuel Alito notes for the Court, this loophole finds “no support in the statutory language.”
Haitian plaintiffs also argued that Trump officials canceled their TPS out of racial animus and thus violated constitutional equal protection. They cite derogatory statements by Mr. Trump about immigrants, the TPS program and Haitian refugees. The majority underscores that they find the President’s statements reprehensible.
“Poverty and deprivation are no reflection on character, and there is no justification for denigrating the character of Haitians who suffer from and bear no responsibility for their country’s ills,” Justice Alito writes. Haitians fought at the Battle of Savannah to support American independence in 1779 and “have made many positive contributions to the United States.”
The three liberal Justices claim in their dissent that Mr. Trump’s inflammatory statements are irrefutable proof of racial bias. “The evidence is there, plain to see, in the President’s statements, which the majority (and for that matter, his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat,” Justice Elena Kagan writes.
But as Justice Alito rejoins, “one may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race.” He adds that “whatever one may think of the (President’s) cited statements, they are insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti ’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people.”
We oppose Mr. Trump’s moves to remove immigrants who have put down roots and contribute to the country. But liberals are wrong when they denounce the conservative Justices for green-lighting Mr. Trump’s mass deportation. Their target should be Mr. Trump. The job of judges is to interpret the law as written, not to impose their policy preferences.
___
June 26
The Boston Globe says political standards shouldn't affect science or merit
How do you ensure federal research money flows to projects that are scientifically rigorous and likely to succeed? For decades, the answer has been: Have scientists evaluate projects in their field, then have government fund the projects according to those scores.
Now, the Trump administration has proposed injecting politics into federal grant issuance to an unprecedented extent, in ways that threaten to undermine scientific rigor and insert grave uncertainty into federal funding. The federal government should not move forward with its proposed new rule, which, if finalized, will likely be challenged in court.
On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget released its proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, which has garnered nearly 40,000 public comments. The lengthy document sets parameters around all government grants, which could range from scientific research to teacher training to transportation projects.
The president and Congress already have latitude on what programs are funded. For example, a president can — with money appropriated by Congress — direct money toward cancer research or space exploration. Trump’s new regulations, however, would go further in requiring a political appointee to review every discretionary grant to ensure it advances the president’s policy priorities.
The biggest impact may be in scientific research, where grant proposals today are peer reviewed by scientific panels and funded based on that scoring. The guidance would make those panels advisory, and they could be overridden based on political interests. “This really risks somebody who doesn’t understand the science making decisions,” said Paul Anderson, chief academic officer at Mass General Brigham, which receives around $1 billion a year in federal research funding. “Scientists should make decisions about science. This guidance turns that on its head and put the onus on these political appointees.”
The proposal would also let the federal government terminate a grant at any time if it no longer advances federal agency priorities. While Trump previously tried to do this by executive order, his attempts at actually cancelling grants midstream were frequently overturned by the courts. According to the Office of Management and Budget, “The proposal recognizes that Federal agency priorities may change after an award is initially made.” This policy would effectively put every multiyear grant approved at the end of a presidential administration at risk of being cancelled when the next president takes office.
Allowing midstream terminations could have dire consequences for patients in the middle of clinical trials. It also has workforce implications for scientists, students, and employees. Corey Fehnel, assistant scientist at Hebrew SeniorLife Marcus Institute for Aging Research, said he can’t imagine hiring a research assistant or other junior-level employee without a guarantee that he’ll have money to pay them for the proposed length of a grant. Previously, Fehnel said, “no one looked to government as being an unreliable partner in contracts, but my worry is this could change that.”
Other sections of the proposed rules could impose more administrative burdens on international collaboration, potentially affecting, for example, a Cambridge institute studying HIV that collaborates with partners working to curb the HIV epidemic in South Africa.
The universities and hospitals that power Massachusetts’ economy are particularly vulnerable to the new rules, since many rely heavily on federal grants.
State government could also be affected if these rules introduce a greater political element into grants for education, child welfare, or transportation. House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, wrote a letter to OMB demanding that the federal government not move forward with the proposed new rules. Neal wrote that in fiscal 2024, the federal government gave state and local governments $1.1 trillion in discretionary grants, which could become subject to these rules, if they go into effect.
As Jorge Chavarro, dean for academic affairs at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told the editorial board, the US has become a world leader in science over the past half century largely because government funds science through a highly competitive system. The proposed regulations, Chavarro said, “would completely change the way biomedical research is conducted from being essentially the most rigorous, competitive, and merit-based system in the world to a system that becomes very susceptible to political interference.”
Or as Neal wrote in his letter, “Subjecting research grants to a political loyalty test, rather than awarding funding based on true scientific merit, functionally eliminates this nation’s capacity to produce gold-standard independent research.”
At a time when public trust in science is already low, increasing political interference will only further undermine confidence in the system, while eroding America’s scientific prowess in the world.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/06/26/opinion/scientific-grants-politics/
___
June 28
The Philadelphia Inquirer on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool
The immediate problem with Washington’s algae-choked Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is that, contrary to President Donald Trump ’s typically inflated promises, it’s not reflecting much other than its hospitality to primitive aquatic life. And yet in a figurative sense, this relatively inconsequential public works project reflects the president’s excesses as faithfully as a mirror. Among them:
Narcissism: The Narcissus of myth fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water, so it’s fitting that the same tendency lured Trump into this National Mall quagmire. Not content to quietly assess and address the feature’s deficiencies as if it’s his, well, job, the president made an ocean of a pond, insisting that repairing it would somehow simultaneously glorify America and himself, between which he makes little distinction.
Trump has bizarrely exaggerated the pool’s dimensions, falsely calling it “ longer than the tallest building in the world ” and suggesting its persistent murk was not just an age-old design flaw but a national calamity. Echoing a mantra dating to his original campaign, he claimed that he alone could fix it where his predecessors had failed, transforming its condition from “filthy,” “disgusting,” and “garbage-ridden” into “the most beautiful” “American-flag blue” for up to a century hence. And he said he could do it quickly and cheaply, vowing to complete the renovation in as little as a week for no more than $2 million.
Incompetence: But unlike the last attempt to remedy the pool’s persistent issues, during the Obama administration, Trump’s project did not grapple with the underlying plumbing problems that conspire with the Mid-Atlantic climate to create an ideal habitat for algae. His contractors simply resurfaced the pool’s concrete bottom with foam and a blue-tinted sealant.
Predictably, the algae persisted. Worse, the new surface did not, detaching and floating free in forlorn pieces. Workers dumped hydrogen peroxide into the water in a desperate attempt to beat back the pond scum, while the untimely demise of a few unlucky ducks in and around the pool raised further concerns. The project, meanwhile, took about six times as long as the president promised and cost eight times as much, with further work expected to prolong the effort beyond the Fourth of July.
Corruption: The nation’s approaching 250th birthday was cited as the dubious reason for awarding the work on an emergency basis without competitive bidding, allowing the administration to handpick companies with little or no experience as federal contractors. Some of the business went to an Ohio company called Greenwater Services — a bit of honest advertising given the water’s current hue — owned by James J. Cafaro, a Trump neighbor who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to committees linked to the president.
This isn’t Cafaro’s first inauspicious encounter with the federal government. In 2001, he pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to bribe Democratic Rep. James Traficant of Ohio. He went on to testify that he gave the congressman, who was pushing Federal Aviation Administration officials to adopt a laser system sold by Cafaro’s company, an envelope stuffed with cash. In 2002, Traficant was convicted of corruption charges and expelled from Congress.
Deception: Lest anyone leap to the conclusion that these unsavory facts suggest the administration didn’t hire the best people for the job, Trump advanced the theory that the real culprit is a conspiracy.
Having begun the project with a fictive account of the pool’s history and false promises of a glorious future, he recently alleged without evidence that the project came up short because unidentified enemies had sabotaged the feature with “a very sharp knife or razors” and algae-promoting “chemicals” in the “ dark of night.”
Authoritarianism: The farce took a fascist turn when Trump declared on social media that half a dozen people had been arrested for alleged vandalism of the pool.
One of the targets said he was arrested on an obscenity charge for taunting National Guard troops deployed around the pool. Another said he was taken into custody and detained for hours for touching a piece of federal flotsam. His lawyer, Norm Eisen, argued persuasively that the arrest was an attempt to distract from the mismanagement and corruption surrounding the project, calling it “ textbook authoritarian behavior.”
In short, the president’s promise to embody national greatness has been exposed as a shoddy racket wrapped in lies and oppression. The pool reflects after all.
___
June 28
The Guardian on US military justice in Britain
A British victim of crime, on British soil, might reasonably expect their assailant to be tried in the British justice system. That was not Sarah Steele’s experience. US military police quickly took charge of investigating her assault by Jacob Wulfson in late 2023, and the airman was prosecuted in a US court martial – for a crime that took place off duty and off base, in an English city. Downing Street said on Friday that it was “very concerning” that the case never reached the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Ministry of Justice has said it will look into it.
Dr Steele waived her anonymity to speak to the Guardian about the “distressing and degrading” experience, casting light upon the little-known US military justice system and its use within the UK. Wulfson was convicted of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted of sexual assault and “aggravated sexual contact” by an all-male panel of air force officers stationed at the same base, RAF Lakenheath. Legal experts said the latter offence would probably have been categorised as rape in a British court. Dr Steele faced invasive, aggressive and lengthy questioning; her attacker chose not to testify.
More than 12,000 US personnel are stationed on 15 bases and facilities in Britain. Under a 1951 agreement, the US prosecutes them for offences committed while they were on duty, or against other US personnel, US armed forces’ property, or a dependant such as a spouse or child. That scope in itself is deeply concerning: the death of a British citizen in a collision off-base would still come under US military jurisdiction if the driver was on duty.
British police and prosecutors otherwise have the first option on investigating and charging American military personnel. In practice, however, US authorities appear to be claiming a much wider jurisdiction – and British authorities are falling in line. They are required to give “sympathetic” consideration to US requests to take over cases, and often allow the military authorities to do so, according to a US air force expert. The Guardian has identified scores of convictions in courts martial in the UK over the past decade, including for child sexual abuse offences, violent attacks and drink-driving. A significant number involved British victims and were committed outside US bases.
At a minimum, British authorities should be warier of passing cases to the US military, and more accountable and transparent when they do so. As Dr Steele has urged, police should seek the views of victim-survivors before relinquishing cases, and formally record and account for their decision to do so. That is especially important when cases occur off-base and involve those unconnected to the US military. There should be a central record of such cases, and their outcome. The US military publishes a docket of forthcoming courts martial, but while it lists alleged offences and subsequently convictions, it offers no further detail.
It’s easy to see how US military justice on British soil serves the interests of the US military. It’s unclear how it serves those hosting them. The current US administration is allergic to calls for military transparency or accountability, and disdainful of its allies. Yet its bases overseas are under increasing scrutiny, especially because of Donald Trump’s illegal war on Iran. In the long run, the US will find it hard to maintain public acceptance of those facilities without accepting greater scrutiny.
