On issues surrounding domestic surveillance, Donald Trump consistently aligns with the strictest national security hawks in Congress. That alignment would usually lead to a candidate winning support from at least some of those who are like-minded.
Yet that has not been the case for Trump, and congressional hawks consistently comprise one of the groups most virulently opposed to him.
“It is impossible to know what Trump’s policies might be, given his unwillingness to spell them out in any detail,” said Gary Schmitt, a co-director for security studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He also said that, issues of surveillance and intelligence collection aside, Trump has been “cavalier” about threats posed by Russia and China, and “completely clueless” on other issues.
Even lawmakers who agree with Trump on those issues still criticize the billionaire. That includes Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who said last week that he would support a third-party candidate if Trump became the nominee. In a statement, he said Trump was “creepy” and had a “relentless focus … on dividing Americans.”
That was in spite of the fact that Sasse and Trump are in a minority that supports aggressive surveillance, such as the bulk collection of metadata by the National Security Agency. Trump has said he supported the collection regime, while Sasse was one of 32 senators who voted in favor of retaining the program before Congress allowed it to expire in November.
Security-friendly candidates have more reasons to like Trump than just his support for bulk data collection. He’s also advocated “closing parts of the Internet” that enable the Islamic State to operate unrestrained, and in February suggested Americans should boycott Apple until the company is willing to assist law enforcement with breaking the encryption on one of its devices.
Yet Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., a Marine Corps Reserve veteran who represents the military-heavy region around Virginia Beach, penned an open letter calling on Republicans to oppose Trump “based on his judgment, temperament and character,” which he said “point to a reckless, embarrassing and ultimately dangerous presidency.” He added that he would rather write in a candidate than vote for Trump in the general election.
In addition to disagreeing with Trump’s stance on Russia and China, a point alluded to by Schmitt, another reason that his agreement with members of Congress on many of the issues has failed to translate into more support may be that he has not articulated himself well.
“Trump often bloviates about tough-sounding things he’d do in fighting terrorism, seemingly without knowledge of the fact that the president lacks power to do these things without new legislation, court approval or cooperation from industry,” including, for instance, the suggestion that parts of the Internet be “shut down,” said Matthew Waxman, an adjunct senior fellow for law at the Council on Foreign Relations.
That has led to concern among some members of Congress that Trump would seek to abuse executive power in a manner reminiscent of Obama’s heavy reliance on executive orders. Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January whether he would rule out such a practice, Trump even praised Obama on the issue, saying, “He’s led the way, to be honest with you.”
“The danger would be, given Trump’s rhetoric, that his policies would just as often rest on executive fiat, as not,” Schmitt said. “So while his policies might or might not differ from the Obama administration, it may well share with the current White House the practice of simply asserting power rather than justifying it on legal and constitutional grounds.”
Waxman added that there is also a concern that Trump’s rhetoric is often contradictory. “He seems to be saying that we should aggressively shut down communications and yet monitor them aggressively at the same time, for instance,” Waxman said. “He also shows no regard for wrecking the cooperation that good intelligence depends upon from minority communities, foreign partners and industry.”
In spite of occasional rhetorical inconsistencies, Trump’s most frequent utterances suggest he would favor many of the same programs engaged in under both the Obama and Bush administrations. And in areas where he favors something even more aggressive, he may find that even executive power is not enough to go much further.
“In practice, I think we would find that many national security practices under Trump would not differ nearly as much as he says they would,” Waxman said, “because he would find that he’s unable to make many of the changes he’s promised.”
