Hugh Lind
@hughlind.bsky.social
Macro | Politics | Singapore | Cambridge | Views own
Reposted by Hugh Lind
I think a lot of Americans are unprepared for how insanely bad things will get if Trump actually goes for this, but conversely a lot of people on here are underrating how fast things will get memory holed and smoothed over if there’s a climb down
January 20, 2026 at 3:31 PM
I think a lot of Americans are unprepared for how insanely bad things will get if Trump actually goes for this, but conversely a lot of people on here are underrating how fast things will get memory holed and smoothed over if there’s a climb down
Reposted by Hugh Lind
The US is collapsing into fascism and going to war with Europe and the opposition party is like “I’m here to talk about the important thing: how your average grocery bill has risen by two dollars over the last year, which I also have no plan or ability to fix”
January 19, 2026 at 2:03 PM
The US is collapsing into fascism and going to war with Europe and the opposition party is like “I’m here to talk about the important thing: how your average grocery bill has risen by two dollars over the last year, which I also have no plan or ability to fix”
Reposted by Hugh Lind
A thousand times this.
If we want to take defence spending from circa 2.5% of GDP to circa 3.5-4% of GDP the question isn’t “how do we pay for it?”. That’s the easy bit - a combination of taxes and borrowing.
The real question is about real resources and what do we want to do less of?
If we want to take defence spending from circa 2.5% of GDP to circa 3.5-4% of GDP the question isn’t “how do we pay for it?”. That’s the easy bit - a combination of taxes and borrowing.
The real question is about real resources and what do we want to do less of?
There's a lot of talk about rearmament and breaking US dependence. I understand the logic completely. But I wonder if people have fully absorbed the economic/consumption implications of serious rearmament, especially when we also consider the state of public opinion and the information environment.
January 19, 2026 at 11:51 AM
A thousand times this.
If we want to take defence spending from circa 2.5% of GDP to circa 3.5-4% of GDP the question isn’t “how do we pay for it?”. That’s the easy bit - a combination of taxes and borrowing.
The real question is about real resources and what do we want to do less of?
If we want to take defence spending from circa 2.5% of GDP to circa 3.5-4% of GDP the question isn’t “how do we pay for it?”. That’s the easy bit - a combination of taxes and borrowing.
The real question is about real resources and what do we want to do less of?
Reposted by Hugh Lind
But Americans who want to save the alliance with Europe must have no illusions about how bad a condition this transatlantic partnership is in.
January 18, 2026 at 8:30 PM
But Americans who want to save the alliance with Europe must have no illusions about how bad a condition this transatlantic partnership is in.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
I'll maybe take the idea of the EU using the anti coercion instrument more seriously when those countries suggesting it's use also volunteer their own industries to suffer as a result.
Don't see any volunteers as yet.
Don't see any volunteers as yet.
January 18, 2026 at 1:58 PM
I'll maybe take the idea of the EU using the anti coercion instrument more seriously when those countries suggesting it's use also volunteer their own industries to suffer as a result.
Don't see any volunteers as yet.
Don't see any volunteers as yet.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
It continues to be a bad failure that essentially there's a policy debate that is obvious to you if you read a business newspaper OR the gov dot uk website or the MI5 threat update OR a decent policy Substack is basically invisible on the BBC and in 90 per cent of Commons debates.
Maybe we can, oh I dunno, start to have a conversation with voters about this? The problem is not going to go away.
The way politics is being conducted by both the tories and Labour seems surreal to me. We have a lunatic in the WH who simply cannot be relied on to be an ally, indeed the opposite, we need to spend a ton of cash on defence and no-one seems to think voters might need to be, er, readied for all this
January 18, 2026 at 1:54 PM
It continues to be a bad failure that essentially there's a policy debate that is obvious to you if you read a business newspaper OR the gov dot uk website or the MI5 threat update OR a decent policy Substack is basically invisible on the BBC and in 90 per cent of Commons debates.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
The other major cost [particularly in the UK] is that it has meant lying to voters at home about what is going on and the costs of doing something about it [re-arming, raising trade/IP and other barriers with the US and lowering them elsewhere].
Feels like something cracked today in the transatlantic alliance. Europeans have been swallowing their pride, bitting their tongues, and bending the knee. That strategy may have bought them time but it has now clearly failed. It also had a major cost - it has made the WH think Europe will cave. 1/
January 18, 2026 at 1:39 PM
The other major cost [particularly in the UK] is that it has meant lying to voters at home about what is going on and the costs of doing something about it [re-arming, raising trade/IP and other barriers with the US and lowering them elsewhere].
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Feels like something cracked today in the transatlantic alliance. Europeans have been swallowing their pride, bitting their tongues, and bending the knee. That strategy may have bought them time but it has now clearly failed. It also had a major cost - it has made the WH think Europe will cave. 1/
January 18, 2026 at 3:04 AM
Feels like something cracked today in the transatlantic alliance. Europeans have been swallowing their pride, bitting their tongues, and bending the knee. That strategy may have bought them time but it has now clearly failed. It also had a major cost - it has made the WH think Europe will cave. 1/
Reposted by Hugh Lind
My guess is his post was a reaction to being told that there was no realistic military option that would have support from congress + the joint chiefs.
Particularly because it's open-ended. There's no ultimatum.
Particularly because it's open-ended. There's no ultimatum.
Had not appreciated this interpretation [also put forward by @samfr.bsky.social] that the tariffs reflect that Trump has pulled back from an invasion for now.
But his threatened trade war suggests that he has accepted that a military invasion in the presence of NATO allies – however few – would be unacceptable to Congress and the American people.
ENDS
ENDS
January 18, 2026 at 11:04 AM
My guess is his post was a reaction to being told that there was no realistic military option that would have support from congress + the joint chiefs.
Particularly because it's open-ended. There's no ultimatum.
Particularly because it's open-ended. There's no ultimatum.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
But his threatened trade war suggests that he has accepted that a military invasion in the presence of NATO allies – however few – would be unacceptable to Congress and the American people.
ENDS
ENDS
January 18, 2026 at 11:00 AM
But his threatened trade war suggests that he has accepted that a military invasion in the presence of NATO allies – however few – would be unacceptable to Congress and the American people.
ENDS
ENDS
Reposted by Hugh Lind
It’s a real shame that Nigel Farage is too unwell to do interviews the morning after Donald Trump threatens us with sanctions.
Here he is with “the bravest man he ever met”. He campaigned to make Trump President, and has spent the last year enjoying all the chaos he has caused.
Here he is with “the bravest man he ever met”. He campaigned to make Trump President, and has spent the last year enjoying all the chaos he has caused.
January 18, 2026 at 10:51 AM
It’s a real shame that Nigel Farage is too unwell to do interviews the morning after Donald Trump threatens us with sanctions.
Here he is with “the bravest man he ever met”. He campaigned to make Trump President, and has spent the last year enjoying all the chaos he has caused.
Here he is with “the bravest man he ever met”. He campaigned to make Trump President, and has spent the last year enjoying all the chaos he has caused.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Further datapoints for how Europeans can no longer trust American elites whether or not Trump is in power
January 18, 2026 at 10:23 AM
Further datapoints for how Europeans can no longer trust American elites whether or not Trump is in power
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Many experts and scholars have argued that the EU's failure to activate the instrument against Trump's reciprocal tariffs (and also against China's rare earth curbs) set a bad precedent and exposed the bloc's unwillingness to "walk the talk" when push came to shove.
This is what I wrote last year.
This is what I wrote last year.
The new age of weaponisation lays bare Europe's weaknesses
Does the EU have what it takes to survive in the age of weaponisation? Recent events have cast light on the crucial question. #EuropeNews
www.euronews.com
January 17, 2026 at 11:55 PM
Many experts and scholars have argued that the EU's failure to activate the instrument against Trump's reciprocal tariffs (and also against China's rare earth curbs) set a bad precedent and exposed the bloc's unwillingness to "walk the talk" when push came to shove.
This is what I wrote last year.
This is what I wrote last year.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Once upon a time, a President of the United States saying "fuck you" and raising his middle finger to an American factory worker would be front page news around the world. Now it's a "colour lede" on a business analysis. www.ft.com/content/36ab...
January 16, 2026 at 10:48 AM
Once upon a time, a President of the United States saying "fuck you" and raising his middle finger to an American factory worker would be front page news around the world. Now it's a "colour lede" on a business analysis. www.ft.com/content/36ab...
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Tories in 2019: Corbyn wanting to disband NATO is irresponsible: www.channel4.com/news/factche...
Tories today: Trump threatens to break up NATO - no biggie.
These are not serious people.
Tories today: Trump threatens to break up NATO - no biggie.
These are not serious people.
January 11, 2026 at 1:34 PM
Tories in 2019: Corbyn wanting to disband NATO is irresponsible: www.channel4.com/news/factche...
Tories today: Trump threatens to break up NATO - no biggie.
These are not serious people.
Tories today: Trump threatens to break up NATO - no biggie.
These are not serious people.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Are people in the UK 'over-taxed'?
@danneidle.bsky.social points out that the median worker is currently paying historically low levels of tax 👇
Rewatch the full discussion 👉 buff.ly/dQaGaNo
@danneidle.bsky.social points out that the median worker is currently paying historically low levels of tax 👇
Rewatch the full discussion 👉 buff.ly/dQaGaNo
October 7, 2025 at 2:31 PM
Are people in the UK 'over-taxed'?
@danneidle.bsky.social points out that the median worker is currently paying historically low levels of tax 👇
Rewatch the full discussion 👉 buff.ly/dQaGaNo
@danneidle.bsky.social points out that the median worker is currently paying historically low levels of tax 👇
Rewatch the full discussion 👉 buff.ly/dQaGaNo
Reposted by Hugh Lind
‼️OMG
"The move would affect the admission of students for the coming academic year, but Noem also said the ban meant Harvard’s existing foreign students more than 27 per cent of its intake, or nearly 6,800 in total — must switch their enrolment to other universities"
www.ft.com/content/300e...
"The move would affect the admission of students for the coming academic year, but Noem also said the ban meant Harvard’s existing foreign students more than 27 per cent of its intake, or nearly 6,800 in total — must switch their enrolment to other universities"
www.ft.com/content/300e...
Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling international students
Letter from Department of Homeland Security signals new escalation in stand-off with university
www.ft.com
May 22, 2025 at 8:08 PM
‼️OMG
"The move would affect the admission of students for the coming academic year, but Noem also said the ban meant Harvard’s existing foreign students more than 27 per cent of its intake, or nearly 6,800 in total — must switch their enrolment to other universities"
www.ft.com/content/300e...
"The move would affect the admission of students for the coming academic year, but Noem also said the ban meant Harvard’s existing foreign students more than 27 per cent of its intake, or nearly 6,800 in total — must switch their enrolment to other universities"
www.ft.com/content/300e...
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Harvard today, your institution tomorrow.
It's all part of the Project 2025 plan to destroy high education in America.
All leading US universities depend on federal funding and tuition dollars from international students. They severely curtailed the former. Now they're eliminating the latter.
It's all part of the Project 2025 plan to destroy high education in America.
All leading US universities depend on federal funding and tuition dollars from international students. They severely curtailed the former. Now they're eliminating the latter.
May 22, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Harvard today, your institution tomorrow.
It's all part of the Project 2025 plan to destroy high education in America.
All leading US universities depend on federal funding and tuition dollars from international students. They severely curtailed the former. Now they're eliminating the latter.
It's all part of the Project 2025 plan to destroy high education in America.
All leading US universities depend on federal funding and tuition dollars from international students. They severely curtailed the former. Now they're eliminating the latter.
Reposted by Hugh Lind
BREAKING: The Supreme Court’s conservatives allow Trump’s firing of members of multi-member boards to remain in effect during litigation, effectively overruling a 90-year-old precedent.
The liberal justices, in an opinion by Kagan, dissents.
More to come: www.lawdork.com
The liberal justices, in an opinion by Kagan, dissents.
More to come: www.lawdork.com
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A966
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. U. GWYNNE A. WILCOX, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[May 22, 2025]
The Government has applied for a stay of orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the President's removal of a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), respectively. The President is prohibited by statute from removing these officers except for cause, and no qualifying cause was given.
See 29
U.S. C. §153(a); 5 U. S. C. §1202(d).
The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, see Art. I1, §1, cl. 1, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 215-218 (2020). The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argu-ment. The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty. See Trump v. International](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreihpfprz3gcbibsuvscdqwzmycut2tseklgiqiug2vq7zg3b6suh7e@jpeg)
May 22, 2025 at 8:48 PM
BREAKING: The Supreme Court’s conservatives allow Trump’s firing of members of multi-member boards to remain in effect during litigation, effectively overruling a 90-year-old precedent.
The liberal justices, in an opinion by Kagan, dissents.
More to come: www.lawdork.com
The liberal justices, in an opinion by Kagan, dissents.
More to come: www.lawdork.com
Reposted by Hugh Lind
This bespoke exception for the Fed is one of the most brazenly made-up things I've ever seen the Supreme Court do (which is saying something). There is no principled basis to distinguish the Fed from other independent agencies. The conservative justices just don't want Trump to crash the market!
The Supreme Court goes out of its way to say that its order today does NOT allow Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve because it is "uniquely structured" and has a "distinct history tradition." (I do not think those distinctions hold water.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
May 22, 2025 at 9:22 PM
This bespoke exception for the Fed is one of the most brazenly made-up things I've ever seen the Supreme Court do (which is saying something). There is no principled basis to distinguish the Fed from other independent agencies. The conservative justices just don't want Trump to crash the market!
Reposted by Hugh Lind
i think it should be a bigger story that the president held a meeting with a foreign head of state where he ranted about the most gutter white supremacist propaganda you can find on the internet
May 22, 2025 at 12:17 AM
i think it should be a bigger story that the president held a meeting with a foreign head of state where he ranted about the most gutter white supremacist propaganda you can find on the internet
Reposted by Hugh Lind
This is going to be an absolute car crash, the Supreme Court verdict looks more absurd by the day
www.thetimes.com/article/86fb...
www.thetimes.com/article/86fb...
May 20, 2025 at 2:54 PM
This is going to be an absolute car crash, the Supreme Court verdict looks more absurd by the day
www.thetimes.com/article/86fb...
www.thetimes.com/article/86fb...
Reposted by Hugh Lind
"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves."
— bell hooks
— bell hooks
May 20, 2025 at 7:37 PM
"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves."
— bell hooks
— bell hooks
Reposted by Hugh Lind
Finally, I am sick and tired of people pretending that education is a status symbol for the well-to-do, rather than a path towards a richer and more fulfilled life. I am all for addressing failures in skill training& problems with social mobility. But learning is good & should be encouraged. Always.
May 19, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Finally, I am sick and tired of people pretending that education is a status symbol for the well-to-do, rather than a path towards a richer and more fulfilled life. I am all for addressing failures in skill training& problems with social mobility. But learning is good & should be encouraged. Always.