The Law Is “Fake and Gay”

Before we start: A brief word about Jerome Powell.

On the livestream last night I said that I did not expect markets to panic today about the consequences of Fed independence. As I’m writing, it’s business as usual on Wall Street. No panic. Not even a lot of tangible disapproval. Why is that?

I have a theory.

Donald Trump is a real estate guy. All real estate guys want low interest rates. If you deal in real estate, low interest rates are good for your business no matter what else is happening. Ergo, Trump believes that interest rates should always be low.¹

You know who else loves low interest rates? Big Tech. For tech giants, access to capital is the most important thing and cheap money is what allows companies like Facebook, Google, OpenAI, Uber, and MoviePass to grow. When interest rates are high, speculative bets—like tech companies, which propose that scale matters more than cash flow—are much harder to sustain.

Currently, the stock market is being propped up by Big Tech. The Magnificent Seven constitute 34 percent of the S&P 500’s value. That proportion is a very large historical outlier.

My theory is that a market beholden to Big Tech stocks is not going to be concerned about the political independence of the Fed if the result is return to ZIRP. Cheap capital is more important to them than the health of the bond market.

This is part of my larger thesis about Wall Street’s bizarre reaction to Trump, in which the stock market on the whole has performed way in excess of what the various economic indicators would suggest.

If you want to drink in my economic nihilism, go back and read “Wall Street Loves Trump Because LOL Nothing Matters” from eleven months ago. Fair warning: This stuff will turn you into the Joker.

Okay, now let’s get on to the final step of MAGA’s authoritarian project.

1. Foreign, Domestic

Late last week President Trump told the New York Times that in matters of foreign policy his actions are constrained only by his own internal sense of morality:

NYT: Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?

Trump: Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.

NYT: Not international law?

Trump: I don’t need international law.

So domestic laws, which define the powers of the president, do not apply to him. Nor do international laws, which define the interactions of sovereign states.

Underpinning this worldview is domination theory, aka “might makes right” and the “law of the jungle.” Stephen Miller expressed this view last week for the administration saying,

We live in a world, in the real world . . . that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.

But it was the, uh, political philosopher Matt Walsh who distilled the Trump worldview in the most helpful way:

If some shitty little tinpot third world dictator is harming our country or interfering with our national interests, we should do exactly what Trump did to Maduro. Why not? “International law” is fake and gay. The only international law is that big and powerful countries get to do what they want. It has been that way since the dawn of civilization. It will always be that way. And we are the most powerful country on the planet.

So here is my question: From the point of view of MAGA, why would it only be international law that is “fake and gay”? Why would it not be true domestically, as well, that the biggest and most powerful people get to do what they want? After all, from the dawn of man until about five minutes ago, that has been the historical norm.

Why, in America of 2026—or 2028—should people like Matt Walsh, and Stephen Miller, and Donald Trump live by any other principle? If they have the most guns—if they have the most power—why should they be constrained by some fake and gay laws about “elections” or the “transfer of power”?

Or shooting unarmed mothers.

I’m not being rhetorical; this is a real question. What is the theological distinction which says that a rules-based order cannot and should not bind strong actors on the international stage, but must bind them domestically?

Share

If some fake, gay law said that Donald Trump has to turn the federal government over to some Marxist radical Democrat who doesn’t even command a single division of the Army, and Trump has a Pentagon stacked full of generals who are loyal to him, what should Trump do?

Should he be constrained by anything other than his own sense of morality?