I’m headed out at the end of this week for some extensive international travel, so for about the next four weeks I’ll be off the grid, so to speak.

However, before I leave, I want to address a topic that’s been bothering me for a while and has been written about a lot recently—how the public, both inside and outside the U.S., has lost confidence in many of the current leaders occupying the White House, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The sad fact is that many U.S. citizens and longstanding allies now question my country’s commitment to protecting democracy, upholding the rule of law, fighting corruption, and preserving hard-won human and civil rights. They increasingly view the U.S. president as an often delusional, vindictive, mercurial, and unreliable bully who displays poor judgment and whose words and deeds can’t be trusted. In addition, they are perplexed by why America’s traditional friends in NATO, Canada, the rest of the Americas, the Asia-Pacific region, and elsewhere are continually berated by those in the White House, while brutal dictators in countries like Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and previously in Hungary are praised and treated much better.

So, what’s happened? To begin to answer that question, let’s start by restating a few tried-and-true facts.

Whether in business, government, or any other walk of life, truly successful leaders recognize the importance of earning and maintaining trust—both in themselves and the entities they represent. These leaders understand that trust underpins stability and promotes cooperation because when people trust a leader (either a person or a country), they are more apt to listen carefully, share ideas freely, accept feedback even when it is not always positive, work harder to reach shared goals, and give one the benefit of the doubt when needed.

Without mutual trust, internal and external alliances fracture, organizational and societal divisions grow, and collaborative efforts to address common challenges either slow down or grind to a halt.

Past U.S. presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln knew that real, lasting trust results from being honest and doing what is right, not from chasing quick popularity or scoring short-term points at a colleague’s or ally’s expense. They also understood that once you lose trust through deception, self-dealing, or any corrupt acts, you can never truly regain it. As Warren Buffett said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”

Unfortunately, the current U.S. president doesn’t understand this, or if he does, he simply doesn’t care. As Heather Cox Richardson points out in her column this week, “Trump’s new attack on Canada might not make economic or political sense for the U.S., but it seems to make sense for a decaying president.”

She goes on to say. “Trump is flailing in Iran, and so—as national security scholar Tom Nichols pointed out in The Atlantic after Trump nonsensically attacked South Korea, another longstanding and loyal ally—he is looking to reassert his dominance. Trump doesn’t dare to cross the leaders who actually threaten the U.S., those like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Instead, Nichols writes, he is trying to make himself feel better by ‘kicking America’s allies, the nations he can punish without fear that they will kick him back’.”

So, what do responsible leaders do to gain trust, and conversely, how is trust destroyed? Many experts in the field will tell you that, first and foremost, a leader’s character and integrity matter. That reminded me of an essay I posted back on October 25, 2017, entitled “Character and Leadership in a Week of Political Turbulence.”

Now, almost nine years later, you decide whether what I wrote back then still rings true, and if it does, what lessons can be learned as we move forward?

Character and Leadership in a Week of Political Turbulence (October 25, 2017)

The past seven days have been remarkable and unprecedented in many ways. Three Republican senators and two former United States presidents have directly or indirectly raised serious concerns about Donald Trump’s character and his ability to gain and maintain the trust to lead this country. Sadly, this is neither the first time that Trump’s leadership capabilities and character have been questioned, nor will it likely be the last.

If you agree that character is an overriding prerequisite for any successful leader—POTUS or otherwise—to gain trust, the obvious question becomes what attributes define good or, better yet, exceptional character? In answering this question, I’ve tried to separate basic leadership skills (e.g., strategic vision, accountability, communication, identifying and motivating talented personnel, delegation, negotiation, tough-mindedness, work ethic, and the like) from fundamental character traits.

With that caveat in mind and with no pride in authorship, here is my list of ten admirable traits against which any leader’s character can be assessed:

1. Possessing unwavering integrity, high values, a sound moral compass, and the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

2. Courageous and willing to do the right thing, even when it means bucking the odds, standing alone, or putting the organization’s (or country’s) best interests ahead of any personal gain.

3. Honest, truthful, and transparent in both words and deeds.

4. Balanced, fair, impartial, and equitable.

5. Reliable and trustworthy in the best and worst of times.

6. Confident without being arrogant, aloof, or egotistical.

7. Empathetic, caring, and sincere; never cruel or vindictive.

8. Passionate and enthusiastic while maintaining unflappable composure under fire.

9. Willing to admit mistakes, apologize when wrong, and then adapt and make amends.

10. Loyal, but not to a fault.

Well, there you have it. Hopefully, this list will help as you decide whether Senators McCain, Corker, Flake, and Presidents Bush and Obama were correct in their recent assessment of Donald Trump.

Either way, one fact is undeniable: character does matter!

Almost nine years later, I can say again, “Well, there you have it,” to which some of you may respond, “So what?”

Alright, the “so what?” is that this country I love has problems, and the problems we face are mounting and significant, but they’re not insurmountable. To address them, we must start by being honest and admitting problems exist. Next, we need to ensure the right leaders are in place who can identify practical, implementable solutions. And then we should support those leaders as they do their job.

So, you may ask, “What can I do right now to help this process along?”

To answer that question, and in closing, I will once again refer to eight suggestions I made in an earlier post published on February 13, 2025:

Find Your Voice, Speak Out, and Take a Stand! (February 13, 2025)

… Simply put, now is the time to find the courage to speak out and take a stand. Might you face some personal risk in doing so? Yes, but think about the risk to our democracy and future generations if you don’t. While there are many ways to voice your opinion, I’ll share eight suggestions that aren’t mutually exclusive or one-time events.

1. Explicitly call out lies and serial liars; the more powerful they are, the more necessary it is to do so.

2. For Americans, send emails or letters to your elected representatives and call your congressperson or senator using the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202–224–3121), and continue this on an ongoing basis.

3. Attend all town hall meetings, ask questions, and voice your opinions.

4. Write op-eds or letters to the editor of local newspapers or magazines.

5. Engage with and respectfully challenge your friends, neighbors, and other reasonable people with opposing political views.

6. Support nonprofit organizations that provide unbiased news, such as PBS NewsHour, and those that “expose abuses of power and betrayals of public trust” through responsible investigative reporting, like ProPublica.

7. Participate in peaceful, constructive protests and strikes.

8. Ensure you are properly registered to vote and cast your ballot in all elections, although some irreparable damage may already have been done by then.

In summary, get involved—not just for yourself, but for your children, grandchildren, and other loved ones.

Rest assured that I’ll be back at it in October. Until then, be well as you find your voice, speak out, and take a stand!

**********

For additional perspectives on some of the characteristics and skills that help make leaders effective and respected, see: https://philhsc.com/podcast/art-collins-on-ceo-leadership-trust-and-listening-under-pressure

Russian playwright Denis Fonvizin, who lived from 1745 to 1792 and satirized the ignorance and moral decay of nobility who held leadership positions, is reputed to have said, “A fool is very dangerous when in power.”

In his 1532 political treatise, The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli advised rulers desperate to obtain and maintain power to ignore conventional morality and truth and instead wield raw power and deadly force.

In her 1951 book on totalitarianism and the roots of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt noted that totalitarian rulers replace objective truth and real facts with a consistent, fabricated fictional reality that serves their will.

In his 1949 book, 1984, George Orwell wrote, “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

In his 1837 short story, The Emperor Has No Clothes (originally titled The Emperor’s New Clothes), Hans Christian Anderson writes about the danger of conformity and the power of collective denial driven by pride and fear.

In his 1599 play, As You Like It, William Shakespeare wisely observed, “The fool doth think he is a wise man, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

Finally, in his 1907 advertising compilation, Satire and Song, Maurice Seitzer first wrote this often-quoted line, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

If Fonvizin, Machiavelli, Arendt, Orwell, Anderson, Shakespeare, and Seitzer were all alive today, what do you think they would say about just a few of the following decisions and statements made earlier this month? And do you think they would agree or disagree that judgment day is coming for the main protagonist in all these instances?

▶︎ Without any scientific rationale or support from medical associations, a presidential executive order directed major changes to the federal childhood immunization recommendations, breaking up safe and efficacious combination inoculations (e.g., measles, mumps, and rubella in a single MMR vaccination) and instead requiring separate inoculations and medical visits; this is the same president who suggested in 2020 that injecting disinfectant in the bloodstream may help treat patients with COVID 19 and in 2025 selected an unqualified and ardent anti-vaccine proponent to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

▶︎ Despite warnings from scientists and university leaders that allowing non-expert political appointees to judge the validity of specialized research projects would undermine medical innovation and scientific integrity, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) bowed to pressure from the White House and put forward a regulatory proposal that granted political appointees final veto power over federal research grants, bypassing existing expert-led peer-review panels at agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF); this is the same thinking that prompted the administration to freeze, cancel, or restrict thousands of federal research grants while deleting or modifying hundreds of federal datasets in specific fields deemed contrary to its political and policy priorities.

▶︎ Contrary to the president’s promises in the run-up to the 2024 election to supercharge an already solid economy, lower the cost of living, increase household income faster than inflation, balance the budget, and reduce the national debt, the overall economic condition of the U.S. is now in much worse shape due to ill-advised tax cuts, counterproductive tariffs and required tariff refunds, and increased government spending in part due to his ongoing war of choice with Iran; unfortunately, the national debt has broken through the $40 trillion mark much faster than expected, and the U.S. is now spending more than $1.1 trillion annually (or about 19% of totall federal expenditures) to service the debt with interest rates on the rise.

▶︎ In the face of criticism from climatologists and contrary to peer-reviewed earth science findings, the National Academy of Sciences was pressured by the president to delete climate change sections from federal judicial reference manuals and to label the established data “fraud” in an effort to preclude judges from relying on consensus climate science during environmental litigation; this followed the curtailment of federal climate research by shutting down public data portals, the termination of major research programs, and the dismissal of thousands of agency scientists.

▶︎ Even though naval engineering experts argued that reverting to steam catapults on aircraft carriers would require significantly more sailors during flight operations at a time when the U.S. Navy is facing persistent staffing and recruitment challenges, and disregarding catapult system manufacturer General Atomics’ warnings that altering designs midway through production would cause massive financial, integration, and schedule risks expected to cost billions of dollars, the president signed a national security directive ordering the abandonment the modern electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) on future carriers and instead return to traditional steam-powered catapults; this directive comes in concert with White House pressure to revamp the design of a new class of aircraft carriers and battleships to conform with desires expressed by a vain president who knows nothing about warship design, but who will likely force the Navy to put his name on one of the new ships.

▶︎ In the wake of documented reports of deteriorating conditions and poor morale on the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of the two U.S. aircraft carriers in the Middle East that has been deployed nearly nine months without a port call in 200 days, the president disputed the idea that family members of sailors and troops aboard the ship are concerned and that the deployment has gone on too long, saying, “No, they’re not” and then followed with, “No, no, no. Not nearly long enough” in a frustrated tone; immediately thereafter, the carrier was ordered to return to the U.S.

▶︎ Although maritime trackers report that Iran has allowed only a handful of ships to transit through the Strait of Hormuz, the president said the U.S. was the “guardian” of the strait and this vital waterway remained open while at the same time demanding financial compensation from Iran for decades of past deaths and damages, declaring the Strait of Hormuz a “U.S. territory” and threatening to “bomb the s*it out of Oman,” a key U.S. ally in the region, moves that analysts called delusional and contradictory as the U.S. remains deadlocked in peace talks with Iran.

▶︎ After berating Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House and telling him he had “no cards,” and then continuing to withhold needed weapons from Ukraine while praising the war criminal Vladimir Putin, the president dispatched his vice president to beg Zelenskyy to stop bombing Russian oil tankers to help augment the dwindling supply of oil that has driven up the price of gas and other commodities in the U.S. and worldwide; this followed the Trump administration rejecting a 2025 proposal from Zelenskyy to supply the U.S. with advanced Ukrainian anti-drone technology, only to later ask for assistance when the U.S. inventory of expensive anti-drone missiles were recklessly drawn down to dangerously low levels.

▶︎ Running directly counter to maintaining a strong allied deterrent against potential military action by North Korea and China on the Korean Peninsula and in the Pacific, and once again expressing frustration that traditional regional allies (including South Korea, Japan, and Australia) didn’t provide direct military support to U.S. hostilities with Iran, an impulsive president and commander in chief unwisely directed the U.S. military to “substantially reduce” annual joint readiness drills with South Korea at the same time Kim Jong Un is sending 50,000 North Korean troops to help Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.

▶︎ Recognizing that economists have universally identified tariffs as counterproductive to economic growth and contributing to higher consumer prices, and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)could not be used by the president to levy broad reciprocal tariffs, the Trump administration shifted its strategy toward Sections 301 and 232 authorities to continue to impose new tariffs that two-thirds of Americans are dead set against; at the same time, the president refuses to put tariffs on Russia to help end the war in Ukraine.

▶︎ Immediately following prosecutors from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office dropping criminal charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn and admitting that widespread peeling and damage in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool resulted from a “botched” contractor installation that is now at least $14 million over budget, the president publicly criticized the decision and still claimed that vandals used knives or box cutters to cut a massive 250- to 350-foot gash into the pool lining.

▶︎ Soon after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the government is unlawfully denying bond hearings to thousands of people detained by ICE in New England, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that ICE cannot hold detainees for more than 90 days without allowing them to seek release on bond during deportation proceedings, the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increased daily ICE arrest targets while allocating $10 million to $20 million to provide field officers with low-voltage electric shock gloves designed to induce painful compliance.

▶︎ Following a federal appeals court decision to halt the construction of a $400 million ballroom on the White House East Wing, which included a ruling that the White House belongs to the public and that the president cannot bypass Congress to modify it, the president appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and said the ballroom project is “vital to U.S. national security and military readiness,” immediately drawing criticism and a lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation after which Trump accused the organization of revealing “Top Military Secrets”.

▶︎ Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Congress ordered the Department of Justice to release all the files gathered by the FBI no later than December 19, 2025, with redactions only to protect victims and not the perpetrators; however, now eight months later with the president’s personal criminal attorney Todd Blanche taking the oath to become permanent U.S. Attorney General earlier this week, the White House controlled DOJ has only produced about half the files, with many of the documents heavily redacted to protect perpetrators at the same time that it released some of the victim’s names, photographs, and personal information.

▶︎ After repeatedly maintaining that there is no corruption in the Trump administration or family dealings, the Trump Media & Technology Group introduced on Truth Social a feature allowing subscribers to pay $100,000 per month for accelerated access to the president’s official statements and posts, which prompted the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Intercept Media to file a lawsuit alleging this scheme was corrupt, unconstitutional, and would promote insider trading.

While you’re formulating your answer to those two questions, consider the following observation that is often attributed to Plato: “A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something.”

In closing, it is one thing to point out problems or identify issues; it is quite another to take constructive action to address them. So, in this regard, everyone who is concerned about the current state of affairs in the United States and around the world should find their voice and speak out to family members, friends, and the public at large in whatever way they are comfortable. And for all of you in the United States, no matter your political persuasion, remember that your vote counts, so make sure you are registered to vote and cast your ballot in what is likely to be the most important midterm elections so far.

Age is certainly not the only determinant of when a leader should step down. Other factors include physical health and stamina, mental sharpness, sound judgment, unwavering integrity, job performance, honest discourse, political context, and ethical conduct. For that matter, these are also criteria to be considered when initially selecting a leader.

However, when combining Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to run for a second term, Mitch McConnell’s refusal to retire after major health problems and an unexplained extended disappearance from public view, along with Donald Trump’s cognitive decline, increasingly flawed decision-making, and mounting unethical behavior, one can understand why critics and a majority of Americans say it is high time for impaired, compromised, old leaders who are well past their prime to step aside and let a younger generation take the leadership reins in government, business, and other walks of life. And considering that many of these “over the hill” leaders are white males, I believe that the more capable women and people of color who are in that replacement cadre, the better.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of mental decline late in life, the undeniable fact that those adversely affected are poor judges of their own changing abilities, and the need to refresh the country’s leaders. Thomas Jefferson underscored this problem when he honestly wrote about himself in the hope that others would do the same: “Eighty-two years old, my memory gone, my mind close following it.” George Washington also emphasized preparing the next generation of leaders and knowing when he should leave office, noting in his 1796 farewell address that his advancing age (only 64 at the time) and the Republic’s stability made it the right time for him to step down.

U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond certainly didn’t heed Jefferson’s or Washington’s advice. He remained in office well past his physical and mental prime, finally retiring in January 2003 at the age of 100 after serving 47 years in the U.S. Senate. Thurmond became a poster child for critics who argued that elderly, physically and mentally impaired politicians and their unelected staff weren’t really representing the best interests of their constituents, and that “mental competency” standards and term limits were needed in Congress.

The history books are full of examples of where leaders outside government also stayed too long in their positions, to the distinct detriment of their organizations and the various constituencies they served.

Les Wexner was famously chairman & CEO of L Brands (the parent of Victoria’s Secret) for over 50 years. Governance experts cite him as a prime example of a chief executive staying past the optimal window, eventually resulting in out-of-touch brand strategies, declining financial performance, plummeting stock value, and a delayed, “messy” transition.

The nonprofit and higher education worlds are also replete with leaders who overstayed their positions in power. For example, William Aramony served as president & CEO of United Way of America for 22 years. Critics blame his long and “unchecked” reign under a “rubber-stamp” board of directors for a massive fraud and embezzlement scandal exposed in 1992. Leon Botstein also served as president of Bard College in New York for 51 years. Botstein’s immense personal authority during his exceptionally long tenure ended earlier this year after a governance crisis and investigations revealed he downplayed ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

In most businesses, nonprofits, and NGOs, a board of directors ultimately makes the call on when a chief executive should retire. The board is also charged with ensuring an orderly transition and selecting the next senior leader. If you are a shareholder or member of any of these types of groups, you should ensure that the organization has a competent, professional board of directors that understands and fulfills its fiduciary responsibilities.

However, the same process described above does not apply to elected officials who answer to the public and who are voted in and out of office by the electorate.

So, what does all this mean in the context of the upcoming midterm elections? The answer seems to be binary. First, if you agree with Donald Trump’s leadership, his administration’s policies, and the direction he is taking the country, vote for his endorsed candidates because they will give you more of the same. However, if you don’t agree with Trump and all he stands for, and if you are tired of the status quo and want to see meaningful change, vote for candidates who offer practical solutions to both.

And regardless of which category you are in or your political party affiliation, make sure you are registered to vote and then VOTE—if not for you, then for future generations who are counting on you to make the right decision!

“You break it, you own it!”

A “Pottery Barn rule” cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell in August 2002 to warn President George W. Bush about the consequences of invading Iraq.

**********

Donald Trump’s critics argue that he has made countless miscalculations and what many would describe as outright blunders since becoming the 45^th president of the United States. They argue that these errors can be found in every aspect of his presidency and that a significant number violate the oath of office he took to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As commander in chief during his first term, Trump frequently clashed publicly with his own Department of Defense leadership and career military officers. Some retired military officials have argued that Trump’s demands for unwavering, blind personal loyalty, his public demeaning of service records, and his disregard for expert advice have eroded the U.S. and allied armed forces’ confidence in his leadership and the public’s trust in his judgment. This distrust only escalated during his second term, particularly with the appointment of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and his siding with Vladimir Putin over Volodymyr Zelenskyy during Russia’s illegal and immoral war with Ukraine.

However, Trump’s largest military and diplomatic blunder may involve decisions leading up to and during his recent war of choice with Iran. With 20/20 hindsight, Trump’s critics contend that not being a student of history, being unable to understand complex problems, being impulsive and thin-skinned, and “following his gut” rather than taking advice from experts all created a perfect storm that would ultimately allow Iran’s leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to rebound from its most vulnerable position in decades.

And for the record, I don’t believe Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, either developed internally or supplied by a U.S. adversary. So, with that in mind, and rather than listing a full litany of mistakes made in dealing with Iran, the following twelve are representative of critics’ complaints:

1. Canceling U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on May 8, 2018.

This agreement, signed by Iran, the U.S., China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union, limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Key terms in the JCPOA included Iran cutting its enriched uranium stockpile by about 90%; restricting key nuclear sites like Fordow and Arak from producing weapons-grade nuclear material; allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regular access to monitor and inspect Iran’s nuclear sites; and having the U.S., EU, and UN lift major nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran. Throughout the nearly three-year period during which the agreement was in place, the Strait of Hormuz remained open to commercial shipping, with no blockages or fees imposed by Iran.

2. Initially deploying Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to lead backchannel and indirect diplomatic talks with Iranian representatives during his second term.

Both Witkoff and Kushner are New York real estate developers who have been criticized for financial conflicts of interest stemming from blending their private business dealings with their roles as government emissaries for Trump. They both lack relevant diplomatic experience, detailed knowledge of Iran’s history, an in-depth understanding of Iran’s current political environment, and the requisite skills to formulate and implement U.S. policy in the Middle East. Their inability to resolve issues early on contributed to the conflict we are experiencing today.

3. Telling the world that Operation Midnight Hammer completely and totally obliterated Iran’s key nuclear facilities and program.

Trump falsely asserted that the June 2025 airstrikes by B-2 bombers dropping bunker-buster bombs on sites including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan had successfully destroyed the regime’s nuclear capabilities, which was disputed by his own intelligence reports. He later modified his messaging to say that despite this obliteration, Tehran had attempted to restart and rebuild its nuclear enrichment capability, setting the stage for further military escalation.

4. Being naïve and overconfident that any future conflict with Iran could be concluded quickly and without U.S. casualties, incorrectly based on the successful military action in Venezuela in January 2026.

Trump told The New York Times that the Venezuela outcome was a “perfect scenario” and that he anticipated a quick collapse and rapid regime change in Tehran after joint U.S.-Israel airstrikes during Operation Epic Fury. Critics and intelligence reports have noted that Trump and his advisors failed to understand that Iran had vastly superior military depth, extensive regional proxies, and an organized and decentralized religious-secular command network unlike Venezuela’s isolated, centralized leadership structure.

5. Bowing to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pressure to initiate Operation Epic Fury.

It is extremely unusual for the president to meet with any foreign leader in the White House Situation Room, since this location is reserved for top-secret crisis management, military operations, and intelligence briefings with national security teams. However, Netanyahu initially pushed for joint U.S.-Israel military action during a White House Situation Room meeting on February 11, 2026. Netanyahu delivered his final argument during a phone call with Trump on February 27^th, leading the president to order Operation Epic Fury later that same day.

6. First alienating key international allies; then failing to notify them or seek their support before launching Operation Epic Fury.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has disparaged and alienated NATO, Asian, and other allies. In bizarre reasoning, Trump defended his decision not to warn allies by referencing Pearl Harbor during a March 19, 2026, White House meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Persian Gulf allies also expressed disapproval because they didn’t receive any warning or were given time to prepare for Iran’s inevitable retaliation on them with drones and missiles. Not surprisingly, administration requests for help from NATO countries in “cleaning up” Trump’s mess received a chilly response.

7. Neither anticipating nor believing that Iran could and would close the Strait of Hormuz or recognizing its implications.

It is important to note that prior to Trump launching his war with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz remained open without Iran attempting to charge any transit fees. Furthermore, the U.S. intelligence community and military planners knew that Iran would most probably close the Strait of Hormuz and pressure the Houthis to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is a key gateway to the Red Sea. Not surprisingly, retaliatory actions by Iran have significantly increased the cost of petroleum-based products and other commodities, created product shortages worldwide, and resulted in economic hardships around the globe.

8. Never clearly articulating the objectives of military action against Iran.

Not only did Trump and his team never clearly lay out for Congress, the American public, and the world at large the objectives of Operation Epic Fury and subsequent military actions, the reasons for going to war with Iran kept changing. At one time or another, rationale for hostilities included stopping Iran from further enrichment of nuclear material, curtailing Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and use long-range missiles, regime change, and opening the Strait of Hormuz (which was open before the war). However, this was only one of many points of confusion that defined Trump’s overall lack of a coherent strategy, endgame, or off-ramp.

9. Failing to deter adversaries from supplying Iran with military intelligence and weapons.

It was clear from the outset that Iran needed support from Russia, China, and other countries to resist U.S. and Israeli military operations and effectively counterattack. U.S. intelligence officials report that Russia has provided Iran with tactical intelligence and tracking data on the movement of U.S. warships, aircraft, and other regional assets in addition to supplying advanced air defense technology, components, and technical expertise. China is also supplying Tehran with electronic components, chemicals, fuel, and manufacturing equipment used to sustain Iran’s domestic drone and missile production programs. While Trump has freely used tariffs and other sanctions on many countries, he refuses to impose them on Russia and China, with Russia being particularly vulnerable considering its tenuous position in Ukraine.

10. Falsely declaring that the war with Iran is essentially over and that a peace deal will be signed post haste.

Trump has claimed at least 40 times that an end to the conflict or an imminent peace deal with Iran was at hand. These false statements were repeatedly made on social media, at public appearances, and during media interviews. The world has come to recognize that Trump often lives in an alternate universe, never tells the truth, and cannot be trusted. Sadly, all this has diminished the U.S.’s reputation as a trusted partner around the world.

11. Refusing to divulge the full extent of U.S. military and civilian casualties during the war with Iran.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have not been transparent in reporting military and civilian casualties, and they have faced severe backlash and multiple accusations of a cover-up for shifting, lowering, and reclassifying dead and wounded numbers in public databases. In addition, independent sources have reported that the U.S. military has dismissed or inaccurately tracked and confirmed widespread civilian casualties in Iran and elsewhere.

12. Dangerously depleting U.S. weapon stockpiles, causing strategic vulnerabilities.

Groups like the Center for Strategic and International Studies have reported that operations associated with the Iran war have consumed up to 80% of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and over 60% of Patriot supplies from prewar levels. Inventories of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles are also down by roughly a third or more. It was recently reported that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Air Force General Dan Caine warned Trump and Hegseth of this problem, which resulted in Trump temporarily “pausing” air strikes in Iran.

**********

So, considering these twelve “alleged” mistakes and others not listed, combined with a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday that found only 32 percent of registered voters in the U.S. approve of Trump (the lowest percentage that the pollster has ever recorded in either of his terms), do you agree with the accusations made by Trump’s critics, or do you think his detractors are being overly harsh?

Also, what do you think should be done now to bring this five-month-long war with Iran to a just and lasting end? In answering this question, begin by deciding which of the previous twelve mistakes can be corrected and which are irreversible.

For more on how Donald Trump uses a seven-point process to create problems and then attempt to resolve the very problems he’s created, with the war in Iran as a case study, see:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-study-how-donald-trump-creates-resolves-problems-art-collins-oquic/

Free and fair elections underpin democracy here in the United States and around the world because voters must be able to trust and abide by election results, even when their preferred candidates lose.

For elections to be free and fair, all eligible citizens must be able to register and cast their vote without intimidation or harassment. Election officials must be allowed to do their work without any interference. All election systems and vote tabulating methods must be secure, reliable, and documentable. Politicians, domestic special interest groups, and foreign adversaries must be unable to manipulate election rules or dictate the election outcome. And, finally, the courts must be able to quickly and fairly adjudicate any cases of purported election fraud.

Sadly, it is common knowledge that Donald Trump has made a political career out of spreading election lies and trying to overturn elections he has lost or attempting to alter those he will likely lose. What began in 2016 as false campaign rhetoric alleging widespread voter fraud escalated after the 2020 election, when he refused to accept defeat. After trying to alter the vote tallies in critical swing states and unsuccessfully alleging voter fraud in over 60 court cases, Trump instigated and then failed to halt the January 6th riot at the Capitol to stop certification of Electoral College votes confirming the election of Joe Biden as president.

Once he returned to the White House in 2025, Trump began using the significant power of the presidency to consolidate his personal power, exact retribution on opponents, reinforce even more election-related lies, increase his personal wealth, and attack the free press and anyone else who stood in his way.

For example, the FBI raids on election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, and Maricopa County, Arizona, were based on previously debunked conspiracy theories, but this time with Trump’s DOJ supporting them. Trump also directed the DOJ to investigate and target his political opponents and former government officials, including James Comey, Jerome Powell, Letitia James, Mark Kelly, and Jack Smith. Although most of these legal actions and prosecutions have ultimately failed or remain doubtful and unresolved, this has not deterred Trump from seeking revenge on his political opponents.

In addition to defunding public broadcasting, Trump has used federal regulatory agencies to threaten networks and news sources he dislikes and created artificial crises so he could deploy thousands of National Guard and ICE agents to cities with Democratic mayors or governors. He also encouraged gerrymandering in Republican-controlled states to help increase the odds that Republicans would be elected in the midterm elections.

Trump is now further testing the limits of his office to maintain power for himself and his allies. Part of that effort includes laying the groundwork to alter the legitimate outcome or to postpone the 2026 midterm elections since it is becoming increasingly clear Republicans will lose a majority in the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate.

During his primetime address to the nation on July 16th, Trump once again falsely stated that he won the 2020 election; that there is widespread voter fraud in the U.S.; that mail-in ballots and early voting lead to voter fraud and are unconstitutional; that elections are influenced by illegal voting by nonregistered or ineligible voters; that China and other foreign governments have successfully intervened in elections to his detriment; that election integrity can’t be trusted; and that the SAVE America Act needs to be passed to remedy some of these alleged but nonexistent problems.

Any efforts to “nationalize” or postpone elections are clearly unconstitutional since the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives states the authority to determine the “times, places and manner” for federal elections and limits federal involvement in election administration. Federal law also mandates that general elections take place the first Tuesday after the first Monday in even-numbered years, and it would take an act of Congress to change the date. In other words, the president has no authority to nationalize, postpone, or cancel elections. However, that won’t dissuade Trump from trying to bring them under his control.

Federal judge Denise Casper fortunately blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order signed last year that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. She ruled that the president lacks the authority to oversee elections and rejected the Trump administration’s unsupported claims of “widespread illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error.” Casper went on to say, “While the Constitution vests the President with ‘executive Power’ and commands him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

In addition, Trump’s push for the SAVE America Act is currently stalled and faces major hurdles in the Senate, making approval unlikely. However, Postmaster General David Steiner recently said that the U.S. Postal Service will refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not give the names, addresses, and ballot barcode numbers of approved mail-in voters to the Trump administration.

As Trump’s favorability continues to decline in general and on every issue that influences voting outcomes, we should expect him to intensify election interference efforts on multiple fronts. These efforts will entail creating a false narrative about the untrustworthiness of elections to convince Americans to accept a federal takeover, using the vast power of the federal government to challenge the election administration process and dismantle state authority over elections, eliminating checks on his authority by attacking and prosecuting those who question him, and placing anti-democracy loyalists in key government and judicial positions.

As Michael Waldman and Kendall Verhovek warned in The New Republic, “Between conspiracy theories, FBI raids, late-night social media rants, and more, these moves can confuse or distract. But it is more than improvisational chaos. The contours of the strategy behind it all are now increasingly clear.”

One of the most dangerous and potentially violent steps in Trump’s playbook to avoid a devastating loss in November would be to invoke the National Emergencies Act to justify deploying ICE agents and the National Guard over governors’ objections and without notifying local law enforcement. He could then direct armed guardsmen and ICE agents to occupy polling places, to detain or arrest any ‘suspect’ voters, and to seize voting materials and equipment on or immediately after election day.

Since Trump has already demonstrated he is willing to use armed personnel to carry out his policies and executive orders, one should assume he wouldn’t hesitate to employ these tactics again to remain in power. And if you have any doubt about this, remember what he said in August 2025 to justify deploying troops to American cities: “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States. If I think our country’s in danger—and it is in danger in the cities—I can do it.”

However, the Democratic Party, the free press, organizations committed to free and fair elections, and many states will not docilely accept Trump’s efforts to ‘steal’ an election. In this regard, Democratic leaders, independent news media, organizations like the ACLU, and governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state will be a critical deterrent to the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the midterm elections. Many of these groups are now preparing contingency plans and lawsuits in anticipation of needing them in November.

While all these efforts are important, ask yourself what you as an individual can do to help ensure your vote and the votes of all eligible voters are freely cast, accurately counted, and securely preserved so they ultimately make a difference.

Complaining about a problem is not enough. Active involvement is required. So, what could ‘active involvement’ on your part entail? While there are many actions you can take, let me suggest 15 for your consideration as you remember the wise admonition, “an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.”

1. Know your rights as a voter: You can start by visiting the United States Election Assistance Commission website: https://www.eac.gov/what-are-my-rights-as-a-voter.

2. Make sure you are registered to vote: Some states have changed the registration requirements, so check the requirements and the last day you can register.

3. If you can’t vote in person, request an absentee ballot today: The Federal Voting Assistance program can be helpful; their website is https://www.fvap.gov/vote?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2026_FVAP&utm_content=ADM_F3&utm_term=Search_RSA&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23657610380&gbraid=0AAAAA9Wgpgg5A1RcLH4vG3V5FHaGzAC6V.

4. Encourage your friends and family to complete their voter registrations, and then to vote: It is estimated that over 20% of eligible American citizens are not registered to vote. If you convince even just one person who wouldn’t have voted to do so, it can make a big difference. Also, vote early when possible.

5. Speak out against and resist all forms of voter suppression: Each year, millions of voters are purged from voting rolls without their knowledge, and voters of color are removed from the rolls at a much higher rate than white voters. To learn more about how the Center for Common Ground’s nonpartisan campaign can help, see: https://www.centerforcommonground.org/reclaim-our-vote.

6. Consider volunteering to be an election poll worker on a federal observer: Immediately check if it is too late to be trained as a local poll worker and whether you are eligible to monitor procedures in polling places under the Voting Rights Act. To learn more about how Federal Observers are authorized to detect intimidation and fraud by watching and taking notes of everything that happens inside the polling place, see: Learn more about becoming a Federal Observer.

7. Support local election officials who are increasingly facing rising pressure and harassment: Attend and speak up at local election board meetings and consider sending a note of encouragement or a thank-you message to your local officials.

8. Learn how to report voting irregularity issues: Voter intimidation and interference can happen. If you see something wrong or suspicious, use your cellphone camera to record it and then report it immediately. You can call the Election Protection Hotline at 866-687-8683.

9. Explicitly call out lies and serial liars who undercut free and fair elections: And remember that the more powerful they are, the more necessary it is to do so.

10. Send emails or letters to your elected representatives on key issues and legislation impacting elections: For Americans, call your congressperson or senator using the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202–224–3121).

11. Attend all town hall meetings, ask questions, and voice your opinions: Your neighbors and any elected official in attendance will pay attention.

12. Consider writing an op-ed or letter to the editor of local newspapers or magazines on the importance of election integrity: This will not only help you crystallize your thoughts, but many will read your opinions if your submission is accepted for publication.

13. Support nonprofit organizations that provide unbiased news and expose abuses of power and betrayals of public trust through responsible investigative reporting: Organizations including PBS NewsHour, National Public Radio, The Associated Press, the Center for Public Integrity, ProPublica, and Strength in Numbers fall into this category.

14. Participate in peaceful, constructive activities that support free and fair elections, together with demonstrations when election laws are violated: Once again, these activities help others get involved and make an impact on elected officials.

15. Above all, find your voice, speak out, and take a stand on the importance of free and fair elections: If not for you, then for your children, grandchildren, other loved ones, and future generations.

And when you find your voice and make it heard, remember the wise admonitions of two early 19th-century U.S. presidents and an 18th-century Anglo-Irish philosopher.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president, warned against the spread of tyranny through corruption when he advised, “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered”. Jefferson went on to say, “When the people are afraid of government, that’s tyranny. But when the government is afraid of people, that’s liberty.” Finally, although the documentation of this quote is somewhat unclear, Jefferson is reputed to have also said: “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

James Madison, the fourth president, warned: “The accumulation of all powers (legislative, executive, and judiciary) in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Sir Edmund Burke also warned, “The only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.” Burke went on to say, “Nobody made a greater mistake than he (or she) who did nothing because he (or she) could only do a little.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd, in her recent “Low-T, High Chair” article (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/18/opinion/trump-hegseth-testosterone.html), argues that President Donald Trump puts his personal ambition above American democracy and “is willing to undermine and destroy any institution, law, norm or ideal cherished by Americans in a bonfire of his vanities,” all to protect his own, overblown but fragile ego.

In addition to highlighting Trump’s primetime address on July 16^th where he was “raving about nonsense” while questioning U.S. election integrity, Dowd criticized his attempts to dismantle democratic institutions while systematically using the presidency to exact revenge on his real or perceived enemies and to engage in blatant and illegal profiteering for himself and his family.

It is important to note that during his primetime address, Trump didn’t once mention his war of choice with Iran that drags on and continues to cost U.S. military lives and taxpayers billions, if not trillions of dollars. Nor did he discuss the economic pain that most Americans are feeling while he, his family, and close confidants make billions of dollars off his presidency.

In today’s Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth once again evaded answering questions honestly, obfuscated important facts, and continued to demonstrate why he is completely unqualified to occupy the important position he now holds. Nor did he mention the impact of the president’s war and his tariffs on raising the cost of living for Americans and others around the world. This is emblematic of how all Trump cabinet members respond to legitimate questioning about why they fail to represent the best interests of the U.S. Constitution and Americans they took an oath to serve.

Dowd goes on to portray Trump as a “mad king” and an “agent of chaos” who is driven by an overwhelming fear of being classified as a “loser” and remembered as the worst U.S. president of all time, which most historians agree he is. Trump’s fears and insecurities are what partly have driven him to alter the White House East Wing, to put his name and image on every inanimate object in sight, and to continually feed the media a stream of news full of “absurdity, indecency, and abuses of power” that distract the public and some critics from focusing on the plethora of mistakes he and his administration are making.

Citing growing public concern that Trump will attempt to subvert midterm election results, Dowd characterizes his recent efforts as weak and “pathetic” compared to his past influence and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. However, many political observers would disagree with her on this assertion. This is one reason that we should never forget the wise admonition, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

So, with that as a backdrop, what do you think Trump will do in the run-up to the midterm elections? And whatever it is, rest assured that it will not be good for American democracy, the rule of law, everyday Americans, and allies around the world.

“Constant lying is not aimed at making people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want.”

—Hannah Arendt, German historian & philosopher

**********

When was the last time you can remember Donald Trump telling the truth?

It certainly wasn’t last night during his primetime speech when he rehashed warmed-over false assertions that he won the 2020 election, that outcomes of U.S. elections are rigged due to widespread voting irregularities and foreign interference, that the SAVE America Act must be passed to remedy nonexistent voter fraud, and that the results of the upcoming midterm elections can’t be trusted.

Nor was it during any of his promises that his war of choice with Iran has been won, or when he said Iran’s military had been completely obliterated and is unable to retaliate against U.S. bases and allies in the Gulf, or when he repeatedly declared that the Strait of Hormuz was permanently open, or when he asserted that deal he negotiated and that would be signed soon with Iran was better than what was in place under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or even before the U.S. and Israel started Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026.

And it clearly wasn’t when he recently spouted false and misleading claims supporting his assertion that the economy is booming because of his tafiffs and other decisions he made; that the cost of living has sharply declined since he took office in January 2025; that undocumented immigrants are a major cause of crime in America; that masked ICE agents have been justified in using deadly force to do their jobs; that the Epstein files have been completely released and that he is not implicated in any wrongdoing; that there is no sign of any corruption in his administration; that he doesn’t know anything about stock trading on inside information by his family and associates; that all his presidential pardons were for good reasons; that vandals caused multiple problems with the Reflecting Pool renovation; that his job approval ratings have never been higher; and that Putin can be trusted more than Zelenskyy (who “holds no cards” resisting Russia’s illegal war with Ukraine) … and the list goes on, and on, and on.

Well before becoming president, Trump had the reputation of being a habitual liar.

It has been documented that in the 1980s and 1990s, Trump frequently posed as “John Barron” or “John Brown” while planting false stories about his business, financial, and romantic prowess. It is also common knowledge that he fed reporters fabricated details about his assets and net worth to artificially boost his standing on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans.

New York Attorney General Letitia James later proved in court that Donald Trump and the Trump Organization fraudulently inflated their net worth and asset values to secure lower interest rates from banks, while simultaneously deflating those same assets to evade taxes. James secured a landmark civil fraud victory against Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization. Final financial penalties are still being litigated.

Trump has repeatedly claimed he is very smart, a “very stable genius,” and that he graduated at the top of his class in high school and college. In 2019, Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified that Trump directed him to threaten his high school, colleges (both Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania), and the College Board with civil and criminal lawsuits if they ever released his transcripts or SAT scores. Former classmates, including 1968 graduate Louis Calomaris, said that Trump was “loath to really study much” and frequently came to study groups completely unprepared. The late Dr. William T. Kelley, who had Trump in his marketing class at the University of Pennsylvania, went further and told a friend that “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.”

During and between his terms as president, Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. The Washington Post’s Fact-checkers documented 30,573 false or misleading claims, averaging 21 per day, during his first term in the White House. Although the Fact-checkers organization hasn’t released similar statistics for Trump’s second term, commentators and presidential historians continue to describe Trump’s lying as unprecedented in American politics, with significant evidence that his comments and actions are intentionally deceptive.

A current illustration of how Trump distorts the truth for self-serving reasons can be found in a defensive and unhinged Truth Social post in reaction to the Senate passage of a war powers resolution prohibiting him from further military action against Iran: “So, I have Iran on the ‘ropes,’ ready to go down for the fall, willing to give us practically anything, and for the first time in decades, respecting the hell out of the United States and its President, ME, and the U.S. Senate decides to have a poorly timed and meaningless War Powers Act Vote, telling the Number One Sponser of Terror in the World that the United States doesn’t like what I am doing to them and I must stop, and by so doing has provided aid and comfort [to] the Enemy. Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats, and Iran asked my people, ‘what does that all mean?’ These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done!”

Shortly after, he posted: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

Why does Trump lie?

Many people believe Trump continually lies because he’s done it for so long that it’s now part of his DNA and an integral part of his personality, making it impossible for him not to lie. However, Trump’s defenders and some political analysts have noted that he uses deliberate hyperbole to reframe complex issues so he can dominate the news and persuade his audience that his version of events is, in fact, reality.

In his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, Trump acknowledged that he continually engages in exaggeration, or “truthful hyperbole,” to “play to people’s fantasies.” Not surprisingly, Trump denies he lies; rather, he says he uses “embellishments” not as lies, but as effective tools for promotion and persuasion.

Psychologists’ research confirms that the sheer repetition of falsehoods wears down an individual’s cognitive resources, eventually causing some people to accept false information as fact. Political scientists also recognize that in today’s highly partisan media landscape, willingness to believe Trump’s outlandish claims is significantly tied to existing political identity. Trump clearly understands this and that his MAGA supporters will rationalize and even welcome the inaccuracy of his “necessary” attacks on the political establishment, the Democratic Party, and real or perceived adversaries.

This might explain why many MAGA Republicans believe, or at least say they believe, that the 2016 Russia investigation was a hoax; that Trump won the 2020 election; that he didn’t incite the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol Building and was right to pardon all the convicted insurrectionists; that there’s now zero inflation; that consumers don’t pay for tariffs; that Trump could stop the Ukraine war in 24 hours if he wanted to, as he’s already ended seven other wars; that Biden and Obama caused every problem the U.S. has right now; that most undocumented workers are criminals and rapists; that the ‘deep state’ fabricated the Epstein files to hurt Trump; and that Trump cares more about Americans than he does about himself … and, again, the list goes on, and on, and on.

Does Trump believe his lies?

Analysts, psychologists, and commentators are divided on whether Donald Trump genuinely believes his own lies and whether he is consciously deceiving the public.

Some argue his lies are intentional “bullshitting” or “truthful hyperbole,” terms he used in The Art of the Deal. Conversely, other psychologists argue that Trump is erecting strong psychological defenses that shut out contradictory information, allowing him to convince himself that whatever he says is true, at least in his mind.

In a July 1, 2022, article in Psychology Today, authors Robert J. Lifton and Nancy L. Rosenblum characterized Trump’s lying in the context of solipsistic reality: “This means that he is only capable of embracing a version of reality based on what his own self seeks and needs, however removed from accepted standards of evidence.” Lifton and Rosenblum also said that an element of belief is critical to Trump’s effective dissemination of the “Big Lie,” and that “his solipsistic reality allows him to keep the belief active in the face of endless insistence by those around him that he is wrong.”

Speaking in layman’s terms, they observed that “Trump makes things up, comes to believe partially in his lies, exploits those lies in his assault on truth, and viciously attacks those who question them. He makes broad threats of violence that are sometimes carried out by a righteous subculture of white supremacist groups. Not only are individual lives destroyed, but there is a constant aura of political violence.”

Award-winning journalist and author Timothy L. O’Brien, who wrote the 2005 comprehensive biography, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, expressed the view that Trump genuinely believes his own fabrications. On the other hand, those close to Trump, like Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s White House Press Secretary & Communications Director from July 2019 to April 2020, have stated that he is highly strategic and very aware of what he is doing.

So, what’s the verdict?

Having reviewed all the facts and opinions of people who have studied and worked for Donald Trump, and considering what he has said publicly, the answer to whether Trump knows he is lying and whether he believes his lies is most likely, “sometimes yes, and sometimes no.” As to whether he cares, the answer is, “unequivocally no.”

At times, Trump purposely “fires for effect,” recognizing that what he says bends the truth or is categorically false. With that in mind, he’ll knowingly make an inaccurate or misleading statement to accomplish some ulterior motive. Other times, whether to justify a critical belief that is core to his psychological well-being or is necessary to insulate him from appearing to be a “loser,” one of his greatest fears, he’ll sincerely believe some absurd fabrication he has concocted is true.

In either case, Trump’s plethora of lies, whether conscious or unconscious, is unbecoming and counterproductive for any leader, and particularly for the president of the United States. The constant stream of falsehoods now undermines the validity of everything Trump says, which is especially troubling during these difficult times when the country and the world need trusted leaders.

While most respected leaders would never behave as Trump does, he seems to think that he is immune to the consequences of statements and actions that would derail and land any normal citizen in jail. If you doubt that, consider what he said on January 23, 2016, while campaigning in Iowa: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”

A few final thoughts

Any discussion of how Donald Trump lies and the impact of those lies would not be complete without identifying the enablers who continue to allow this unhealthy phenomenon to both exist and flourish.

Trump depends on the unwavering support of blindly loyal advisors and cabinet members, a complicit Republican majority in both houses of Congress, a conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, Fox News and other sympathetic media, a plurality of voters, an ineffective opposition party, and a group of wealthy donors who bankroll his agenda for self-serving reasons. Still, Trump remains the most influential figure among them with the largest bully pulpit, at least for now.

With that said, the sad truth is that Donald J. Trump will never change, at least in this respect. So, the best we can do is to “consider the source,” while working hard to understand what is and is not reality, recognizing the importance of seeking the truth, and supporting those who dare to speak out in public and expose his lies.

Finally, considering the January 6th riot at the Capitol, together with Lifton’s and Rosenblum’s assertions that Trump’s “broad threats of violence that are sometimes carried out by a righteous subculture of white supremacist groups,” and that “there is a constant aura of political violence,” what should we expect Trump to say and do as we approach the midterm elections?

Whatever it is, and particularly after last night’s primetime address to the nation, don’t count on it to be good for democracy, the rule of law, the United States, or our allies around the world. That said, remember and heed the wise old saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Donald Trump has frequently been described as a feral alley cat with nine lives due to his malevolent personality and unprecedented ability to survive multiple ethical, legal, moral, and various other personal scandals. Historians and political observers draw this parallel because Trump has somehow managed to bounce back from countless threatening situations that would have quickly ended other business and political careers, while landing most people who committed a fraction of his crimes in jail.

Correspondingly, some anti-Trump political analysts who are also versed in Greek mythology have likened the sitting president to King Tantalus and King Atreus, widely considered to be the most depraved mortals. They also compare the current Trump administration to an evil, difficult-to-kill hydra with multiple heads and a seemingly indestructible middle head (belonging to Trump) that houses a cognitively impaired but still deviously dangerous brain.

All that led me to read up on The Second Labor of Hercules (Slaying the Lernaean Hydra).

To refresh your memory, in Greek mythology, King Eurystheus ruled the kingdoms of Mycenae and Tiryns. The king was best known as the vengeful and cowardly monarch who assigned a series of seemingly impossible tasks, the renowned Twelve Labors, to the Greek hero and demigod Heracles (Hercules) as penance for the murder of the king’s family. During Hercules’ twelve labors, he encounters monstrous beasts, experiences impossible feats of endurance, and journeys to the underworld, which ultimately transforms him into an immortal.

The Second Labor of Hercules is Slaying the Lernaean Hydra. The Lernaean Hydra was almost indestructible because a multitude of heads regrew twofold whenever Hercules tried to cut them off. The hydra’s blood was also highly toxic, and its middle, most important head was thought to be completely immortal.

The hydra was so difficult to slay that Hercules only defeated it by using a clever strategy and help from his nephew, Iolaus. Once all the mortal heads were gone, Hercules severed the central, immortal head and buried it deep under a heavy rock. The goddess Hera, who raised the Hydra to destroy Hercules, also sent a giant crab to bite his feet and distract him during the deadly battle. Hercules had to crush the crab’s sturdy shell underfoot before finishing off the monster.

Okay, I guess if I haven’t bored you to death with Greek mythology, you’re expecting some analogy between the Lernaean Hydra and Trump at this point. Well, you’re right. However, before I get to that, let me take you back to a post I published in February 2025: Find Your Voice, Speak Out, and Take a Stand (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/find-your-voice-speak-out-take-stand-art-collins-zx4me/).

Early on in that post, I wrote, “Trump cannot unilaterally change the direction of the government to fit his preferences. He depends on the unwavering support of blindly loyal advisors and cabinet members, a complicit Republican majority in both houses of Congress, a conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, Fox News and other sympathetic news outlets, wealthy donors who bankroll his agenda for self-serving purposes, in addition to a plurality of voters who opt for Trump over an ineffective opposition party. Still, the president remains the most influential figure among them.”

So, you probably already surmised that Trump and all his enabling groups listed in the previous paragraph correspond to the multiple heads of the Lernaean Hydra, with Trump being the seemingly indestructible middle head.

What you may not have guessed is that the goddess Hera is a combination of Fred Trump, Roy Cohn, Roger Ailes, and Stephen Miller all rolled into one. Hera’s giant crab’s shell is hiding masked Proud Boys, other white supremacist groups, and ICE agents with assault weapons. Hercules represents all those people, both within and outside the United States, who reject Trump’s MAGA ideology and rampant corruption, and who value democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and common decency. Finally, lolaus depicts all the organizations dedicated to returning the U.S. government to a position of honor and respect it once held.

To conclude this analogy on a somewhat hopeful note, after completing his twelve labors, Hercules survived and went on to have many more legendary adventures before eventually ascending to Mount Olympus to live among the gods as an immortal.

So, with that as a backdrop, here are five questions for your consideration:

1. Are the analogies just described reasonable and justified?

2. If not, why not?

3. If yes, are critics of the Trump administration focusing too much on Trump and not enough on his enablers?

4. What more should modern-day “Herculean” groups be doing to counteract the Trumpian Hydra and influence voters in the run-up to the midterm elections and beyond?

5. What are the odds that Trump and his acolytes will metaphorically suffer the same fate as the Lernaean Hydra?

As you think about those five questions, let me conclude with two final footnotes.

The Greek myths took place during the Mycenaean civilization in the Bronze Age, spanning the 16th to 12th centuries BC. They were initially shared orally before being written down in the 8th and 7th centuries BC by poets like Homer and Hesiod.

Even though Professor George Santayana wrote his book, The Life of Reason, early in the 20th century AD, his famous quote applies equally to Greek mythology and modern-day politics: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In 1849, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr (1808–1890), a French critic, journalist, and novelist, wrote, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” That translates in English to, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Some have equated Karr’s statement to Professor George Santayana’s quote from his 1905 book The Life of Reason: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Both aphorisms came to mind while reflecting on the recent NATO summit held on July 7-8 at the Presidential Complex in Ankara, Turkey. For full disclosure, I have been and continue to be a major supporter of NATO. Any recommendation that the U.S. pull back from its longstanding commitments to NATO is, in my opinion, shortsighted and would be an egregious error that will come back to haunt us, particularly considering Vladimir Putin’s expansionist aspirations as evidenced by his illegal war in Ukraine.

That said, I agree that some European members should shoulder more of the alliance’s military costs, and many are doing just that. While the U.S. currently outspends Europe in total cash, Norway recently surpassed the U.S. in defense spending per capita. Each member is meeting the historical 2% of GDP defense spending guideline, with the alliance expected to reach a 5% commitment by 2035.

My views on NATO partly reflect my experience as a former U.S. Naval officer and my conversations with a good friend and retired Navy admiral who, as a previous Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), served as the commander of NATO’s Allied Command Operations (ACO) and as head of ACO’s headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). I had the opportunity to tour NATO’s headquarters while living in Brussels in the 1980s, and I also studied the history of how NATO was established on April 4, 1949, when 12 North American and Western European nations signed the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, D.C., which officially came into force on August 24, 1949.

Not surprisingly, President Trump began the summit in Turkey by berating NATO countries for not spending enough on NATO’s defense. He also said that NATO “failed two key tests” by not doing more to support his war of choice against Iran and by not backing his desire to take over Greenland. Later, he called Iran’s leadership “scum” and renewed his demand for U.S. control over Greenland. At a news conference, Trump said he directed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessart to stop all trade with NATO member Spain.

When Trump later declared that the ceasefire and the MOU that favored Iran were over, it became clear that the odds of achieving a peace agreement as good as the one under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or even similar to what existed in February 2026, before Trump and Netanyahu launched air strikes on Iran, were dismally low.

Before returning to the U.S. on an older Air Force One plane due to security concerns with his Qatar-gifted Boeing 747-8 valued at $400 million, with taxpayer-funded upgrades of between $500 million and $1 billion, Trump called Iran the “Islamic Republic of Japan” and referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “President Putin,” again fueling critics’ previous concerns about his declining cognitive fitness as president and commander-in-chief.

Listen, anyone can make a mistake, and in Trump’s case, many mistakes. However, most upstanding, honorable, ethical people, and especially respected leaders, apologize when they err and understand that the larger the error, the greater the need for an apology.

On June 7, 2017, I posted an essay entitled, The Power of an Honest Apology (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-honest-apology-art-collins/?trackingId=ddYjhBX+ZDr33P+R+RHzow==). In rereading it, I was struck by how much Karr’s famous saying applies to the last two paragraphs of that essay, particularly given that nine years have passed since the post went live:

“The eyes of the world are now squarely focused on President Trump, waiting to see what he will say and do next regarding the level of support for NATO and our traditional allies around the world, the degree to which other longstanding U.S. obligations are maintained, and his willingness to trust the word of Vladimir Putin and other U.S. adversaries while disregarding reports from the U.S. intelligence community. Most experts predict that when Mr. Trump makes mistakes or miscalculations, as all presidents inevitably do, he will stay true to form and refuse to accept any personal blame, leaving subsequent damage control to members of his administration.

“Whatever the case, let’s see if the president’s advisors and confidants are wise students of history and recognize the power of an honest apology. I bet they won’t, and if they do, Trump will discount their advice and never apologize for anything, even as the list of his actions that deserve an apology grows.”

With all that in mind, consider four questions.

▶︎ First, do you agree with President Trump that NATO has become “obsolete” and that the U.S. should pull back on its longstanding commitments to the alliance?

▶︎ Second, with all the change taking place in the world, do you agree with Karr’s and Santayana’s admonitions in general and as they pertain to leaders like President Trump, at least in some respects?

▶︎ Third, however you answered the first two questions, given some of his recent statements and actions, are apologies from Donald Trump in order?

▶︎ Finally, if you believe Trump should apologize, will he do so now or in the future?

Since the conflict with Iran seems to be far from over, with significant ramifications for the countries directly involved and for the world at large, you might also want to reference the following post:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-study-how-donald-trump-creates-resolves-problems-art-collins-oquic/

As I reflected on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision striking down President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship and on Trump’s $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency earnings while in the White House, I was reminded of a post by Oliver Kornetzke on August 18, 2025, that a friend recently sent me.

My friend titled Kornetzke’s biting description of the U.S. president “The Brits Sure Have a Way with Words,” assuming Kornetzke was British. In fact, Oliver Kornetzke is a writer from Kiel, Wisconsin. He is known for his highly critical essays, some of which could be called rants, on authoritarianism, Trump, and other dangerous people with “money, power, and spite.”

Here is Google’s online AI definition of the British sense of humor: “The British sense of humor is typically defined by its dry, deadpan delivery, heavy reliance on sarcasm, and deep appreciation for self-deprecation. Rather than loud punchlines, Brits often use understatement, irony, and ‘banter’—good-natured, light-hearted teasing—to cope with everyday mishaps and show affection.”

As you read what Kornetzke wrote last summer, you may label his style as sarcastic, though I don’t think he intended it that way. His “banter” certainly doesn’t fall into the category of “good-natured, light-hearted teasing,” and it’s hard to attach “understatement” or any show of “affection” to what follows. However, I’ll leave it for you to decide.

“Behold. The festering carcass of American rot shoved into an ill-fitting suit: the sleaze of a conman, the cowardice of a draft dodger, the gluttony of a parasite, the racism of a Klansman, the sexism of a back-alley creep, the ignorance of a bar-stool drunk, and the greed of a hedge-fund ghoul-all spray-painted orange and paraded like a prize hog at a county fair. Not a president. Not even a man. Just the diseased distillation of everything this country swears it isn’t but has always been—arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel. It is America’s shadow made flesh, a rotting pumpkin idol proving that when a nation kneels before money, power, and spite, it doesn’t just lose its soul—it shits out this bloated obscenity and calls it a leader.”

In his essay published on May 31, 2026, ‘The Reason Every Social Justice Movement Hits A Wall’, Kornetzke once again calls out selfish people with “money, power, and spite” who he believes have oppressed, divided, and manipulated hard-working Americans and others around the world for well over a century.

Oliver Kornetzke

The Reason Every Social Justice Movement Hits A Wall

The thing that nobody wants to hear but that the historical record makes completely undeniable: no social justice movement, no matter how morally correct, how urgent, or how necessary, has ever achieved durable and structural change in a society where the material conditions of the majority have been allowed to deteriorate into precarity and desperation…

Read more

3 months ago · 75 likes · 13 comments · Oliver Kornetzke

“The people who benefit from racial and gender hierarchy and the people who benefit from class hierarchy are largely the same people, and they have spent centuries making sure the rest of us fight each other about which oppression counts more instead of looking up at who is holding all of it in place.

“Until the material foundation gets addressed, every measure of justice and equality will remain exactly what it has been: a half measure at best, a distraction at worst, and a gift to the people in power who would rather manage the optics of inclusion than actually share what they have.”

Okay, what’s your verdict? Setting aside Kornetzke’s acerbic vernacular, is his description of Trump and others with “money, power, and spite” completely wrong, harsh but somewhat true, or spot-on?

More so, does his extremely negative view that America “kneels before money, power, and spite,” and that the country “swears it isn’t but has always been—arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel,” ring true or overlook some of the country’s historical strengths, such as innovation, resilience, the will to succeed and, as some Brits like to say, Americans’ penchant to “always do the right thing after they have tried everything else”?

As hard as it may be to swallow for loyal Americans like me, this is sadly what an increasing number of Brits, residents of other NATO countries, and citizens throughout the rest of the free world have come to believe, particularly since January 20, 2025.

Many political strategists and historians now view the compressed timeline and the lack of an open primary debate as major factors in the Democrats’ loss of the 2020 presidential election, handing Trump his second term in the White House.

Biden’s decision to step down as the presidential candidate came so late in the election cycle that the Democratic Party faced significant strategic hurdles. For example, Harris (or any other Democratic candidate) was denied the opportunity to participate in primary debates, where a candidate’s platform and messaging are normally tested and honed. Once Harris was the nominee, she missed months of media exposure to voters that a normal candidate would have had. Finally, Republicans had ample opportunity to persuade independent voters that a change was necessary while Biden floundered after a disastrous first debate.

The Democratic National Committee Draft Autopsy Report noted many of these shortcomings. However, the two principal reasons cited were the Biden White House’s failure to leverage or position Vice President Harris to lead the ticket prior to Biden dropping out of the race, and the inability of the Harris campaign to make a stronger affirmative case for her and how she differed from the unpopular status quo option that Republicans said she represented as Biden’s vice president. You can find the full report via Democratic Autopsy.

With that as a backdrop, there was debate within Democratic Party leadership on whether the nominating convention should be held earlier than August 2028. There are certainly both pros and cons to moving the convention up a month or two.

Arguments for an earlier convention include providing the nominees on the ticket more time to campaign and solidify voter support. An earlier convention would also allow fundraising to be front-loaded and provide additional time to “heal” any party divisions, so that a unified front could be presented before the Republican convention.

Arguments against an earlier convention include locking in a platform that could be susceptible to late-breaking domestic and global events, losing the post-convention “bump” in enthusiasm right before absentee voting begins in some states, and a longer campaign that will drain available funds more quickly.

This debate is now academic because, in addition to officially cancelling plans to host a national midterm convention so resources could be better directed to local campaign work in battleground states, the DNC locked in August 7–10, 2028, for the nominating convention. Consequently, no official proposals to move the convention date up are now under consideration.

Recognizing that the nominating convention dates are now set, Democrats still face the challenge of clearly articulating not only why Trump administration policies are bad for the country, but also what they would do differently if they captured the White House and Congress. Democrats must also resolve the potential rift between the progressive wing of the party, emboldened by recent election victories in New York and elsewhere, and the moderate, more traditional wing that would attract more independent voters in a general election.

While running local candidates based on unique voter preferences that vary state by state is a good strategy for congressional elections, a presidential candidate must appeal to a majority of voters to win a national election and a majority of Electoral College votes. With that said, fielding a Democratic presidential candidate with broad appeal in battleground states and effectively articulating how Democrats will address key voter concerns remain the two most important factors in determining whether Democrats win or lose in November 2028.

Democrats and a growing number of independent voters clearly understand that for the health of the Republic, our American democracy, the rule of law, and the United States’ standing in the world, Trump’s Republican Party and all it stands for must be refuted and soundly defeated in the midterm elections and two years later in the general election.

However, simply understanding what should be done and getting it done are not the same, and they require different levels of commitment and resources. Only time will tell whether Democrats have enough of both.

Investigative reporters who have followed Donald J. Trump over the years have observed that, in addition to being a pathological liar, he follows a longstanding seven-step process for creating problems and then, most often unsuccessfully, trying to rectify the very problems he created. Not surprisingly, this seven-step process is used by Trump when dealing with business, politics, military operations, the environment, legal matters, sports venues, or any other endeavor in which he is involved.

The first step in this process is to take a relatively stable situation and destabilize it by creating a new problem. The second step is to blame someone or some group for the problem he just created. The third step is to resolve the problem he created, but with conditions worse than before the problem existed. The fourth step is to declare victory and take credit for solving the problem that he created in the first place. The fifth step is to clearly state that only he could have solved the very problem he created. The sixth step is to attack anyone who criticizes him or points out the absurdity of what he has done. The seventh and final step is to have a ‘fall guy’ in the wings to blame when his solution to the problem he created later blows up. Very importantly, throughout this process, he looks for ways to make money and promote his image as a dealmaker, usually at other people’s expense.

Before reviewing how Trump applied this seven-step process leading up to and during his recent war with Iran, it is important to remember that every U.S. presidential administration has opposed Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War. However, the covert Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz and the heavy-water production plant at Arak were first publicly exposed in August 2002 by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) then confirmed these operations using satellite imagery. Explicit, publicly declared “red lines” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon were later established by Israel and the U.S.

Now, back to that seven-step process.

Step #1: Take a stable situation and destabilize it by creating a new problem.

On May 8, 2018, first-term President Donald Trump officially withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that had been agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China), plus Germany (the P5+1). As part of the JCPOA, Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment, open its nuclear sites to intense IAEA monitoring, and promise that under no circumstances would it ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. In exchange, economic and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran were lifted. Trump described the JCPOA agreement as a “horrible, one-sided deal”. At the same time, he reimposed economic sanctions against Iran’s oil, banking, and shipping industries.

It should be noted that while Iran, the U.S., and other signatories were operating under the JCPOA, the Strait of Hormuz remained open for shipping with no transit fees charged by Iran; no costly U.S. military confrontation with Iran ensued; no U.S. armed forces were killed or injured in combat with Iran; no expensive U.S. military aircraft or ships were lost or damaged during Iranian hostilities; the U.S. stockpile of missiles, drones, and other offensive and defensive weapons was not depleted; U.S. strategic oil reserves increased; IAEA inspections took place as agreed; and Iranian uranium enrichment never exceeded the 3.67% agreed-upon cap.

Fast forward to the evening of June 21, 2025, when second-term President Donald Trump ordered massive bunker-buster bombs to be dropped on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites in Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and elsewhere. Trump immediately declared that Iran’s key nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” and that a “spectacular military success” had been achieved. However, subsequent Pentagon and intelligence assessments indicated Iran’s nuclear program was only set back by roughly two years.

Fast forward again to February 28, 2026, when Trump, after likely disregarding the advice from his intelligence community and military planners, launched ‘Operation Epic Fury’, a joint U.S. and Israeli military operation that included air strikes on military targets across Iran, which quickly expanded into major combat operations. While Trump has made countless mistakes and caused many unnecessary problems during his two presidential terms, this will likely be remembered as his biggest blunder, and it was completely of his own making.

Overly confident from his recent experience in Venezuela, Trump initially said that all military operations in Iran would be concluded in a few weeks at most, while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth estimated the cost to U.S. taxpayers at around $25 billion. Trump and Hegseth later demanded a complete and unconditional surrender from Iran as a precondition for ending the war that continued without the required congressional approval.

Step #2: Blame someone or some group for the problem he just created.

Trump has repeatedly blamed previous presidents, specifically Barack Obama and Joe Biden, for the military actions he had to take against Iran. In addition to arguing that Obama’s JCPOA was inadequate and one-sided, he attacked Biden’s foreign policy approaches as weak and naive.

Trump continually changed the justification and objectives for his war with Iran, while distancing himself from the specific decision to start the war, saying that Hegseth first advocated military action against Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. He also said advisors, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, indicated that the situation with Iran was approaching a point of no return since the Iranians were “within weeks of having a nuclear weapon.”

However, despite reports to the contrary, Trump repeatedly denied claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu manipulated or talked him into starting the war.

Step #3: Resolve the problem he created, but with conditions worse than before the problem existed.

On the evening of June 17, President Donald Trump signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. The initial agreement established a 60-day window for both countries to negotiate a permanent peace deal. While ardent Trump supporters will argue that he accepted the best of the terrible alternatives he was facing, let’s look at the facts.

Key terms of the 14-point memorandum include: an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts; restoration of shipping through the Strait to pre-war levels within 30 days; removal of “all types” of U.S. sanctions on Iran; immediate issuance of waivers allowing Iran to resume exporting crude oil and petrochemicals; a pledge that the U.S. and its regional partners will secure at least $300 billion for an Iranian reconstruction and economic development fund for Iran; and a “status quo” for Iran’s nuclear program while the 60-day talks proceed to iron out unresolved issues.

Recognizing that Trump’s MOA is not final and leaves many key points to be clarified or decided, it appears that the terms in the existing MOA are no better than and perhaps worse than those in the JCPOA. In addition to being silent on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, limits to Iran’s ballistic missile capability, and Iran’s ability to charge transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, the MOA is a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iran, excluding the other members of the P5+1 and Israel as signatories. It also runs counter to stated Israeli policy and ongoing actions in Lebanon and elsewhere.

The MOU also refills Iran’s depleted coffers with billions of dollars, which can be used to fund Iran’s proxy fighters, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) also in Gaza, Shi’ite Militias in Iraq, and various Syrian Militias. This has angered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who publicly expressed disagreement with the MOU and Iran’s demand that Israeli forces withdraw from southern Lebanon as part of the agreement, which Israel will never do.

In addition, the MOU does not accomplish many of the objectives Trump articulated when he started the war and as the war progressed, including regime change in Iran, destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability, guaranteed continual open and toll-free access to the Strait of Hormuz (as was the case before the war started), neutralization of Iran’s balistic missile capability, Iran’s unconditional surrender as a precondition to ending the war, and a swift conclusion of the war similar to the timetable achieved in Venezuela.

Add to these issues the number of people who were killed or injured, the extensive costs and economic hardships born in the U.S. and globally, the likelyhood that Iran will again close the Strait of Hormuz as Israel continues its military action in Lebanon, and the loss of U.S. prestige around the world, and one can understand why The Atlantic’s national security scholar Tom Nichols reported: “It is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible. Iran’s government is intact and now under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Strait of Hormuz is under Iran’s control, Iran has significant drone and missile stocks, Iran can continue to sponsor terrorism, and money will flow to Iran.”

Nichols also asserted that Iran leaves the conflict stronger than before and that the JCPOA was working to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment “before Trump tore the agreement up in 2018.” Finally, he categorically states that when Trump chose to start bombing in February 2026, Iran was “nowhere near getting a bomb.”

In his column today, Thomas Friedman writes, “Trump did what he always does: He abandoned all principle and all allies and put his personal interests above all other considerations.” He goes on to say that it is a measure of how much Iran had Trump over a barrel, and how thoroughly it cleaned his clock, that Iran’s lead negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told Iranian state TV, after the details were announced: “The agreement is a record of U.S. failure. People will see it and judge.”

Looking beyond the Middle East, what does Trump’s decision to start a war and then truncate military operations, capitulate to Iran’s threats and demands, and sign an MOU that is vague on achieving any of Trump’s original objectives say to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping as they consider their military options for further challenges to other countries’ territorial boundaries and national sovereignty?

Step #4: Declare victory and take credit for solving the problem that he created in the first place.

Trump has claimed total and complete victory over Iran at least a dozen times. For example, as early as April 7, 2026, he declared “total and complete victory” following a ceasefire and the suspension of U.S. bombing campaigns, claiming all military objectives had been achieved. A month later, on May 7, he reiterated his claims of complete military success, stating that the U.S. had achieved a total military victory while claiming Iran’s navy, air force, and anti-aircraft infrastructure were destroyed. Then, on June 8, he predicted he’d officially declare “total victory” over Iran within the next two weeks. Not surprisingly, Trump also openly acknowledged his strategy for assigning credit and blame, stating, “If it works out, I’m going to take the credit”.

Step #5: Clearly state that only he could have solved the very problem he created.

Trump’s Truth Social post on the night he presided over the UFC “Freedom 250” spectacle staged on the South Lawn of the White House to celebrate his 80th birthday says it all:

“This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me. The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace. With the opening of the Strait upon the signing of the Deal on Friday, for purposes of mine removal, oil will flow on both ends again for the Region, and the World!”

Step #6: Attack anyone who criticizes him or points out the absurdity of what he has done.

Trump has repeatedly accused journalists, including New York Times correspondent David Sanger, of committing “treason” for reporting that downplayed the administration’s claims of a “total victory” over Iran. Aboard Air Force One, he labeled correspondents “treasonous” and “fake” for writing stories that indicated Iran’s military remained capable of fighting back after U.S. attacks.

And just yesterday, true to form, he lashed out at widespread criticism over the terms of his MOU, saying that the “fools, who think I haven’t been tough enough on Iran,” are either “jealous, bad people or stupid.”

In a truly frightening statement that underscores how he views his role as president and heretofore leader of the free world, Trump also told Axios News that after the Iran war, “There are no limits to my power.” He and Pete Hegseth both believe that one of those “powers” entails misstating important facts and withholding sensitive data, like the number of U.S. service personnel wounded or killed during the war.

Step #7: “Have a ‘fall guy’ in the wings to blame when his solution to the problem he created later blows up.

At the G7 summit in France, Trump joked about taking credit for the deal’s success while claiming he would blame Vice President JD Vance if the MOU signing went poorly or any subsequent agreement backfired. Many in the audience understood that Trump may have been laughing when he made that statement, but he certainly wasn’t joking. This is even more apparent since he’ll have Vance at the vanguard for further negotiations, and the chance of the ceasefire holding is slim to none. He also has Hegseth, who some Republican senators already dislike, and perhaps Witkoff, Kushner, and a host of other advisors he can and will throw under the bus if necessary.

Considering Trump’s volatile personality, thin skin, inability to withstand criticism, penchant to change his position on a moment’s notice, sensitivity to being called a “loser” in any endeavor, and his difficulty in controlling military strikes by Israel, the likelihood that military conflict with Iran will reignite within months, if not weeks, is extremely high. And when it does, and after the ceasefire and MOU fall apart, Trump will look for others to blame, inside NATO, throughout the Democratic Party, and within his administration.

***********

With all this in mind, and taking into account Trump’s past behavior and the seven-step process he uses to address problems he has created, are you surprised by what has transpired with Iran since Trump first became president in January 2017, and particularly over the past four months? More importantly, given the tremendous financial and nonfinancial costs, the existing uncertainty, the loss of U.S. diplomatic and military prestige around the world, and the high likelihood that this MOU and ceasefire will collapse and not produce lasting peace in the Middle East, was it all worth it?

No matter how you answered both of those questions, what do you expect Trump to do next during the months leading up to the midterm elections? And whatever it is, rest assured that it won’t be good for democracy, the rule of law, and the vast majority of Americans.

Consider just two of the many significant events that either occurred at or were directed from the White House during this past week, and how they spoke volumes about the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Let’s start with the least consequential event but the most emblematic example of just how far Donald Trump has gone in changing, and many would argue debasing, the office of the presidency and the “People’s House” he is working hard to make over in his image, gold-gilded ballroom and all.

Yes, I’m talking about the carnival-like UFC “Freedom 250” spectacle staged last Sunday on the South Lawn of the White House, where Paramount CEO David Ellison joined the MAGA-faithful who were there in person, while many more watched it exclusively on Paramount+.

And speaking of Paramount, you’ll remember that the Trump administration’s FCC and DOJ previously approved Skydance Media’s multibillion-dollar acquisition of Paramount, the parent company of CBS, where Scott Pelley, a 37-year CBS employee, was fired as a correspondent on CBS’s 60 Minutes in June. Pelley had refused to alter a February segment about Renee Good’s fatal shooting involving an ICE officer to correspond with the Trump administration’s inaccurate but more favorable version of events.

Even before the UFC fights began in the garish octagonal “Claw,” there was controversy stemming from a simple weather report. White House staffers attacked The Weather Channel after the network’s meteorologists issued a forecast that included a 60-80% chance of thunderstorms, 34-mph wind gusts, triple-digit heat indexes, and massive swarms of mosquitoes. Trump’s “Rapid Response 47” organization quickly called the forecast “bull---- clickbait” and used a “friendless loser” label to describe the author of the weather headline. Shortly after the White House’s somewhat unhinged and unwarranted complaints, severe thunderstorm watches were issued for Washington, D.C., forcing the fights to be delayed by roughly an hour.

It should be noted that a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 16% of Americans approved of Trump’s 80th birthday present to himself, and that was before UFC fighter Josh Hokit publicly disparaged Michelle Obama. Hokit’s crude and baseless slur, echoing a right-wing conspiracy theory that smeared the former First Lady, immediately stunned and silenced the raucous pro-Trump crowd gathered there. Widespread criticism was swift in coming, and even Fox News columnist David Marcus characterized the remark as “utterly unacceptable” and stated it proved the event was highly partisan.

Mother Jones described the evening, where Trump again fell asleep in public, as a “despicable night” and argued that the promotion of cruelty was entirely predictable. Predictable or not, it was an opportunity for Trump to shift attention away from what was happening less than two miles away at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where Trump’s name was being removed from the building façade and all other Kennedy Center items that bore his name or likeness.

Undeterred, Trump declared that the July 4th “Tribute to America” under the administration’s “Freedom 250” banner will be held on the National Mall near the iconic $14 million renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that Trump had painted “American Flag Blue,” but that turned bright green due to a heavy algae bloom. The president promised it would be “the most spectacular TRUMP RALLY of them all”. He went on to say that the event will feature his personal playlist instead of “those people that put you to sleep and constantly complain,” alongside massive military flyovers and fireworks.

Now let’s move on to a second and much more consequential set of related events that occurred within the past week.

Shortly before he appeared at the White House to attend his UFC birthday fight, Trump posted: “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

He followed up on that post about an hour later with: “This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me. The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace. With the opening of the Strait upon the signing of the Deal on Friday, for purposes of mine removal, oil will flow on both ends again for the Region, and the World!”

As Heather Cox Richardson wrote in her post yesterday, “It appears that Trump badly wanted to sign an agreement with Iran yesterday on his birthday before taking off today for Europe to attend the G7, an informal forum made up of leading industrialized democracies—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and including the European Union (EU). Rumors about what was included in negotiations swirled all weekend.”

Although all the terms of the “agreement” have not been made public by the Trump administration, a signing ceremony is scheduled for Friday in Geneva, Switzerland. Trump has promised to read the full agreement out loud at that time. However, it has been reported that a detailed peace agreement has not been finalized. In its place is nothing more than a vague memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the start of a 60-day ceasefire, followed by another set of negotiations on many issues that will be very difficult to resolve.

Vice President J.D. Vance told CBS that, in addition to the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets, Iran will also have access to another $300 billion in frozen funds for reconstruction after the U.S. and Israeli bombing. If these funds are released, it will refill Iran’s depleted coffers, which can be used to fund Iran’s proxy fighters, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) also in Gaza, Shi’ite Militias in Iraq, and various Syrian Militias.

While some reporters are holding their fire to see what transpires later this week, The Atlantic’s national security scholar Tom Nichols reported, “It is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible. Iran’s government is intact and now under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Strait of Hormuz is under Iran’s control, Iran has significant drone and missile stocks, Iran can continue to sponsor terrorism, and money will flow to Iran.”

Cox Richardson, in her column, referenced Nichols’ assertion that Iran leaves the conflict stronger than before and that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) was working to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment before Trump tore the agreement up in 2018. Finally, she notes that when Trump chose to start bombing in February 2026, Iran was “nowhere near getting a bomb.” Many fear that the more we learn about this agreement, the more likely it is that Trump’s war with Iran will be viewed as a total failure, diplomatically, economically, and in every other capacity.

Whether the MOU is “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” as Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) described it, the way Trump is handling his war of choice with Iran follows a seven-step process he has used in dealing with many of his other bad decisions. The first step in this process is to take a relatively stable situation and destabilize it by creating a new problem. The second step is to blame someone or some group for the problem he just created. The third step is to resolve the problem he created, but with conditions worse than before the problem existed. The fourth step is declaring victory and taking credit for solving the problem that he created in the first place. The fifth step is to unequivocally state that no one other than he could have solved the problem he created. The sixth step is to attack anyone who criticizes him or points out the absurdity of what he has done. The seventh and final step is to have a ‘fall guy’ in the wings to blame when his solution to the problem he created later blows up.

When you combine these two problematic events with rising prices for goods and services in the United States, new reports on the negative impact of Trump’s tariffs, Trump’s low and sinking job approval ratings across the board, Republican setbacks in recent elections, continued pressure to release the unredacted Epstein files in full, multi-state lawsuits challenging administration funding actions, escalating pushback against ICE operations, ongoing diplomatic friction with major allies, reports of significant corruption within the administration and Trump’s family, recurring questions about the president’s physical and mental well-being, and increased infighting among Republicans in Congress, you can see why many Republicans are coming to realize that these are all self-inflicted wounds courtesy of Donald Trump. It is also why Republican leaders worry that the long and increasing list of White House’s setbacks and disappointments will likely prevent them from salvaging the midterm elections from looming disaster.

Now that you’ve read this post, what do you think? And if the Republicans do lose control of the House and perhaps the Senate due to Trump’s misguided policies, irrational statements, and poor decisions, will that be good or bad for the American citizens and those in allied countries around the world?

Those of you who have read my previous posts know that I am the retired chairman & CEO of a Fortune 100 corporation, a previous board member of some of the largest public and private companies in the world, a veteran and former officer in the United States Navy, an author of a nine children’s books rather than another addition to the crowded series of ex-CEO treatises on leadership, an ardent supporter of American democracy and the rule of law, and someone who believes that most Americans and others around the world are good, decent people who want the best for themselves, their families, and their country.

You also know that I don’t suffer fools gladly and that I’m not shy about speaking my mind when I see leaders and the institutions they represent acting contrary to their agreed-upon responsibilities and the “oaths of office” they took before assuming their position, whether they be politicians, business executives, or leaders in other walks of life. Oh, and lest you wonder, I vote for candidates based on their character and positions on important issues rather than strictly by party affiliation.

My father was an immigrant, having passed through Ellis Island from England when he was an eight-year-old with his widowed mother and three siblings. In addition, my grandmother on my mother’s side immigrated from Ireland as a young woman. My father, mother, and each of their siblings were the first in their generation to graduate from college and receive advanced degrees. My parents later volunteered for the Army when World War II started. They were both decorated for their service in combat zones: my father as a surgeon in the Pacific, and my mother as a nurse who followed our troops from England through France and other European countries. Like many of their generation, they fulfilled their military obligations while witnessing the horrors of war, and then they returned home to get on with their lives, never seeking recognition for their service and rarely, if ever, speaking to their families about what they did and what they saw.

When I was growing up, my parents, teachers, and athletic coaches taught me many “golden rules” worthy of living by. Recognizing that no one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes from time to time, that list included:

Never lie or accept lies as the truth. Own up to your mistakes. Don’t bully those weaker than you, stand up to bullies, and protect those who are bullied. Respect and take care of your neighbors, regardless of who they are and where they have come from. Be a team player and support your teammates. Listen, think, and remember to put yourself in the other person’s shoes before you speak. Do the best you can in whatever you choose to do. Work hard and prepare yourself for what may come. Respect the law and never cheat. Pick your friends wisely because they reflect on you and your judgment. Be loyal to those who have earned your respect and trust. Keep your word and don’t betray confidences. Don’t brag or act in a conceited, self-promoting way. And treat others the way you would want to be treated.

Why do I say all this? Well, because a growing number of people believe we have a blatant double standard underway today, and it extends to the highest levels of our government.

So here are two acid-test questions in this regard. The first question is: “Would you or any board of directors accept the following type of behavior from a person who was the CEO of your company, director of a nonprofit organization in your community, chair of your local school board, principal of your children’s school, or a leader of any other organization with which you are affiliated?”

▶︎ A record of consistently misstating facts, twisting the truth, and perpetrating outright lies.

▶︎ An unbroken chronology of never acknowledging, owning up to, or apologizing for numerous mistakes, bad decisions, and misjudgments.

▶︎ A reputation for going into important meetings woefully unprepared and being susceptible to and influenced by false praise and hollow promises during important negotiations.

▶︎ A string of bad hiring decisions, capricious firings, and a consistent pattern of turning on former employees and friends.

▶︎ A history of admiring and praising brutal autocrats, and an inability to condemn the actions of racist, white supremacist, and other hate groups.

▶︎ An extensive list of unethical decisions that put self-dealing and personal gain ahead of the best interests of the organization they had sworn to represent.

▶︎ A well-known and ongoing failure to keep confidential information and documents safe and secure.

▶︎ A documented list of bullying subordinates and disregarding or ridiculing dedicated co-workers with whom they disagree.

▶︎ A proclivity to use purposely false, divisive, hateful, and incendiary language to pit individuals and groups against one another.

▶︎ A mean-spirited, vindictive personality devoid of genuine compassion, caring, and concern for others.

▶︎ An egotistical, self-promoting set of actions that puts his or her image, name, and reputation above all else.

If your answer to the first question is an unequivocal “NO,” then the second question is: “Why would you ever accept this type of behavior from a member of the executive or legislative branches of your government?”

And, upon reflection, if you don’t accept this type of behavior, what are you prepared to do about those who act this way, now and in the future?

There’s been quite a bit of debate recently regarding two related questions.

The first question is whether the U.S. has lost its reputation as the greatest country in the world, recognizing that no country is perfect and that different people have quite different definitions of what “greatest” means in this regard. Contrary to some Americans who take pride in loudly chanting “USA, USA” and bragging that the USA is the greatest, quite a few people, many of whom live outside the U.S., have never believed the U.S. or any other country deserved that title, at least during this past decade and particularly in the last year and a half. They also argue that being the “greatest” should not be confused with being the “most powerful” in either military or economic terms.

The second question is closely related to the first, with the answers generally being quite different depending on which end of the political spectrum one occupies: “What character traits and guiding principles define the type of person best qualified to lead the U.S. as its president, commander in chief, and at least until recently, as leader of the free world?”

I am a loyal American, a veteran, and someone who believes that the vast majority of my fellow citizens are good people. That said, I am also willing to admit when my country’s leaders make mistakes and when we as a nation fall short of living up to our promise. Sadly, I must admit to believing that the U.S. under the Trump administration has taken a step backward in fulfilling its longstanding commitment to democracy and the rule of law at home and honoring important obligations abroad. It was in that context, and with those two questions on my mind, that I once again watched the opening scene of HBO’s blockbuster series The Newsroom, written by Aaron Sorkin between 2011 and 2014.

In it, actor Jeff Daniels portrays Will McAvoy, anchor and managing director of News Night, which aired on the fictional cable network ACN (Atlantis Cable News). When the series opens, McAvoy is participating in a journalism panel at Northwestern University, seated between a liberal and a conservative panelist. The moderator poses the question to the panel, “Why is America the greatest country in the world?”

As you’ll see when you open the attached link, McAvoy first tries to dodge the question that the two other panelists already answered by mouthing positive platitudes. Instead of responding directly and honestly, he initially throws out a few sarcastic one-liners and joking quips. However, when pressed by the moderator, and after seeing his ex-girlfriend holding up a whiteboard that reads “It’s Not” and then “But It Can Be,” he reconsiders. McAvoy then delivers a forceful, detailed, rapid-fire argument outlining why the U.S. was once the greatest country in the world but is no longer. He does, however, conclude his sobering monologue, which immediately went viral when it first aired, on a hopeful note, recognizing some of the great things the country has done.

Several of McAvoy’s closing comments resonated with me, particularly given all the partisan, derisive, and purposefully misleading political rhetoric we constantly hear from many politicians.

After stating that America is no longer the greatest country in the world, backed up by comparative statistics to support his position, McAvoy reminisced about a time gone by when “It sure used to be.” He went on to explain why the country once was great, pointing out that, “we stood up for what was right; we fought for moral reasons; we sacrificed; we cared about our neighbors; we waged war on poverty, not poor people; we put our money where our mouths were; we didn’t define ourselves by whom we voted for in the last election; we built great big things and made ungodly technological advances; and we never beat our chests.” And in a statement reminiscent of JFK, he noted, “We reached for the stars.”

McAvoy made another point that is particularly relevant today. That is the critical role that a free press and responsible journalists play in presenting factual, relevant information to the public.

Armed with the truth, citizens can prudently draw their own fact-based conclusions. However, when the public is deprived of unbiased reporting, or worse yet, fed unchallenged propaganda or outright lies masquerading as trustworthy facts, independent thought is hindered, honest dialogue becomes difficult, personal freedoms are threatened, and democracy is imperiled. Sadly, the routine dissemination of misinformation from the highest levels of our government has become all too prevalent, as has the proclivity of a few well-known politicians to berate reporters rather than answer legitimate questions honestly.

One of McAvoy’s closing lines is a statement of fact that I’ve always believed: “The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.”

Even though we can point to plenty of problems today with how our American democratic form of government is being led from the top, and recognizing that the checks and balances enunciated in the U.S. Constitution aren’t always working the way the Founding Fathers envisioned they would, I still believe this “Great American Experiment” of ours, even with all its flaws, remains the best alternative we have, and is certainly worth fighting for to preserve.

So, with that caveat in mind, and as you view the following video, ask yourself a few questions:

1. As imperfect as it may be, do you believe that the “Great American Experiment” is still the best alternative form of government for the U.S.?

2. If not, what other form of government would you be in favor of?

3. Do you agree or disagree with those who say that the U.S. has lost its reputation as the greatest country in the world, assuming it had that reputation at one point?

4. If you believe it hasn’t, is the country now better positioned at home and abroad than it was on January 20, 2025, and is it heading in the right direction?

5. If you believe the U.S. had and lost the #1 spot in the world, which country or countries do you think are better positioned right now, and why?

6. Regardless of how you answered the previous questions, what are the most pressing issues the U.S. government should be addressing now, and are they?

7. Did Will McAvoy’s argument about the ten positive categories cited where the U.S. trails other countries, and the three negative categories where the U.S. leads the world, ring true and resonate with you?

8. What character traits are you looking for in a U.S. president, and who out there is best qualified to fill that position, both now and in 2029?

9. Is it time to set aside our differences and once again collectively reach for the stars?

10. And if it is, what are you going to do about it?

And while I won’t give you my answers to each of these ten questions, I will tell you that I’ve always believed a country’s or an individual’s true character, accomplishments, and standing in the world don’t require self-promotion to be recognized, and that egotistical self-glorification often stems from a need to mask insecurity or inadequacies. Or, to quote Proverb 27:2 in the Bible, “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.”

Click on this link twice if it doesn’t open on the first try:

On March 9, 1889, the American poet Eugene Field first published “Wynken, Blynken, and Nod.” Originally titled “Dutch Lullaby,” the poem is a popular bedtime story about three young children sailing and fishing in a large wooden shoe on a mystical sea of dew. Over the ensuing years, many children nodded off to sleep, lulled by a parent, grandparent, nanny, or babysitter reading the poem aloud.

That was then, and this is now, so be advised that the updated version will not elicit sweet dreams; no, a fictional but all-too-believable night terror might be a better description of the story that follows. In this new version, the characters Wynken and Blynken both precede Nod in a different type of metaphorical wooden shoe, which is bright white and more of a house than a boat. Since Nod turns out to be the main character in this story, and what many would describe as a true nightmare incarnate, it is appropriate to start with some history on him.

However, before discussing Nod and his ancestry, it should be noted that many of the fictional names in this new version carry an apostrophe. These names in no way are intended to indicate any relationship to a real person or place, and particularly not to Ireland or the proud Irish clans of O’Sullivan, O’Brien, O’Connor, and the like.

*******

Long ago in the land of X’Norb, there lived a terribly spoiled and extremely mean-spirited prince named Nod. While Prince Nod didn’t know it at the time, his life’s journey would intersect with the lives of Wynken and Blynken in ways he couldn’t begin to imagine.

Nod’s father was Baron Derf the 2^nd, son of King Derf the 1^st, the original patriarch of the P’Murt royal family. However, the designation “royal family” was a fabrication since King Derf the 1^st started as simply Derf, a journeyman barber in the Kingdom of Bavaria.

King Derf the 1^st

Derf was born a commoner, and a lowly commoner at that. While his baptismal name was K’Cirederf, an old family name on his mother’s side, he shortened it to Derf because it sounded more masculine to him. Young Derf was not a particularly good student, and he preferred gambling over studying. Upon leaving Grundschule, he attended Gymnasium, but he never managed to graduate. After being turned down for several menial jobs, he finally trained as a barber. To the surprise of everyone who knew Derf, he became very proficient in that trade.

Derf remained a plebian barber until the King of Bavaria’s royal barber died unexpectedly. Derf regularly cut the hair of one of the king’s friends, so he was given the chance to fill in temporarily. The King of Bavaria immediately took a liking to the way Derf trimmed his long, tangled hair and shaved his fleshy face, so the king offered him a permanent job as his personal barber. To no one’s surprise, Derf immediately accepted. And why wouldn’t he have, since it was his ticket to bigger and better opportunities in the future?

The King of Bavaria was known by his subjects to be a kind, affable, although somewhat ugly and gullible ruler. Many of the king’s subjects felt sorry for their king for two reasons: first, because his face resembled one of the swine in his royal pigsty, and, secondly, because his beloved queen had died while giving birth to their only child.

The king’s son certainly wasn’t the brightest star in the sky, nor was he the bravest. The sickly young prince was often mockingly referred to as Prince C’Cow, shorthand for “Cowering Coward.” By the time Derf came on the scene, Prince C’Cow had become particularly unnerved because of persistent rumors that assassins from a hostile kingdom to the north had been dispatched to murder his father.

Unlike his employer, Derf was scheming, untrustworthy, and mean-spirited—traits that would define the P’Murt family for generations to come. However, Derf was a good actor, and he kept his true intentions well-hidden. He lavished the king and the young prince with false praise, all the while hatching a treacherous plan to assume the power behind the throne with insincere compliments, all the while devising a treacherous scheme to seize the power behind the throne to execute his deadly three-part plan.

The opportune moment to begin part one of Derf’s plan came one day, just as the king was about to get a shave following his weekly mid-morning haircut. Derf and the king were alone together inside the royal barbershop with both the front door and the back door locked. When the haircut was finished, Derf removed a towel from the steamer, shook it once, and then carefully placed it over his client’s face. The king leaned back and sighed with pleasure as the hot, moist towel warmed and softened the skin on his pug nose, blubbery cheeks, and blotchy pink forehead. Derf then followed his normal practice of opening his straight razor and sharpening the blade on the leather strap at his side.

The corners of Derf’s mouth arched up into a reptilian grin right before he removed the towel and, in one quick motion, slit the king’s throat from one side to the other. Seconds later, when the King of Bavaria had stopped breathing, Derf calmly took his straight razor and carefully ran the blade down his left forearm, drawing blood, but not too much. After he had wiped the blade clean on the king’s shirt, Derf folded up the straight razor and replaced it in the drawer where it normally was kept. Part one of the plan was now complete.

Part two of the plan had been set in motion earlier that morning, and it involved Prince C’Cow, next in line for the throne. Before the king was scheduled to arrive for his haircut, Derf sought out the prince and told him that he had come across some very important information that he had to relay to the king and the prince. It was agreed that the prince would come to the royal barbershop and wait outside until the king’s haircut was finished, after which Derf said he would tell the king and the prince the important news.

Prince C’Cow arrived at the agreed-upon time and took a seat outside the barbershop’s front door. Once the king had stopped breathing and Derf had finished the self-inflicted razor cut, the barber-turned-murderer rolled the limp corpse face-down onto the floor, smeared some of the king’s blood on his left forearm, unlocked and opened the back door, and screamed, “Help! Help!”

A startled Prince C’Cow, hearing the cry for help, immediately froze in his seat. Then, summoning up what little courage he possessed, the trembling prince stood, stepped forward, and tentatively tried to open the barbershop’s front door. Recognizing the door was locked, the prince began to shake and, true to his nickname, stepped back cowering in fear. That was when Derf unlocked and opened the front door, grabbed the prince’s arm, and pulled him inside.

Pointing at the lifeless body lying in a pool of blood and then over toward the wide-open back door, Derf blurted, “Two assassins just murdered your father!” As blood drained from the young prince’s already pale face, Derf explained that he had done his best to protect the king. “I tried to save him, but the assassins overpowered me, cutting my arm before slicing your father’s throat. I feel terrible that I couldn’t have done more.”

What unfolded over the next few minutes was part three of Derf’s plan. Seeing that Prince C’Cow was in a state of shock, Derf said, “This killing was well planned, and I’m sure the assassins had a foolproof escape route. Now we need to think about how to ensure that you are protected as Bavaria’s new king.”

Kneeling, Derf bowed his head, crossed his fingers behind his back, and swore allegiance to Prince C’Cow. Overcome by the mistaken belief that he had a loyal subject who would do anything to protect him, the prince said he would never forget Derf’s valiant efforts to try to save his father’s life. Then came the clincher that Derf had hoped and prayed he would hear, “I want you to be at my side as my chief advisor.”

To make a long story short, Derf maneuvered his way into becoming the new king’s Curia Regis, or most trusted royal advisor. At the suggestion of his new advisor, King C’Cow never married. However, Derf did take a wife, and she bore him two sons before he staged the bloodless coup he had planned for so long. Soon after the successful coup ended, the former royal barber was ordained Derf the 1^st, King of Bavaria.

And that is how Derf the barber weaseled his way into the title of King Derf the 1^st!

Baron Derf the 2^nd

The older son of King Derf the 1^st bore a striking resemblance to his father. Derf the 2^nd wore his long, oily black hair slicked back over his shoulders, and his wiry body always seemed to be tensed as if ready to pounce on an unsuspecting prey. However, his most striking facial feature was the pair of lizard-like eyes that were always on guard.

Derf the 2^nd was the king’s favorite son, not just because he bore the same given name as his father, but because he was stronger, more aggressive, more cunning, and more of a bully than his younger brother. From an early age, Derf the 2^nd was groomed to be the successor to his father. An important part of the grooming included repeated lectures about how a successful king’s most important attribute was to be feared by those he ruled, and also how acts of cruelty could be used to enhance that fear.

The king ultimately withdrew from public view after giving his older son responsibility for managing all the land in the kingdom. Soon after, taxes and rents were raised, debtors were evicted and thrown into prison, and unrest throughout the kingdom began to grow. While none of this bothered the king or his older son, it should have. Within two years of Derf the 2^nd being put in charge of all real estate in the Bavarian Kingdom, another coup took place. However, this time it wasn’t bloodless.

The rebellion of irate commoners ultimately resulted in a siege of the royal castle that was surrounded by a deep moat, with the only entry being a drawbridge that was kept in the raised position. Even though the castle guards were able to repel repeated attacks, with each new assault, the king’s defenses were weakened. Since King Derf the 1^st believed that he had to show strength in the face of mounting pressure to abdicate his throne, he finally decided that becoming more visible to his subjects would accomplish this objective. That decision turned out to be a fatal mistake.

One morning, as the commoners began another attack, the king went to the edge of one of the highest parapets in the castle, raised an angry fist in defiance, and then spit into the moat below. Unfortunately for the king, this gave an expert marksman who was standing next to the drawbridge enough time to get off a clean shot from his crossbow. The marksman’s arrow found its mark at the same point of entry that Derf the barber’s straight razor blade had years before, with the same deadly outcome.

Falling backward into his older son’s arms, King Derf the 1^st could barely speak due to the arrow that had penetrated his neck. However, a wide-open pair of startled eyes betrayed the king’s utter disbelief at what had just happened. The last words that King Derf the 1^st would ever utter were barely audible as blood spurted from a punctured carotid artery. Looking up at his son, he struggled to give his final command, “You are the king now. Kill them, kill them all!”

As it turned out, newly-coronated King Derf the 2^nd didn’t have the stomach to fight on as his father had commanded. No, not at all. The new king did what many bullies do when confronted with a difficult “fight or flight” decision: he fled. Sneaking out in the dead of night, disguised as an old woman carrying a baby that was really a sack of gold coins wrapped in a blanket, King Derf the 2^nd left the Kingdom of Bavaria for the land of X’Norb.

Once he made his way across the ocean to a new land that he would call home for the rest of his life, the deposed and disgraced former king trimmed his long hair, grew a small mustache, and then began to do what he knew best—worm his way into acquiring and managing a substantial amount of real estate while evading taxes. Through it all, Derf the 2^nd ceased to refer to himself as a king, choosing instead to assume the title of baron. Even though all respectable X’Norbians knew that Baron Derf the 2^nd’s claim to royalty was a sham, they humored him just the same, all the while snickering behind his back.

Prince Nod’s Early Years

Soon after the bogus baron arrived in X’Norb, he married a fair-haired immigrant from Scotland named Y’Ram Enna. The couple had five children. The second youngest child was named D’Lanod by his mother. D’Lanod was his father’s favorite, largely for the same reasons that Derf the 1^st preferred Derf the 2^nd over his younger brother. Baron Derf the 2^nd felt that his son would go much further in life if he had a shorter, more memorable first name and a title, so he called him Prince Nod.

Prince Nod wasn’t nearly as bright as his father. A few of his teachers thought the boy might have suffered from a learning disability; others believed he just lacked native intelligence. He was, however, tall with blonde hair, and he had reasonably good athletic skills despite his unusually small hands, feet, and other appendages. Nod’s father impressed upon his son from an early age that winning was everything and that cheating to win was preferable to playing by the rules and losing a fair fight, in athletics and in every other walk of life. Nod also was taught that it was perfectly acceptable, even admirable, to betray a loyal friend if it would further his cause or protect him in any way. Young Nod never forgot those lessons as he grew older.

Baron Derf the 2^nd arranged for Nod to be accepted into schools that his son never could have entered on merit alone. Throughout his education, Nod spent more time looking at himself in a mirror and going to parties than he did studying. When one disgusted classmate called Nod a hedonist to his face, Nod just laughed and replied, “Thanks for the compliment. Come to think of it, I do have a pretty good head, don’t I?”

In addition to being known by his fellow students as an arrogant, foul-mouthed, self-centered bully who delighted in picking on boys (and sometimes girls) who were weaker than him, Nod developed the dubious reputation of being a very clever cheater on exams of every type. Even though his college grades ranked him last in his class, Nod did manage to graduate after he paid another student to write all of his final term papers.

After graduation and before bankrolling his son’s first foray into the world of commerce, Baron Derf the 2^nd arranged for a friendly doctor to write a letter saying that Nod had a severe case of chronic ingrown toenails that would preclude any type of future military service. This move foreshadowed a long list of examples where Nod unapologetically put his self-interest well ahead of honorable service to his country.

Later, we will return to Prince Nod’s business dealings and subsequent career moves, but at this point, it is important to say a few brief words about Wynken and Blynken even though they are not central to this story.

Wynken

Wynken came from a long line of distinguished noblemen and professionals. While not as intelligent as his father, grandfather, or younger brother, Wynken was positioned from a young age to take on important roles in the world of commerce and government service. Wynken ultimately preferred to go by the first letter of his given name because he believed that the letter “W” had a nice twang if pronounced in the dialect of the southwestern portion of the country where he lived.

Trading on the strength of his family name, Wynken finally assumed a very powerful position that Nod later would covet. While Wynken’s performance in that role was not deemed to be highly successful at the time, historians would conclude that he did a much better job than Nod could ever have done. Later in life, Nod grew to despise Wynken and his family, partly because Nod could never garner the respect and esteem that Wynken and his family had attained.

As mentioned previously, in the revised version of the original story, the characters Wynken, Blynken, and Nod all found themselves in the same metaphorical wooden shoe, but not at the same time. Sadly, but not surprisingly, after their shared experience, only Wynken and Blynken remained on speaking terms. And that brings us to Blynken.

Blynken

Blynken was the son of two bright, highly educated academics who came from different parts of the world. Whereas Wynken and Nod wouldn’t have scored high on any Mensa test or won academic accolades, Blynken was very intelligent and highly educated. He was also able to attend top-flight schools on his merit.

Blynken had natural charisma, was attractive, and had an orator’s gift of communication. He was also a much better athlete than either Wynken or Nod, but the world of athletics wasn’t where he made his name. And speaking of his name, after Blynken decided that the political realm was where he wanted to seek fame and make his mark, he changed his political name to O’Blynken since there were many famous Irish politicians in the city where he ultimately chose to live and work.

After rapidly moving up the professional ladder, Blynken ultimately found himself in the same powerful position that Wynken previously held. Blynken served his country in that role for the same amount of time as did Wynken, which turned out to be much longer than Nod’s subsequent tenure. This was a future point of consternation for Nod.

While he had no use for Wynken, Nod ultimately despised Blynken even more, largely because Blynken’s moral compass allowed him to be a more effective leader and because Blynken was much more respected and liked than Nod. Because of this deep-seated resentment, when it came time for Nod to take his place in the allegorical and highly influential white wooden shoe, he took every opportunity to erase any remnants of Blynken’s success. As it turned out, that petty move was just one of the many reasons that Nod fell from grace.

Well, enough about Wynken and Blynken. It’s time to return to Nod and the events that catapulted him to notoriety and power, and then later led to his ultimate demise.

Prince Nod as an Adult

We now will pick up the story at the point Prince Nod had finished his formal schooling and had been “launched” by his father into the cutthroat world of big-city real estate.

Unfortunately, the penchant for gambling that Nod’s grandfather possessed was passed down genetically to his grandson. As a result, Nod made many ill-timed and poorly conceived investments in gambling dens of iniquity, all of which went bankrupt. It was during this time that Nod became acquainted with members of the underworld and witnessed firsthand a certain way of doing business that he later would emulate.

Undeterred by his previous failures and with his expanded network of shady characters to rely upon, Nod borrowed money and started several other businesses. Not surprisingly, all these ventures soon went belly up, leaving the money lenders and their other investors holding the proverbial “bag.” The fact that many innocent people were hurt in the process didn’t bother Nod one bit—no, he smiled while remembering his father’s prophetic words, “Better them than you!” This was also a time when Nod first decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and engage in a series of fraudulent acts to illegally reduce the taxes he paid, a decision that would come back to haunt him later in life.

Along the way, Nod married the first of several wives, A’Navi. Being a clever immigrant from a country near his grandfather’s birthplace, A’Navi was adept at knowing how to charm Nod with her blonde hair and shapely figure. It wouldn’t be the last time that this happened to Nod, either in or out of wedlock. Perhaps A’Navi’s most memorable claim to fame, other than bearing his three children, was her dubbing him “The Nod.” Ultimately, the two divorced, and she was paid handsomely for her ongoing silence about activities that could have landed Nod in a great deal of trouble.

Recognizing that his previous real estate and other business ventures were abysmal failures, Nod shifted gears and became the ringmaster at a local circus. Consistent with his having grown into a full-blown narcissist with well-developed sadistic tendencies, Nod loved the ringmaster’s garish red-and-black costume, replete with top hat and whip.

While in the circus, Nod met a Russian bear trainer whom he grew to like and ultimately used to his own advantage. At Nod’s request, the Russian agreed to sedate his prize East Siberian brown bear so that Nod could dance with the large, furry beast in one of his headlining acts. All those who attended the circus loved the performance, and it would not be the last time Nod danced with a Russian bear to capture the hearts and souls of an audience.

Nod’s fame as a circus ringmaster grew as time passed. He took every opportunity to capitalize on the popularity of his act, and he soon became what later would be referred to as a show business celebrity. Having failed so miserably in all his previous business endeavors, Nod now felt vindicated, and he methodically continued to build his image as a glitzy showman. While others called him an amoral flimflam man who vastly exaggerated his success and wealth, Nod’s newfound notoriety propelled him into the national limelight while providing a public platform to try his hand at politics.

After several failed attempts to win the affection of enough of the population to become a political leader, Nod finally hit paydirt. Although he had gained a great deal of weight and couldn’t put one coherent sentence after another, Nod found a way to exploit the resentment of an angry group of people who felt they had been left behind and were unappreciated. Using the skills he learned as a circus ringmaster, and after once again eliciting help from the Russian bear trainer, Nod beat the odds and became one of the most powerful men in the land.

Even though Nod ultimately took on the same position that Wynken and Blynken previously held, his tenure in the role was only half the time of the other two. Despite this, Nod continued to keep a firm grip on his loyal base of vocal supporters. Soured by having his time in power cut short by the voters he so earnestly tried to hoodwink, Nod embraced the unfounded conspiracy theory that his ouster was illegally orchestrated by nefarious, nasty people who just never liked him. He went so far as to attempt a coup just as his grandfather had back in the Kingdom of Bavaria. When the armed insurrection he had encouraged ultimately failed, Nod was left to wallow in self-pity while retreating to several of the gaudy castles he had built as a tribute to himself.

Many people thought Nod had lost whatever was left of his grip on reality as he continued to complain about imaginary conspiracies at every turn. However, this didn’t stop him and a small cabal of devious advisors and fringe lunatic groups from plotting his next move to return to power.

Two Different Paths Forward for Nod

At this point in the revised version of Wynken, Blynken, and Nod, there are two different and competing paths the story could take. Both versions concern Nod.

In the first version, all the shady, unethical, and illegal activities involving Nod, his corrupt enterprises, and his dysfunctional family are finally uncovered. After a lengthy trial, Nod is convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to ten years in prison. When he arrives at the dungeon that would be his new home for the next decade, he becomes deeply depressed and suicidal. His mood improves slightly after he is issued an orange prison jumpsuit that matches the color of his hair and the tanning spray applied to his face. However, all that changes quickly when a prison barber cuts off every strand of Nod’s perfectly quaffed hair, and then later, when Nod learns that his cellmate, a muscle-bound Haitian named Ricardo, despises privileged Caucasians. During the first week of imprisonment, Ricardo introduces Nod to a whole new set of intimate friends in ways Nod never expected. The realization that his horrible incarceration has no chance of parole or pardon finally causes Nod to go insane, although some thought he had already crossed that threshold years before. After being transferred from prison to a mental institution for the criminally insane, Nod stages a reverse hunger strike, eating everything in sight. When he dies of a heart attack brought on by a severe case of Gout a year later, Nod weighs over 500 pounds and cannot walk. His funeral is widely publicized, but it is attended by only a small number of similarly lost souls.

The second version has a much different ending. Nod’s proclivity to rewrite history by turning outright lies into an alternate reality ultimately prevails. After Nod is charged with a series of serious crimes that he describes as politically motivated fabrications, his lawyers skillfully avoid a certain-to-be-guilty verdict by successfully entering a plea of innocence due to temporary insanity. A relatively brief stay in a psychiatric hospital ends when Nod convinces a senile, gullible doctor that his fleeting insanity has been completely cured. When he is released, Nod returns to the circus, this time as a magician. Large crowds come to see him perform sleight-of-hand tricks while making imaginary adversaries disappear before they ever appear. Some laugh, some cry, but all are highly entertained. Nod regains his notoriety as a flamboyant showman and lives to be a very old man, marrying twice more and siring three additional dimwitted children. His dying words with family surrounding him parrot the last line in the lyrics popularized by another entertainer named Ol’ Blue Eyes: “I took all the blows and did it my way!”

*******

Epilog

There are many clues available for those people wishing to decipher the names, places, and events in the revised version of Wynken, Blynken, and Nod. One very insightful professor of literature who also earned a doctorate in clinical psychology analyzed both versions and surmised that two lines from the original poem were particularly instructive:

“Wynken and Blynken are two little eyes,

And Nod is a little head,”

When Eugene Field first wrote the poem, he certainly meant to convey to any young child listening to his words that Wynken and Blynken were the child’s two very sleepy little eyes, while Nod was the child’s little head resting on a pillow awaiting dreams that were soon to come.

The professor labeled the revised version a political allegory and then suggested that the “two little eyes” ascribed to Wynken and Blynken likely represented their ability to see unfolding events clearly and to determine what was real and what was not before making any important decisions. On the contrary, since Nod was originally meant to be a “little head” with correspondingly limited cranial space, the professor concluded that it was not at all surprising that the petulant man-child’s small, underdeveloped brain was incapable of understanding or articulating complex ideas. The professor also added that many people with brains like Nod’s often harbor a debilitating inferiority complex that they usually try to cover up by lashing out at highly respected individuals and institutions. In addition, these people often are narcissistic and sometimes evolve into sociopaths.

Whatever the case, the truth of the matter is that this revised version of Wynken, Blynken, and Nod will likely remain an ongoing saga for some time to come. Where it will end, no one really knows. However, the one thing that everyone can agree upon is that Nod would never, of his own volition, quietly fade away into the sunset, and he may surprise many with a resilient resurgence of power.

A sincere apology is extended to anyone expecting to read a heartwarming sequel to Eugene Field’s original poem. However, that’s just not how events unfold in the world of Nod!

And if you are wondering if the revised version of Wynken, Blynken, and Nod will ever be made into a full-length movie, the rights to a screenplay were recently purchased by a major Hollywood studio. Filming is reportedly scheduled to begin within a year. As you might expect, the director of the movie had very definite ideas on who should be cast in the leading roles. Thankfully, the producers spared no expense in securing the following actors who need no further introduction.

Wynken (aka “W”) Nod (aka “The Nod”) Blynken (aka O’Blynken)

Timelines to end Trump’s war with Iran continue to stretch out …

When Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, President Trump referred to it as a “short-term excursion” with bombing lasting just a week and combat operations wrapping up in four to six weeks.

When asked by The New York Times on March 1 about the duration of Epic Fury, Trump stated that the U.S. and Israel initially “intended four to five weeks“.

On the evening of April 1, Trump stated the war would be over in “three days,“ while that same morning, he threatened to hit Iran “extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.”

On May 1, Trump notified Congress in a letter that hostilities with Iran “have terminated“. He went on to argue that a ceasefire had paused the conflict, so he didn’t have to seek congressional authorization to continue the war.

On June 1, Trump insisted that talks with Iran were continuing even after Iran suspended negotiations. Later that day, he told CNBC in a phone interview, “I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less, if they’re over, they’re over. If they’re not, you know, I think they took too much time. Frankly, I thought they started to get very boring.”

The next critical date in Trump’s mind is June 14, his 80th birthday. So, in addition to staging a carnival-like UFC event in the octagonal “Claw” being constructed on the South Lawn of the White House, some skeptics expect him to declare once again that the war is over and that a peace agreement will be signed on that day.

While the financial cost, to say nothing of the other costs, of Trump’s war with Iran continues to escalate …

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) initially estimated the cost of the first 100 hours of Operation Epic Fury at $3.7 billion.

Shortly after Epic Fury began, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense placed the cost at approximately $1 billion per day.

As Epic Fury progressed, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the accrued operational and munitions costs had officially reached about $25 billion.

During a congressional budget hearing, Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst III testified that direct military expenditures for Epic Fury had climbed to nearly $29 billion.

Critics and individual financial experts argued that the actual financial impact was significantly higher than the Pentagon’s baseline, with the first 60 days of direct expenditures closer to $72 billion.

When Congress questioned Hegseth about why a massive $200 billion supplemental request was needed to refill depleted weapons, he defended the request by stating, “Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys.”

After factoring in veteran disability benefits, defense contractor increases, regional reconstruction aid, and severe domestic inflation due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, long-term macroeconomic assessments put the ultimate cost to U.S. taxpayers at about $1 trillion if the war ended today. The financial burden for those outside the U.S. could easily double that amount.

As Trump’s war with Iran continues today with no firm end date in sight, with costs of the war continuing to escalate, and with innocent people in the U.S. and worldwide suffering increasing physical and economic hardships, many questions remain unanswered; here are but ten.

1. When will a “peace agreement” be signed, what will it entail, and will it end up being any better than Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA) that was agreed in July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany)?

2. Will Iran ever agree to give up their enriched uranium and never to develop a nuclear weapon, as Trump demanded as a prerequisite for ending hostilities?

3. When will the Strait of Hormuz open, and will it stay open, and will Iran continue to demand/exert physical and economic control over it?

4. Who holds the most “cards” and is in a better negotiating position as talks between the U.S. and Iran continue?

5. What role, if any, will Israel play in the ultimate agreement between the U.S. and Iran?

6. Has the reputation of the U.S. been enhanced or eroded as a result of Operation Epic Fury and all that has happened in the Middle East since then?

7. How much has Trump’s war with Iran benefited Vladimir Putin and Russia?

8. What lessons has Xi Jinping learned from watching Trump’s decisions regarding Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Taiwan?

9. Is Cuba next on Trump’s hit list after U.S. military operations wind down in the Gulf?

10. When the dust settles, will Trump’s war of choice with Iran be worth all the costs, and not just economic costs, incurred?

While I won’t give you my answers to all the questions above, I will hazard a guess that a complete and lasting end to Trump’s war with Iran is not close at hand, as the president has promised dozens of times before, and that the pricetag for the war, when calculated to include all financial and non-financial costs, will continue to escalate well beyond the administration’s estimates that increase with each passing week.

And when a “peace plan” is finally agreed upon, it will likely be only a “framework” that will require further negotiation over historically difficult, unresolved sticking points. I also suspect many people will be left scratching their heads, asking whether it was all worth the money spent and the lives lost or disrupted.

One disclaimer before going further: this post is not intended to discuss specific U.S. government policy issues or the degree to which any specific policies are appropriate or inappropriate. Rather, it addresses some individuals, and specifically Marco Rubio, who make and carry out key policies of the Trump administration.

With that as a backdrop, and looking at President Donald Trump’s cabinet, at least what is left of it after the high-profile departures of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, most cabinet members didn’t deviate from their historical profiles and were generally unqualified for the important positions they currently occupy.

However, there might be one major exception—Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. Many observers believe that Rubio differs from his fellow cabinet members in many ways, making his recent transformation even more interesting to watch.

So, what has made and continues to make Rubio different in the eyes of many, and has his recent transformation been one of an opportunistic chameleon looking toward the next presidential election, or simply that of a pragmatic politician focused on carrying out his current job responsibilities? Or, as some might suggest, a combination of both?

To begin with, even Rubio’s harshest critics agree that he is not as unqualified, inept, or as much of a shameful embarrassment to the country as are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, HHS Secretary RFK Jr., and FBI Director Kash Patel. Neither is he as dangerous a MAGA ideologue as OMB Director Russell Vought or White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller.

No, during his confirmation hearings, the former U.S. senator from Florida was considered by his colleagues to be a clear-thinking, intelligent, high-profile “neocon” worthy of consideration as Trump’s next Secretary of State. Historically, and in contrast to today, he was known for being a staunch advocate for free trade, a defender of human rights, a hawk on Russia and China, and a strong supporter of the United Nations, NATO, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

And it was well-known that Rubio wasn’t always a loyal supporter of Donald J. Trump. No, far from it.

During the 2015 presidential campaign, Trump and Rubio repeatedly exchanged barbs. Responding to Trump calling him “Little Marco,” Rubio said that Trump was a “con artist” with “the worst tan in America.” Picking up on Trump’s small “extremities,” Rubio jokingly quipped, “Have you seen his hands? They’re like this. And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

Rubio also joined others who mocked Trump’s claim that he was a successful businessman. After pointing out that if he hadn’t inherited $200 million from his father, Trump would be “selling watches in Manhattan,” he went on to understate the number of Trump companies that went bankrupt, saying, “I don’t know anything about bankrupting four companies.” He also mocked the defunct Trump University, calling it a “fake school,” and saying that after borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to attend, all the students got was the opportunity to “take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump.”

However, the most stinging criticism centered on Trump’s mercurial temperament, his mental instability, his untrustworthiness, and his overall unfitness to be president and leader of the free world, let alone commander in chief of U.S. armed forces. Rubio was adamant in saying, “We cannot allow a con artist to get access to the nuclear codes of the United States of America!”

With all that said, and recognizing that Rubio now works directly for the man he once disparaged, his about-face since joining the Trump administration may be disappointing, although it isn’t completely unexpected. We may not know everything he tells Trump in private. However, like former secretaries of state, he is duty-bound to defend the president’s actions and policies in public, or resign if he can’t ethically, morally, or legally support the president. And Rubio, like anyone else hoping to survive in Trump’s inner circle, has had to adapt previous strongly held positions to conform with the “America First” nationalism that Trump made a cornerstone of his presidency.

However, many who know both the president and the secretary of state have been surprised that Rubio has lasted in his position when others have been summarily dismissed. For example, Daniel Drezner, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, thought that there were “a lot of reasons to think he was going to be the first one out.” Drezner went on to say, “I have been genuinely surprised that he has not only survived but thrived in this administration because MAGA didn’t trust him, obviously, as a former neocon.”

And despite Rubio’s “every nation has stupid people” statement at a New Delhi press conference after Trump referred to India as a “hell hole,” Trump continues to praise his Secretary of State, saying that whenever there is a problem, “I call up Marco. He gets it solved.” Soon after assuming the role of national security advisor, when Mike Waltz was fired in May 2025 for his part in the security breach known as “Signalgate,” Rubio gained Trump’s favor by sharply reducing the National Security Council Staff to combat the “deep state” that Trump repeatedly has said is out to get him.

Those in Rubio’s camp are quick to laud him as an articulate defender of administration policy, while at the same time appearing more charismatic, approachable, and trusted than Vice President JD Vance. Born in Miami and the son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio is fluent in Spanish and a devout Catholic family man in a White House and cabinet not known for its high moral character. His Catholicism and, at times, charming personality were on display in May when he travelled to Rome for meetings with Pope Leo XIV and the Italian prime minister to smooth over online clashes between Trump and the Pope.

Although he has traveled the globe, Rubio’s largest impact may be in the Western Hemisphere. The November 2025 National Security Strategy refers to a new version of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, renamed the “Donroe Doctrine,” where the plural “Americas First” augments the singular “America First” strategy. Not surprisingly, the Venezuelan “occupation,” the evolving “annexation” of Cuba, and the thorny relationships with Canada, Greenland, Panama, and other Western Hemisphere entities are increasingly coming under Rubio’s sphere of influence.

While Rubio has his supporters, he has plenty of detractors who believe he is a self-promoting sellout, just another untrustworthy politician, and an unscrupulous opportunist with his eye on the 2028 presidential contest. His critics go on to argue that he has sacrificed his principles, kowtowing to Trump in hopes of winning over the president’s endorsement and base of support.

As might be expected, Rubio has faced his share of partisan criticism in Congress. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, said he regretted voting to confirm Rubio, citing the administration’s visa-revocation policies for foreign students and campus protestors as reminiscent of the “McCarthy era”. Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY) also got into a shouting match with Rubio over significant budget cuts to USAID and other foreign aid reductions that ultimately led Meeks to say Rubio was spouting “lies after lies.”

In addition, Rubio experienced significant pushback from internal staff and career diplomats within the State Department, largely the result of major staff reductions, the dissolution of key bureaus, and the sidelining or elimination of important expertise inside and outside the U.S.

Outside the U.S., several foreign leaders have openly denounced some of Rubio’s aggressive imperialist language. For example, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva publicly condemned the U.S. stance on Brazilian criminal groups after Rubio suggested the administration could intervene in Brazil. Lula accused Rubio of supporting U.S. interventionists and warned him “not to play with Brazil’s sovereignty and democracy”. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla more recently accused Rubio of intentionally lying to the American people and misrepresenting the Cuban government as an active national security threat.

One of Rubio’s most glaring turnarounds since working for Donald Trump has involved his depiction of Russia and Vladimir Putin. He previously strongly condemned Russian actions in Ukraine, labeling Putin “a gangster, thug, and a bloodthirsty, merciless tyrant.” His rhetoric now parrots some of Trump’s praise of Putin and Russia. For example, Rubio congratulated the Russian terrorist state last year when he said, “On behalf of the American people, I want to congratulate the Russian people on Russia Day. The United States remains committed to supporting the Russian people as they continue to build on their aspirations for a brighter future.” The message sparked heavy backlash from Ukrainian officials and pro-Ukrainian commentators, who heavily criticized Rubio for sending holiday greetings to an aggressor state as Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine was ongoing.

While much is known about Mario Rubio, the man, the politician, the diplomat, and the potential presidential candidate in 2028, his story is still being written. Recognizing that, and taking into consideration what we now know, let’s return to the question posed in the title of this post: Is Marco Rubio an opportunistic chameleon, a pragmatic politician, or perhaps a little of both? And has he, as some detractors suggest, “sold his soul to the devil?”

After you’ve answered those questions, here’s one more to ponder: “All things considered, and recognizing that many qualified individuals would never consider working for Donald J. Trump, is there anyone better qualified and who is willing to be part of the Trump administration as the Secretary of State than Marco Rubio? And as you consider your answer to that question, would you be surprised if Rubio continues to take every opportunity to stand in for or laud Trump, particularly during the president’s 80th birthday celebrations that include the UFC carnival-like event at the White House?

Remembering Memorial Day, Hard-won Freedoms It Stands For, and Current Threats to Those Freedoms

I wrote the following essay over eight years ago.

However, considering all that has transpired during the past year and a half, the fragile state of democracy and personal freedom here in the United States, the Ukrainians’ brave struggle against tyranny and war crimes perpetrated by Vladimir Putin, the significant consequences of Donald Trump’s three-month-long war of choice with Iran, and the harm being done to innocent people in more than 130 other armed conflicts globally, I thought the original message was worth updating and repeating this Memorial Day.

********

In addition to marking the unofficial start of summer, Memorial Day in the United States is a solemn time to recognize the sacrifices made by all those who served in the military to help protect our country and its inherent freedoms. It’s also a time when we should take a moment to consider the freedoms we cherish but sometimes take for granted—how they were won, threats to their existence, and what is required to maintain them.

Both of my parents enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II and each deployed to combat zones, later receiving decorations for their service. My father was a surgeon stationed in the Pacific, and my mother was a nurse who followed Allied troops as they advanced through several European battlefields. I am also a proud veteran who had the honor and privilege of serving as an officer aboard a destroyer in the U.S. Navy.

Every Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, I pay special tribute to all those brave Americans and members of allied nations who fought during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam, and all the other armed conflicts since the nation’s birth. I also honor the courageous men and women who never wore a military uniform, but who nonetheless fought against tyranny and for the freedom of people here in the United States and around the world.

To be sure, the freedoms we enjoy today would not exist if it weren’t for the leadership and fortitude displayed by famous U.S. presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as well as other foreign leaders like Marquis de Lafayette, Winston Churchill, and Charles de Gaulle. However, let us never forget the contributions and unwavering courage of suffragettes, civil rights workers, and other everyday heroes who put their safety at risk to take a stand or to step in to right a wrong.

Less than a year after the United States entered WWII, many Americans turned on their radios and first heard of Superman’s battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.” Quoting a byline associated with a comic book character might sound a bit trite or even inappropriate on this solemn holiday when we celebrate our country and honor real-life heroes. However, bear with me for a moment because many believe that the personal freedoms associated with these words are increasingly under attack.

Let’s start with the word ‘truth’. When leaders bend or dismiss the truth, alter facts, or outright lie, history has shown that freedom is challenged. When people are afraid to speak the truth for fear of retribution, freedom is challenged. When a free press is attacked or muzzled, freedom is challenged. And when what is true and what is not becomes purposefully muddled or indecipherable, freedom is challenged.

The next word is ‘justice’. This country was founded on the principles of justice for all and the rule of law. Our Founding Fathers understood these fundamental doctrines and the need for separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. When the rule of law is attacked, freedom is challenged. When any branch of government attempts to usurp power from the other two, freedom is challenged. When powerful leaders overtly disobey the law and then cry foul and attack the criminal justice system when they are caught, freedom is challenged. And when legal due process or habeas corpus are ridiculed or set aside, freedom is challenged.

Finally, we come to the words ‘the American way’. So, you may ask, what is the American way, and does it just encompass the United States? To my understanding, it’s a universal concept that applies to any democratic, freedom-loving nation. It begins with truth and justice that I discussed earlier, but it doesn’t end there. It requires us to put the good of the country before self-interest, while defending democratic ideals, including liberty, equality, and the rule of law. It means respecting individual rights while following the principle of majority rule. It also entails protecting free speech and embracing fairness and common decency. It does not mean using incendiary political rhetoric that often leads to violence, or weaponizing patriotism, the word ‘American’, or symbols like the American flag to justify un-American activities such as fearmongering, racism, and bigotry in any form. When we stop fighting for or allow anyone to trample on our American ideals, our freedom is at risk.

Many of the most historic challenges to American freedom have come from outside our borders, most notably from the leaders of countries against which the United States went to war. However, we also face real and growing threats from within our country and from misguided or corrupt officials at all levels of our government. With that in mind, let me conclude my thoughts by coming full circle to honor another veteran who stood up for American ideals and freedom against the threat of McCarthyism—a dark chapter in American politics when repeated lies were accepted as truth and when personal freedoms were severely challenged and temporarily curtailed.

Joseph Nye Welch graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1917, after which he enlisted as an Army private during WWI. Welch ultimately became the chief counsel to the U. S. Army during the Army-McCarthy hearings. His now-famous statements are viewed as the beginning of the end of McCarthyism. Welch finally had enough of Joe McCarthy’s unfounded, polarizing, and un-American lies when he dared to say, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness … Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?”

Welch understood the meaning of “truth, justice, and the American way.” He also epitomized what President Teddy Roosevelt meant when he said, “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the toil and sacrifice of high courage.” While I can’t say for sure, I bet that Welch also may have read the words attributed to Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing” ... and “Nobody made a greater mistake than he (or she) who did nothing because he (or she) could only do a little.”

********

Election outcomes at all levels of government often determine the degree to which democratic ideals, hard-won personal freedoms, and the rule of law will be protected. Since democracy is a participatory form of government, it would be wise for all of us to keep in mind Edmund Burke’s cautionary words as well as this prophetic admonition by Founding Father, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson: “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

Said another way, it’s time for everyone who cherishes freedom and democracy to stand up, speak out, take a stand, and remember to vote in the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, or in your local elections if you live outside the U.S.

So, with all that in mind, here’s to truth, justice, and the American way on this Memorial Day and every day that follows!

As the summit in Beijing concluded with no substantive agreements reached between both sides, but with a growing consensus that President Trump was once again unprepared and outmatched, two central questions remain: “Is Donald Trump getting ready to throw Taiwan under the bus for Xi Jinping as he has done with Ukraine for Vladimir Putin? And, if so, why?” While no one knows for sure, the signs don’t look particularly good for Taipei at this point.

Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement following the summit that U.S. policy toward Taiwan remains “unchanged” and that it would be “a terrible mistake” for China to attempt any takeover of the island by force, Trump’s comments aboard Air Force One gave quite a different impression. Surprisingly, and some might say shockingly, Trump told reporters that he discussed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan with Xi, reversing a long-standing U.S. policy.

On August 17, 1982, as part of a set of “Six Assurances” to Taiwan, President Ronald Reagan stated that the U.S. had not agreed to any prior consultation with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on arms sales to Taiwan. The U.S. position was later further clarified, through a cable from Under Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to Taiwan and subsequent testimony by U.S. diplomat John Holdridge, that Reagan had not agreed to discuss or consult with Beijing in advance regarding arms sales. Reagan stipulated that the quantity and quality of arms provided to Taiwan would be determined entirely by the threat posed by the PRC, and that the U.S. intended to maintain Taiwan’s defense capability relative to that of the PRC.

These assurances served as a “permanent imperative of US foreign policy” to clarify that the August 17 Communiqué would not lead to the abandonment of Taiwan, and those assurances have been reinforced by every U.S. president since Reagan until Trump abruptly and unwisely reversed course. In doing so, Trump may not have fully understood that under the decades-old Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.

In fact, Taiwan’s foreign affairs ministry emphasized the U.S.’s “long-standing and consistent policy toward Taiwan” in a statement released this morning that said, “Regarding arms sales to Taiwan, this is not only a security commitment to Taiwan explicitly stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, but also a joint deterrent against regional threats.” Correspondingly, many U.S. and Taiwanese officials now fear that Trump may be inclined to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip with China. Why is that, and why did Trump say what he did aboard Air Force One?

Some have postulated that Trump was decidedly outmatched and outmaneuvered once again by Xi, just as he has been every time he meets with Putin. Others think he just spoke extemporaneously, as he so often does, without much foresight about how his words might be interpreted. However, many of Trump’s critics who have labeled him “TACO” and worse, understand that Trump’s war of choice with Iran that continues with no acceptable off-ramp is sight is hurting him in the polls and that Xi effectively took advantage of that fact and successfully bullied the U.S. president because China “holds more cards” (using Trump’s vernacular) including its close relationship with Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

While Xi did not commit to help the U.S. with Iran, he likely did imply that his planned September visit to Washington, DC, at the invitation of Trump is contingent upon the U.S. not going through with the congressionally approved arms sales to Taiwan, including a $11.1 billion package announced in 2025 and another $14 billion passed earlier this year. These sales prioritize defensive systems like HIMARS, missiles, and anti-drone technology to support Taiwan’s “porcupine” strategy against potential PRC attacks. Trump is increasingly worried about his sinking job approval ratings and is counting on Xi’s visit to help shore up Republican support in advance of the midterm elections.

Former U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul was quick to criticize Trump after the president met with Xi. McFaul pointed out that Trump repeatedly referred to Xi as his “friend” and a “great leader,” while Xi offered no similar praise in return. McFaul argued further that the imbalance in tone made Trump appear to be in a visibly weaker diplomatic position, an observation that most news outlets reported. In addition, body language experts noted that Trump’s slouched stance and hunched-over shoulders contrasted with Xi’s more rigid, straight, and authoritative posture.

Former White House Global Engagement Director Brett Bruen joined those critical of Trump and publicly faulted the U.S. delegation for lacking any China specialists, calling it a sign of inadequate preparation. True to form, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung verbally belittled Bruen rather than addressing the substance of Bruen’s critique, following a tried-and-true Trump tactic of shifting the focus from policy and fact to personal attacks.

One also wonders if Trump truly understands the degree to which the U.S. is dependent on Taiwan, which produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and about 90% of the most advanced chips. Tech giants like Apple, Nvidia, and AMD rely entirely on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) for these processors, making Taiwan a ‘single point of failure’ for American defense systems, consumer electronics, and the growing AI industry. Despite concerted efforts to move advanced chip and semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S., it will take over a decade to come close to self-sufficiency, and costs will be much higher than operating in Asia.

Concerning the future, Trump’s thorny past dealings with Zelenskyy, his cozy relationship with Putin and Russia, and his pull-back from NATO should be carefully studied when predicting what might come next vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. In addition, beyond implications of Trump’s war with Iran, ask yourself how China reads Trump’s decision to “invade” Venezuela, his threats about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, and imminent military actions involving Cuba and the legal indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro.

Whatever does transpire, rest assured that Donald Trump will act transactionally as he has in the past to further his own personal interests, shield himself and his family from growing legal liability, and promote his name and image wherever he can, rather than be guided by any cohesive strategy that is best for the U.S., Taiwan, Ukraine, NATO, and other allies around the world.

And as you consider that, think about the new “Axis” that includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and a few other CSTO members that are united in actively pursuing the demise of America and our allies. And when you do, remember that Trump is alienating and undermining all of the U.S.’s traditional allies other than Israel.

In conclusion, and returning to the second of the two questions posed in the title of this post, why does it appear that Trump is siding with China and abandoning Taiwan as he did with Ukraine, and if he is, who is he really supporting and abetting other than himself, either directly or indirectly? One clue in answering those key questions may be found in screenwriter William Goldman’s famous line in the 1976 film adaptation of All the President’s Men: “Just follow the money.”