We’ve seen this movie before---

In the early sixties as a young US Army officer, I spent thirteen months in Vietnam. At the time I volunteered for the overseas assignment, America seemed to be strong and prosperous, able to unilaterally police the world. The leading communist states, China and the Soviet Union, were viewed as major threats to the international order, but they were no match for an inspired America.

My assignment in Vietnam, officer-in-charge of the message center for the US Military Assistance Advisory Group, gave me a front row seat as American involvement increased. The possibility that 750,000 US military personnel would be carrying on most of the fighting in Vietnam five or six year later never occurred to me, although I felt confident of America’s success when the major buildup of US troops began in 1966.

When I returned home, I had a brief journalism career and then off to graduate school in international studies. There I learned about the long history of Vietnam and its people, about their adversarial relationship with China, and about the fervor with which the Vietnamese people wanted their independence of French colonialism. The US had come into the fray with elaborate notions of helping the Vietnamese avoid being victimized by communist exploitation, but to the Vietnamese, American troops looked no different from the French they had just kicked out.

The lessons to be learned from our Vietnam quagmire were obvious:

1) Few nations welcome foreign intervention in their local politics;

2) Former colonial states find recent Western economic exploitation just as objectionable as the earlier political domination;

3) Although modern weapons can deliver extraordinary destruction, they cannot capture the hearts and minds of a society inspired by a passionate desire to restore earlier independence;

4) While the US remains the most essential nation in the world, we cannot allow other states to manipulate our legitimate interests to further their own at our expense, and

5) Finally, while most Americans believe in our political and economic systems, they are not willing to support the unfettered use of modern weapons or the sufficient deployment of our own troops that appear necessary to impose our values on a former colonial society.

All these lessons are relevant in our dealings with Iran. Unfortunately, Donald J. Trump seems unaware of these obvious truisms. Having avoided personal engagement in the Vietnam conflict thanks to his bone spurs, Trump has violated each and every lesson from our Vietnam experience. He’s also added a few new lessons of his very own.

Share

Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were both overconfident about the US capacity to restructure Vietnam in our own image. But both sought Congressional input regarding their decisions and both had a clear understanding of what our resources were and what steps needed to be taken to maintain those resources as the conflict progressed. JFK extended military personnel indefinitely during the early stages. LBJ sought from Congress additional taxes to offset financial costs of military action. Yet, while engaged in an international conflict, both implemented policies and programs that enhanced the US economy and the well-being of Americans.

Trump has shown little respect for the role of Congress, neither with regards to the conduct of wars or their power over the purse. Impulsively, he initiated the Middle East conflagration more in the interest of Israel than in pursuit of American interests. Trump also failed to appreciate either the potential response of Iran or the limits of US military resources. Instead of making fiscal adjustments to accommodate his military adventure, Trump as continued to defend gargantuan tax cuts for wealthy billionaires that have added nearly $4 trillion to our national debt since his second term began less than two years ago. As result of his budgetary decisions, millions of Americans have lost access to health care and suffer from food insecurity.

US arms inventories, especially precision-guided and air-defense munitions are dangerously low as result of the US assault on Iran without any decisive result. In fact, Iran has been able to assert control over the Straits of Hormuz and to conduct regularly drone attacks on US allies in the region. At the same time, the US has been unable to supply Ukraine with the necessary arms to defend itself against Russian aggression that also threatens the security of our European allies. And in the Middle East, US allies: Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have signed a joint defense treaty seeking an alternative to American support in case of a regional war.

Share

While Trump’s draconian budget cuts are threatening the health and safety of the most vulnerable Americans, his on-again, off-again tariff agenda has offended friend and foe abroad. Except for the very wealthy and Trump’s family, the US economy is stuttering and our relationships with traditional US trading partners are tattered.

The Vietnam adventure strained relationships with some of our closest allies, but not to the breaking point. Several of our allies, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines provided military troops to support our efforts in Vietnam. Even though the US viewed the Vietnam conflict as part of a Sino-Soviet bloc conspiracy, JFK was able to negotiate an acceptable resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962 and the Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union the following year. Also, the Johnson administration worked with the Soviet Union at the United Nations to bring about a peaceful end to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and in the Glassboro Summit that year began serious negotiations about arms limitations.

Whether or not it can be blamed on his preoccupation with Iran, Trump’s forays into international relations have not been very successful and the US has no substantive allies offering assistance to help us escape our Iranian quagmire. The civilian nuclear agreement signed with Saudi Arabia seems strangely out of place given the fact that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are central to a resolution of the current crisis. Also, Trump has not delivered on his promise to end Russia’s aggression in Ukraine “on day one.”

While Trump is primarily responsible for our Iranian predicament, leaders in the other two branches of the US government are complicit in the creation of this mess. The Congress is charged with appropriating money and overseeing its proper dispersant. Key executive appointments require the advice and consent of the Senate to ensure competence and commitment to operating in accordance with constitutional expectations. It is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to challenge the other two branches when they seek to act outside the limits of their constitutional authority. Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court have met their obligations. At some point the American public must hold them accountable. Otherwise in the future, the United States will no longer be “the shining city on the hill.”

Share Putting In My Shovel

https://www.newyorker.com/news/global-notes/after-six-months-of-war-trump-is-still-losing-to-iran#rid=b4e2a40b-4bd9-469e-9d81-253f59a04e17&q=ishaan+tharoor

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/19/business/economy/us-debt-40-trillion.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/01/opinion/poverty-america-oklahoma.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/05/us/politics/congress-us-israel-defense-partnership.html

https://avalon.law.yale.edu › fed51

https://avalon.law.yale.edu › fed78

Virtually everyone has played bingo at a church or veterans organization, supported a lottery to fund a music festival or maybe a private school. We’ve played cards with our friends, quarter-bet-limit in poker; a dollar-a-point in bridge. These are neighborly activities with little formal structure. Obviously missing is the demand for “profit” from someone managing the activity.

This is the fundamental dilemma presented by sports betting.

The website Investopedia defines a sportsbook as “a place, either a website or building, that accepts bets on sporting events, especially college and professional events.” It can operate legally or illegally. In other words, sportsbooks are “bookies” and they make their money in the same way. Since they set the odds for bets, they are essentially guaranteed a return.

In the United States, gambling has had a complicated history. On the one hand, Americans are accustomed to the existence of informal games of chance but have until recently been reluctant to broadly legalize the practice. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) passed in 1992 was an attempt at the federal level to codify, and to restrict, legal opportunities for gambling in the US. Nevada was given authority to continue full sports betting, while a few other states were allowed to continue some specific forms of sports wagering.

When New Jersey enacted a law authorizing sports betting in 2012, it was challenged by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and some professional sports leagues. After some back and forth among different levels of federal courts, The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned PASPA in 2018 (Murphy v. NCAA) on the grounds that it violated the anticommandeering principle under the 10^th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is the same provision used by SCOTUS in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012) to rule that the Medicaid expansion included in the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional.

Share

In the Murphy decision SCOTUS indicated that Congress if it wished, could directly regulate sports gambling at the federal level, but if Congress does not act, the individual states and territories are free to enact legislation legalizing sports betting. The divided Congress has been stalled which has led to a tsunami of action by states and by well-financed sportsbooks who see an enticing opportunity.

Between 2018 and 2021 twenty-five states legalized sports betting. Twelve more have passed enabling acts since 2021. Virtually all see sports betting as a new and lucrative source of revenue. All have imposed taxes on sportsbooks. Although South Carolina has not legalized sports betting yet, a bill introduced in the South Carolina House of Representatives would levy a 12.5 percent tax on the adjusted gross wagering receipts of a sportsbook. Just as with the state’s education lottery, little thought is being given to the fact that all revenue will be coming from taxpayers, most of it from lower income earners.

According to OpenSecrets, the nonpartisan website that tracks money in American politics, the two major sportsbooks, FanDuel and DraftKings have ratcheted up their lobbying expenditures significantly, spending more than $20 million in at least 20 states. During the past year they have turned their attention to Congress, concerned about a provision of the Trump tax act that limits a bettor’s deduction for losses from 100 percent to 90 percent.

Share

Danny Funt, a former editor of The Week magazine and who has written for The New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal and the Columbia Journalism Review, recently published a scathing assessment of the recent trends in American sports gambling. In his book entitled Everybody Loses, Funt notes the ways that sportsbooks have expanded the universe of sports gambling, while also increasing its potential for negative results for bettors, players and the public. From the cavalier manner in which sportsbooks manipulate bettors addicted to gambling to the obvious euphemistic use of the word “gaming” to replace “gambling”, Funt exposes the ugly world of sports betting.

Drawing special attention from Funt are the so-called “prop” bets. These are wagers on statistical propositions within a game, such as how many points a player may score or how many fouls may occur in the second half. Unsuspecting athletes have become frequent targets for angry bettors who feel the former were personally responsible for their loss.

Funt quotes Joshua Grubbs, a University of New Mexico researcher, who in 2022 received a grant from the International Center for Responsible Gaming to study the behaviors of sports bettors. After two years of study, Grubbs wrote:

“I don’t think that prop bets and in-play betting should be allowed at all. I understand that’s often the most exciting and fun bet for some people. It’s also got the highest risk. We don’t sell 200-proof pure ethanol to people so they can get drunk faster. There’s lots of thing that are quote-unquote ‘more fun’ that we regulate because the dangers are too high.”

The sportsbooks are leery of congressional oversight, Funt also notes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a major sponsor of the Safe Bet Act (Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act), was surprised by their reaction to the bill introduced in 2024.

“Normally…industry associations would be somewhat discreet and subtle in their opposition to reforms that may detract from their profits when their financial success imperils individuals’ health. The industry here is absolutely overt and unashamed about denouncing legislation that makes common sense and is aimed at protecting people.”

Share

In their rush to access a new revenue stream, state government officials are ignoring the experiences of the not too distant past. Although the natural odds favor the house in all sorts of gambling, the lust for more frequently leads to the use of illegal or immoral tactics to further enrichment. Odds can be manipulated, gambling addictions ignored in the pursuit of more revenue. Fixing the game is possible.

Dangers seem particularly acute with regards to college sports which most states are including in their sports betting plans. Given the chaos already underway as result of the ongoing professionalization of intercollegiate athletics, legalizing wagering on college sports contests does not appear to be a decision based on merit. Colleges are struggling to absorb NIL costs and the vagaries of the transfer portal. And even the more financially successful football and basketball programs seem to fear the costs associated with the possible unionization of student-athletes. That may pale in comparison to what could happen if student-athletes who feel poorly rewarded are approached by unscrupulous gamblers.

https://www.investopedia.com/sportsbook-5217715

https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/11-The-End-of-PASPA.pdf#:~:text=The%20Text%20and,governmental%20entity%20or%20another

https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/8347.pdf

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2026/03/fanduel-and-draftkings-shift-focus-to-d-c-amid-federal-efforts-to-legislate-sports-betting/

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Everybody-Loses/Danny-Funt/9781668062029

In 2023, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) which includes most of the world advanced economies, ranked the United States (US) 32nd out of 38 OECD countries in terms of ratio of tax-to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The US tax-to GDP ratio was 25.2%, compared with the OECD average of 33.9%. Transparency International (TP), whose Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks 182 countries according to their level of public corruption, gave the US in 2025 a score of 64 (out of 100) well above the average of 42. TP did note that the US has been slipping during the past decade.

Discussion of tax policy and possible public corruption is legitimate in election campaigns, but it should not overshadow debate about the serious challenges facing the US today. One of the most impactful of those challenges is the crisis in the country’s childcare system.

Share

It is not debatable that development of intelligence and learning skills among a nation’s youth is essential to the sustainability of any successful society. We know that birth to 5 years of age is a critical time for intensive brain development which ensures the capacity to learn. We also have come to recognize that children of all ages perform better in school and are less likely to drop out if they receive appropriate childcare.

Parents bear the primary responsibility for making sure their children develop the knowledge and skills needed to be contributing participants in society, but parents are often limited in their ability to meet that responsibility because of conditions controlled by government and by employers. In addition to making childcare more accessible, state and national political representatives need to address such obstacles as unrealistically low minimum wage laws and unpredictable work schedules.

Since 2019, the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation has conducted studies in fifteen states examining the status of childcare. Why would a leading promoter of the US economy be concerned about childcare? According to the foundation-supported studies, shortcomings in childcare are costing billions of dollars in lost economic activity. Consider the findings of the South Carolina study conducted jointly by the SC Chamber of Commerce and the SC Department of Social Services and published in 2025. Five hundred parents of children under six were surveyed in that study which revealed that many parents could not stay in the workforce because of insufficient childcare options. Not only did the study find that children with childcare perform better in school, it also pointed out that better childcare choices allowed parents the flexibility to enhance their own educational and vocational skills.

Share

The South Carolina study also homed in on the costs to the economy resulting from inadequacies in the childcare system. According to the study, the state loses an estimated $179 million in state tax revenue annually due to childcare issues, while employers lose an estimated $818 million in sales and profits as result of childcare-related employee turnover and absenteeism.

Reinforcing the assessment of the South Carolina study is the latest report of Child Care Aware of America (CCAoA), a nonprofit organization that seeks to connect families, providers, employers and policymakers concerned about the availability of affordable childcare in the US. Their analysis of 2025 data confirms that the nation’s childcare system is under strain and families are being “forced to make trade-offs between financial stability and workforce participation.” For many parents, childcare is their highest expense.

What are the specific gaps in South Carolina’s childcare situation?

Although South Carolina ranks high in several studies identifying top states for business, the state is 47th in labor force participation. Only 59% of the population in SC participates in the labor force, compared to 61.8% nationwide. Also, average salaries in South Carolina are only approximately 88.3% of the national average.

This results in a troubling conflict with regards to childcare. The national average price for childcare is roughly 10% of the median income in a two-parent household and 33% in a single-parent household. South Carolina’s median income for a family of four is approximately $67,800, but the average annual cost of full-time childcare ranges from $$8727 for toddlers to $9,048 for infants, representing about 13% of household median income for traditional parents and much higher for single-parents. For parents with two of more preschoolers, daycare is unaffordable. The state also suffers from limited access to licensed childcare options with 42% of South Carolinians living in childcare deserts.

In the earlier US Chamber-sponsored study of childcare in South Carolina two questions were asked that the state’s political leadership needs to address:

1) How much larger could the employee talent pool be if parents could work without being limited by childcare necessities?

2) How much more growth could South Carolina see if parents struggling with childcare could return to and thrive in the workforce?

Share

Ironically, one of the nation’s poorest states is showing the way to tackle the childcare problem. New Mexico announced in November that it would become the first state to guarantee free childcare, regardless of income, starting at six weeks of age. It will build on a limited program initiated in 2022 and will cost an estimated $600 million next year.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the program aims to get more people into the workforce and to attract and keep families with young children. The state expects to double the 32,000 children currently in the state-sponsored program by Fiscal Year 2028 and to add 5,000 more childcare workers.

Implementing a program similar to that of New Mexico’s will require three commitments by political leaders:

1) Recognizing that a stable and comprehensive childcare system is vital to the overall economy, allowing parents to work and preparing young people for the future workforce;

2) Recruiting and preparing childcare workers in significant numbers;

3) Prioritizing workforce needs of tomorrow above unproductive tax cuts today.

Share Putting In My Shovel

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/business/corruption-index-transparency-international-united-states-intl

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/education/untapped-potential-south-carolina

https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-labor-force-participation-rate-in-the-us/country/united-states/

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/average-salary-by-state/#average-salary-by-state-in-the-u-s-https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/average-salary-by-state/#average-salary-by-state-in-the-u-s-

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/in-a-u-s-first-new-mexico-opens-doors-to-free-child-care-for-all-2dfdea96?mod=Searchresults&pos=1&page=1

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/daycare-prices-solutions-eaff4b24?mod=Searchresults&pos=8&page=1

It was evident when Trump took office for his first term that he had not expected to win because he had no cadre of prospective candidates to fill the significant positions in his first administration. With his second term it has been different. Trump has appointed candidates but whether or not they are actually qualified for the jobs they are filling has frequently been uncertain. His latest appointee confirms that personal loyalty to Trump himself is the primary factor for selection rather than job experience or competence.

William Pulte is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as well as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, the residential construction company, appears to have at least the minimal qualifications for his existing housing/financing assignment. But earlier this month Trump announced he was appointing Pulte to serve as acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to replace Tulsi Gabbard, who has resigned effective the end of June. Critics of Trump and Pulte immediately noted that Pulte has absolutely no experience or competence in national security or military matters. In fact, he does not even have a security clearance.

Share

Trump’s response to criticism of his tapping Pulte reflects a total disregard for the significance of the office as well as the existence of a more sinister motive for selecting Pulte. Already in his housing role, which he will maintain, Pulte has used his authority to threaten and harass Trump’s political opponents. Now, Trump, who has accused the intelligence community in general of exaggerating his Russian connections, says it was not his intention to appoint Pulte permanently to the office, but that he expects Pulte to “find out some things about the rigged elections,” and to continue shrinking the DNI even more than his predecessor who had slashed the size of the agency workforce by 40 percent.

The problem here is the DNI is not a low-level sinecure. Created in the aftermath of 9/11 because of the failure of US intelligence agencies to prevent that needless tragedy, the office is responsible for coordinating the collection and access of intelligence among the 18 US agencies that have such capabilities. Its effective functioning is critical to national security and to the individual civil rights of Americans.

As noted by US Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pulte “appears to have been selected precisely because the White House believes he will provide the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need. Americans have every reason to worry about what happens when the official charged with overseeing everything from counterterrorism to foreign election threats is chosen for his willingness to advance the president’s political agenda rather than his experience. That is how intelligence become politicized, how inconvenient facts disappear, how agencies charged with protecting our democracy instead become tools to manipulate it, and Americans are more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.”

Share

Trump’s failure to consider competence in his key appointments as well as to understand the wisdom of adequate staffing has led to several blunders that have undermined the US economy and our relationships with important allies. For example, when he turned tech mogul Elon Musk and his DOGE minions loose, they eliminated vital federal jobs without appreciating their roles. In one case, nearly 200 employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) were fired by DOGE, but reinstated when their essential role in maintaining US nuclear weapons was realized. In his all-consuming urge for revenge, Trump perhaps missed an opportunity to work with Congress to re-exam the existing mission and strategy that informs America’s nuclear weapons programs. Instead, the US is currently planning to spend close to $2 trillion on a nuclear modernization program over the next 30 years.

His resentment of National Security Council staff challenging his attempt to use US military assistance to Ukraine for personal political advantage during his first term has resulted in Trump reducing the NSC role in the planning and implementing of international initiatives in his second administration. He has even assigned oversight of the NSC to Marco Rubio, his Secretary of State. Rubio is only the second Secretary of State to wear both hats at the same time. Henry Kissinger, much more experienced in foreign affairs than Rubio, was the other. The ongoing debacle that has followed Trump’s decision to attack Iran in February can be blamed in part on insufficient information and contingency planning that should have been ongoing in the NSC.

Finally, Trump seems to be unable to let go his fantastic assertion that the January 6 insurrection was “a day of love.” Not satisfied with having pardon more than 1500 individuals convicted of some crime related to the unprecedented attack on our Capitol and undeterred by the fact that nearly 100 of those pardoned have since committed other crimes, Trump is now talking about compensating these individuals from an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of nearly $2 billion, claiming they were politically targeted by the Biden administration. Given that the Trump administration has done nothing to recognize the sacrifices of the law enforcement officers injured in the January 6 insurrection, its commitment to a lawful society is suspect as is Trump’s sense of fairness and justice for all Americans. His quest for revenge is undermining our democracy.

Share Putting In My Shovel

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-pulte-acting-director-national-intelligence-trump/

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/politics/pulte-intelligence-chief-security-clearance

https://www.warner.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-intel-vice-chair-warner-statement-on-trumps-plan-to-appoint-bill-pulte-as-acting-dni/

https://thebulletin.org/2025/04/doges-staff-firing-fiasco-at-the-nuclear-weapon-agency-means-everything-but-efficiency/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/why-right-hates-national-security-state?check_logged_in=1

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnxej1dn0o

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-many-clemency-recipients-have-faced-other-charges

Redistricting of congressional seats has normally occurred in the year after completion of the decennial US Census. That is in accordance with Article I, Section 2, Para 3 of the US Constitution. The only other mention of redistricting in the constitution is found in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which has never been enforced.

States have generally used three methods to redistrict legislative seats, both state and congressional: legislature-drawn, commission, or hybrid. With regards to congressional redistricting, 33 states use the legislature-dominant approach and nine have commissions. Some commissions are politically based and others are independent, composed of private citizens. New York and Virginia use hybrid systems in which commissions draft maps and forward those to the legislature for final approval.

Share

Republicans gained the upper hand in gerrymandering Congress in 2010 when they launched a well-funded campaign to gain control of state legislatures across the country. The success of Redmap, short for the Redistricting Majority Project, has allowed the GOP to gain significant advantages in both congressional and state legislative elections. For example, in 2012, Obama won Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, but Republicans who drew congressional lines in those states captured 64 of 94 seats.

Some Democrat state legislatures have attempted to offset the existing GOP advantage by gerrymandering their own congressional representation. But gerrymandering, defined as the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to grant one political party, group, or socioeconomic class an unfair advantage in elections, dilutes the rights and privileges of those negatively impacted and is opposed by large majorities in both parties and among independents.

Attempts to reform the redistricting process to avoid gerrymandering have been frustrated in large part by the attitude of the current majority on the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). In 2019, SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that “partisan” gerrymandering was a “nonjusticiable political issue”, meaning it could not be resolved by the federal courts. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the opinion and a longtime opponent of the Voting Rights Act, there was “no clear and manageable standard” by which to judge partisan gerrymandering. (See 2012 election above)

Share

Last month SCOTUS muddied the water even more with its 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, striking down the state’s alleged use of race in creating a second congressional district in Louisiana under Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which reads:

“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Until Louisiana v. Callais, that clause has been interpreted as suggesting that a state may use race in redistricting if a substantial minority is unable in the normal course of electoral politics to achieve a reasonable level of political participation in the system. That congressional act was designed to enforce the purpose of the 15^th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude---

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Since the 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, federal courts had used three criteria for proving racial vote dilution in congressional districts: 1) a racial group must demonstrate it is large and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district; 2) a racial group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive, and 3) a racial group must demonstrate the majority group votes as a group to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, who has authored several opinions overturning precedents, turns the 15^th Amendment on it head by suggesting that the creation of a second majority-minority district in Louisiana would require proof of the state’s “intent” to violate the voting rights of the racial minority. In her dissent Justice Elena Kagan described the majority opinion as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” Several Southern states confirmed Kagan’s assessment by immediately seeking to redistrict their congressional seats to eliminate current African American representation.

Share

No reasonable person can deny that African Americans suffer significant discrimination in the electoral systems of every Southern state. This has been consistent since the end of Reconstruction when Jim Crow laws were openly implemented. It has continued under the “Southern Strategy” used by the GOP to maintain political control in the South following the Civil Rights revolution in the Sixties. Allowing racial discrimination to be permanently institutionalized in our politics as Louisiana v. Callais damages a healthy democracy by sowing distrust.

Democracy requires that all citizens have a sense of belonging to the political order. Even when your candidate does not win, you can still feel safe knowing that there is a constitutional framework in place that still offers the opportunity for participation in the political process. Since African Americans make up a large proportion of the Democrat vote in every Southern state, the bias against them also impacts the rights of all Democrat voters which makes the Louisiana v. Callais decision more than just a racial issue. Like Trump’s efforts to encourage states to redistrict for his own personal benefit, it undermines the future of our democracy.

Most Americans (71%) say that states should not be allowed to draw congressional districts in a way that intentionally favors one party. Only 7% say that partisan gerrymandering should be allowed. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (74%), Independents (70%), and Republicans (69%) say it should not be allowed. State legislatures need to heed the will of their constituents for representative Congressional and State legislative districts to restore trust in our democracy. The US Constitution was written and intended for “We The People.”

Share

https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-gerrymander-trump-missouri-texas-california-b90813a5c08ea91e10045aa522330e07

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/09/gerrymandering-republican-redistricting

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/redistricting-and-gerrymandering-what-to-know/

https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54644-most-americans-say-partisan-gerrymandering-should-not-be-allowed-april-24-27-2026-economist-yougov-poll

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/the-ongoing-fallout-from-the-courts-redistricting-rulings/

https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2026/trumps-redistricting-push-fizzles-in-south-carolina-senate-but-wins-in-missouris-top-court/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/congress-must-respond-callais

The result of this chaos, however, is clear. Should the Trump Administration be allowed to continue to operate without any of the normal checks and balances that have existed for America’s other chief executives, it will be near impossible to rectify the damage being wrought to both the nation’s security and its finances as well as to the basic civil rights of all Americans.

An important key to the maintenance of an effective democracy in America is adherence to the rights laid out in the First Amendment. Without free speech for individuals and a free press, it would not be possible for meaningful communication between the government and the governed. Trump’s threat to those rights was analyzed recently by William and Mary Law School professor, Timothy Zick in an online article, “Executive Watch” for the weekly blog, First Amendment News with Ronald Collins. During Trump’s first term, Zick published a book, “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” discussing the challenges to free speech and press during the 2016 campaign and the first half of Trump’s first term. That was before the January 6 insurrection.

Share

While admitting that policies and practices of many past presidents have raised First Amendment concerns, Zick labeled “the frequency and implications of Trump’s actions in this area as unprecedented.” According to Zick, the current Trump administration has been described as “a kind of legal hydra, in which the defenders of the Constitution are facing one body with many heads, and those heads are acting in concert.” Zick goes so far as to catalogue the types of threats to First Amendment rights that Trump and his administration have imposed on the American system of governance.

1.Threats to the institutional press. Trump has frequently referred to individual reporters and media companies as “an enemy of the people,” echoing a phrase that tyrants have used since Nero. He has also insulted female journalists when they ask questions he does not want to hear. After she asked about the Epstein files, Catherine Lucey, the White House correspondent for Bloomberg, was told by Trump, “Quiet, Quiet, Piggy.” Some other presidents have pursued actions against reporters in cases that appeared related to national security concerns, but none went so far as Trump who has even restructured the White House Press Corp to include only members chosen by the administration. For example, the Associated Press was denied access to pooled press events because they continued to use the term “Gulf of Mexico,” instead of Trump’s “Gulf of America.”

2.Private lawsuits. No president in American history has used the court system as Trump has. He has sued ABC, CBS, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Des Moines Register and CNN primarily for defamation. Some cases have resulted in million-dollar settlements which are indicative of the perverse nature of the country’s judicial system. Often companies, including media companies, find it less expensive to settle a suit without admitting any guilt than to challenge the accusation in a long drawn-out defense. But this can be particularly costly for a media company since settling a suit may raises questions about the company’s credibility.

3.Threats to broadcast media. Television and radio stations are frequent targets of the Trump administration and are vulnerable because of the authority of the Federal Communications Commission. Set up in the 1930s, the FCC is charged with regulating the operations of television and radio stations including insuring that there is competition within the sector. The five-member commission, now firmly controlled by Trump loyalists, has supported defunding of public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, and has threaten to revoke the licenses of stations for alleged “bias.” Their definition of bias was clarified when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr criticized media coverage of the Iran war and announced he could remove licenses if stations failed to serve the “public” interest.

Share

4.Threats to digital media. In 2021 Trump sued Meta for banning him from Facebook and Instagram following the January 6 Capitol insurgency. Although Meta restored his access to both platforms during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump continued his suit and it was settled shortly after his inauguration in January 2025 with Meta paying him $25 million. Trump also ignored the law passed by Congress requiring the platform TikTok to divest its Chinese ownership or to be banned. Instead, he persuaded a consortium of non-Chinese investors to assume 80 percent of TikTok’s ownership, leaving the original Chinese parent company with a 20 percent stake. Trump’s negotiated arrangement does not address the problem Congress was concerned about---Chinese access to personal information of American users of TikTok. In fact, it makes it worse according to some experts.

5.Threats to American educational institutions. The Trump administration in his second term has taken several steps to force significant changes in the nation’s educational institutions. It has announced its intention to dismantle the Department of Education, sending a few functions to other entities, such as the Treasury. Trump has issued executive orders to withhold federal funding from schools that engage in “radical indoctrination,” or “discriminatory equity ideology.” Several universities have been investigated for alleged antisemitism and federal research money has been withheld. Some universities with significant dependence on those dollars have signed agreements in which they have pledged to implement certain policies more aligned with the Trump administration’s objectives in exchange for access to at least some of the money. Apparently, a major factor in the Trump administration’s attitude towards the universities is related to the manner in which the institutions handled student protests about Israel’s retaliation against Gaza.

6.Threats to government employees. Loyalty to Trump takes priority in his second administration. Competence or actual experience sometimes has seemed irrelevant (Kash Patel as FBI director). Professional prosecutors with long service in the Department of Justice have been fired because they worked on the January 6 cases. If partisan consideration become paramount, the ability to retain professionalism among federal staff could become problematic.

Share

7.Suppression of vital information. The federal government has become the collector and publisher of information critical to the effective operation of society. In the fields of health, labor, weather, economics, education and others, federal agencies provide data vital to the American public. The Trump administration has withdrawn funding for some of this work, raising questions about how well such organizations as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can accomplish their mission. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported declining employment numbers last summer, Trump fired the commissioner. Only a loud outcry from investors prevented him from appointing a Heritage Foundation economist to replace her.

8.Imposing official orthodoxies and suppressing dissent. Most presidents have not been fond of dissent within their rank, but most have recognized that it is sometimes useful to have access to another viewpoint. But respect for free speech is limited in the Trump administration. Members of his party in Congress do not appear to be consulted seriously about his policies. He has even sought to punish members of his own party when they question his initiatives.

Share

The litany of Trump’s attacks on the First Amendment does not bode well for the course of America’s government over the next two and a half years. In his second administration, Trump has prioritized loyalty to him as a job requirement, and he has set about pursuing a chaotic agenda, some of which have not been highly visible. He is challenging the wisdom of the First Amendment as key to maintaining our democracy. That challenge can be best met by a Congress determined to restore its vital role in our historic system of checks and balances.

https://www.fire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/timothy-zicks-executive-watch-introduction-first

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/opinion/trump-power-constitution.htmlarticle by David French, NYT columnist

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/opinion/trump-power-constitution.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2025/11/trump-comments-denigrating-women-reporters-pattern/684974/of the seizure, as the Hill reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/28/business/media/fcc-abc-television-kimmel.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20260502&instance_id=174998&nl=dealbook&regi_id=6462279&segment_id=219199&user_id=330c0900860a81d01c336801945b34c2

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/nx-s1-5279570/meta-trump-settlement-facebook-instagram-suspensions

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/is-the-new-us-tiktok-safer/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/10/20/inside-the-trump-administrations-assault-on-higher-education?_sp=26b5ad39-81d2-4a60-b85a-1565de9a04df.1779201463073

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-university-college.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/18/trump-cuts-ai-weather-prediction-forecasts

Trump describes the US-Israel military campaign as “massive and ongoing” and has called on the people of Iran to “take over your government”. While there are Iranians who bitterly oppose many of the policies of the current regime, there appears to be little evidence that they have the capability to overthrow it. For some reason, Trump believes that people in other countries always will react to the use of force by surrender, but the truth is that more often than not, force strengthens resolve. This is especially true when religion is involved.

Share

No one can claim that the Trump assault comes as a complete surprise. His Department of “War” has been building up military assets in the Middle East for several weeks now, apparently adding more than 10,000 US troops to the region. He has justified his saber rattling as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Trump has deliberately slow walked US military assistance to Ukraine still mired in a brutal conflict with Russia who, not only already has nuclear weapons, but who has also withdrawn from treaties with the US that limit deployment of nuclear weapons…treaties approved by the US Senate.

The concern for the proliferation of nuclear weapons among the nations of the world is legitimate. What is questionable is to what extent can force be successful in preventing a country from acquiring such weapons? And how does the US make it clear that our interest is in building a “peaceful, equitable world,” and not in maintaining the strategic advantage of the US.

Several of our major problems in the world today result from trying to address this problem. The US negotiated a deal in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Russia, but that did not hold. The invasion of Iraq was apparently inspired by a belief that Saddam was secretly building nuclear capabilities. That proved untrue.

Share

The fateful tale of Muammar Gaddafi who willingly gave up a nuclear weapons program in 2003, is instructive. Although at the time, not under any serious pressure from the US and the Western powers, Gaddafi decided that if he gave up his nuclear weapons ambitions, the West would not provide any assistance to internal opponents. Evidently, that was not the case in 2011 when Gaddafi was dispatched with great relish during the Arab Spring uprisings.

According to an analysis written in 2017 by Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Professor of War Studies at King’s College in London, officials she interviewed in Libya during 2005 and 2006 already “felt cheated and humiliated” by the limited economic benefits from the deal which Gaddafi’s government had hoped for. Hegghammer, who is the founding director of the Centre for Nuclear Strategy and Security at King’s College, wrote that Libyan officials also complained about “being treated as second-class participants in international fora despite having voluntarily abandoned the program to reintegrate back into the international community.” She goes on to point out that both North Korean and Iranian officials at the time argued “that the fates of Saddam and Gaddafi demonstrate that abandoning nuclear weapons program can lead to disaster.”

Share

Trump is acting in the Middle East today without even inviting any formal consultation with Congress. This is not how the Framers expected things to work. They granted both the power to declare war and the power of the purse to the legislative branch.

Even before Trump, US military expenditure in the Middle East raised questions regarding cost versus benefits. According to a Brown University study of US spending in the Middle East between October 7, 2023 and September 2025, US military operations have totaled nearly $34 billion. Just how much Trump’s latest adventure will add to this unwelcomed burden is uncertain, but it will be substantial.

Share Putting In My Shovel

https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-explosion-tehran-c2f11247d8a66e36929266f2c557a54c

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/giving-the-bomb-revisiting-libyas-decision-to-dismantle-its-nuclear-program

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/malfrid-braut-hegghammer

https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/2025-10/Wider-Middle-East-Costs_Costs-of-War_Bilmes_10.7.25.pdf

https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/people/linda-j-bilmes

In a recent edition, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump urged Republican officials during a bill-signing ceremony at the White House to “nationalize” voting in the US. Flanked by only congressional Republicans, the president continued his long standing practice of claiming without evidence that election fraud was being committed in states won by Democrats. Although he did mention three cities as sites of alleged corruption, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta, he did not identify the 15 states where he suggested Republican officials should “take over.”

Share

There has never been a president less respectful of the US election process and the people in charge of it than Trump. Even as a candidate the first time around, he complained on Twitter that “The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD.” During both the Republican primary and the general election campaign in 2016, Trump talked of rampant fraud and refused to say, “he would accept the voters’ will, win or lose.”

Trump is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election when he lost re-election by seven million votes, 81.2 million to 74.2 million. Sixty losses in the courts didn’t satisfy him and his MAGA supporters, so Trump incited a gang of thugs to interfere with the operations of the US Congress on January 6, 2021. Their violent activities, witnessed by a national television audience, failed, but Trump rewarded them when he returned to office in January 2024. Demonstrating his preferences regarding law enforcement, he pardoned the nearly 1600 people convicted or awaiting trial or sentencing for their actions on January 6. Those actions included assaulting over 140 police officers defending the Capitol and causing property damage of nearly $3 million.

His recent decision to waste the time and resources of the FBI to confiscate 2020 presidential ballots and other voting records from the Fulton County, GA, elections office appears to be an attempt to threaten election officials with possible accusations of fraud that could carry jail sentences. People who try to conduct fair elections should not have to worry about defending themselves against a vengeful bully who failed to win.

The pseudo-event in Fulton County should also remind voters that Trump was recorded at the time asking Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes for him. A Georgia grand jury indicted Trump and several of his enablers for election interference in 2023, but the local district attorney was involved in some inappropriate behavior, unrelated to the substance of the charges, and the indictment was eventually dismissed. Trump’s recorded request still exists.

Share

Even after winning his rematch in 2024, Trump has continued to complain about “election fraud” without supporting evidence. In addition to his shameful pardoning of the January 6 insurrectionists, Trump has sought to discredit public officials in Democratic states by using agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out unlawful and violent deportation removals on their turf, calling into question the capacity of Democratic officials to protect public peace and safety. He also planned to use the National Guard in this campaign, but a December decision by the US Supreme Court squelched that part of his strategy.

Trump’s call for “nationalizing” elections is just another indication of his total disregard for the US Constitution. Again, he has not been subtle in eliminating positions, even whole agencies for suspect reasons and without seeking authority from the US Congress. The current congressional leadership has shown little resolve in defending the institution’s authority against Trump’s continuous assault.

He has also fired numerous appointed officials without cause despite the law and/or custom. Tariffs have been imposed on the basis of personal whims and annoyances rather than due to economic emergency as required by his legal authority. On these matters the US Supreme Court has been less than helpful by delaying obvious decisions.

Trump has also used his presidency in a manner previously unseen---as a plaintiff. He has sued “successfully” several media sources for alleged “damages,” collecting millions of dollars from Disney’s ABC News, Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s YouTube and Paramount Global— the owner of CBS.

Subscribe now

And now he is suing the US government regarding personal issues. Trump is suing the Department of Justice for $280 million and the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion. The latter case is interesting in that it involves 2020 revelations about Trump’s tax paying, or not paying. Reportedly, he did not pay taxes in 10 of 15 years beginning in 2000 and paid only $750 in each of his first two years as president after the 2016 election. Although Trump has persistently claimed to be a billionaire, he is the only US president since 1973 to fail to make public his federal income tax data.

Trump’s behavior provides little positive evidence that he would oversee the election process in a fair and equitable manner. His use of presidential authority for personal gain is apparent. But if put in place, the changes he proposes would undermine the constitutional role of the states in the management of the election process and make it easier for special interests to manipulate the rules and regulations governing that process for their own benefit. United Citizen’s on steroids is not what America needs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/debate-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-230003

https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2025-07/HowWeVotedIn2024.pdf#:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/06/donald-trump-voting-midterms-democrat-national-strike?utm_term=6985d7e08a7320ef0776b0b051b22fa0&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-administration-escalates-election-meddling-seizing-2020-voting

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/23/nx-s1-5641959/supreme-court-chicago-national-guard

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/trump-cancel-elections-voting.html

https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/trump-lawsuit-against-irs-puts-him-on-both-sides/docview/3299277949/se-2?accountid=28698 Wall Street Journal (Online) Dow Jones & Company Inc. Feb 1, 2026.

Maduro was first indicted by the US in March 2020 during Trump’s first term. The charges then were pretty much the same as now, narco-terrorism, corruption, and drug trafficking, but the restraints of international law were recognized at that time. Now apparently, adherence to international law is “optional.”

Share

The conduct of the operation itself received kudos from all participants in the press conference. Trump and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stressed the scope and size of the raid which included 150 aircrafts. General Dan Caine in his presentation said twice said that “no other country” had the capability of performing such an operation. Whether or not that is true, it seems a dubious claim to make given the ostensible mission of the raid---to extradite the president of a sovereign nation---as well as the administration’s track record for disbursing disaster relief funds for victims of Hurricane Helene in Western North Carolina.

Both in the press conference and in later public appearances Secretary of State Marco Rubio gamely tried to sell the argument that the raid was not an act of war, but a “law enforcement operation.” The former US senator was noticeably fidgety during the press conference which may have been the result of his awareness of just how absurd his claim was, especially after Trump himself said the US would be “running the country for some time” and that American oil companies would be invited back into Venezuela to rebuild its infrastructure “which they would pay for.”

The treatment of the Venezuelan opposition leader also raises questions about US goals. Maria Corina Machado, who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to oust Maduro, has been denigrated by Trump, who says she does not have the “respect” of the country needed to govern. At the same time Rubio has suggested that the US might be able to work with Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s acting president, who was Maduro vice president. If not, apparently, the US would support new elections, even if that requires “boots on the ground.”

Share Putting In My Shovel

Neither the Venezuelan raid nor the new National Security Strategy reflects any serious attention to long term consequences for the US. Both seem to be grasping attempts to restore some misunderstood form of unfettered ability to act unilaterally in the name of America’s self-interest. The fact is, the US lives in a world of billions of people and hundreds of nation-states. All nations must accept some limits on how they define their country’s self-interest, or otherwise, determinations will be made strictly on the basis of naked power.

The principle of national sovereignty has been well accepted since 1945 and the creation of the United Nations. Under the old “balance of power” system, sovereignty could be limited by the right of force. In both the strategic document and in statements made after the Venezuelan raid, the Trump administration suggests a return to the days of when might made right.

To add to the international blowback, Trump has threatened action against Colombia, Cuba and Greenland, specifically. Again, there is no apparent consideration of the long term consequences for the US. Restoring the US role as the policeman of Latin America, a la Roosevelt Corollary, will carry significant costs, military and dollars. Unlike current American allies, Japan, Korea, Germany, etc., are there countries in Latin America able, and willing, to help fund their own defense? And with this regional focus what is the message the US is sending to China and Russia about their regional options.

The threat against Greenland is in a class all by itself. Apparently, Trump really believes it acceptable to try to bully an ally into ceding a territory that the ally has exercised control over for more than three centuries and which the ally has made accessible to the US for joint defense. Trump sought to claim Greenland during his first term, but got nowhere. While he has made no formal attempt to acquire Greenland during his second term, Denmark’s military intelligence service has become concerned enough to classify the US as a security risk.

Share

In his second administration, Trump has acted as if he is not restrained by the US Constitution or its system of checks and balances. Although some of the lower courts have attempted to bring him to heel, the majority on the US Supreme Court have often glossed over his constitutional abuses. Republicans who control the US Congress have primarily stood by mute while the Trump administration sows chaos both at home and abroad. They should not be allowed to escape their responsibility. The US Constitution makes them a co-equal branch of the US government. Just as Congress weighed in when LBJ and Nixon strayed, they need to weigh in now.

Subscribe now

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/992132/trump-administration-leaders-hold-press-conference

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/making-sense-of-the-us-military-operation-in-venezuela/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_mediu

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/nicol-s-maduro-moros-and-14-current-and-former-venezuelan-officials-charged-narco-terrorism

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5672165-rubio-defends-venezuela-arrest/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/04/marco-rubio-takes-charge-venezuela/88008997007/

https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-venezuelan-opposition-leader-respect-govern-after-maduro/story?id=128868550

https://www.politico.eu/article/danish-intelligence-classifies-donald-trump-america-as-security-risk/

What is a “cryptocurrency”?

Kaspersky, the cybersecurity company, defines cryptocurrency thusly:

Cryptocurrency is a digital payment system that doesn’t rely on banks to verify transactions. It’s a peer-to-peer system that can enable anyone anywhere to send and receive payments. Instead of being physical money carried around and exchanged in the real world, cryptocurrency payments exist purely as digital entries to an online database describing specific transactions.

The use of encryption to verify transactions is responsible for the name. Encryption is also designed to provide safety and security. It can also allow tax avoidance and other forms of illegal activity to escape notice.

Share

Bitcoin, founded in 2009, was the first cryptocurrency. It has since been joined by a number of others, including Ethereum, Litecoin and Ripple. There are over 500 exchanges now on which one can buy shares of a cryptocurrency.

During his first term in the presidency, Trump did not view cryptocurrency favorably. According to Forbes, he claimed Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were “based on thin air” and enabled criminal activity. As late as 2021, Trump declared on Fox Business, “Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam. I don’t like it because it’s another currency competing against the dollar.”

The transformation of Trump’s opinion came during his campaign for re-election. According to OpenSecrets, which closely tracks campaign contributions, supporters of the crypto industry spent over $133 million in the 2024 elections. Most of it went to Republican candidates, including Trump, but some recipients were Democrats, like Elissa Slotkin, elected to the US Senate from Michigan in 2024. By July 2024, Trump was singing a his new tune, promising to fire the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair and to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

Share

Once in office, Trump has talked of making the United States “the global capital of crypto.” He and his family have moved aggressively into the industry, raising questions about apparent conflicts of interest.

By March, Trump had signed an executive order to establish the strategic reserve. In May, he hosted a dinner at his private golf club in northern Virginia for 220 investors who had purchased his $TRUMP “meme token”.

A “meme token” is a cryptocurrency tied to virtual trends or personalities and having limited real world use. They are often used as a way to acquire quick profits. Various estimates as to how much Trump and his family realized from the sale of $TRUMP “meme tokens” generally settle at about $300 million. Even a supporter of cryptocurrency and Trump, Anthony Scaramucci, criticized the “meme token” as “Idi Amin level corruption.” (Known as the “Butcher of Uganda,” Amin ruled that country from January 1971 until October 1978, when he was deposed.)

Cryptocurrencies have benefited significantly from Trump’s advocacy. He has replace Biden’s appointments in key regulatory agencies with those sympathetic to the industry. With his prompting the US House of Representatives, not known for prolific production, passed the GENIUS Act in the spring and the US Senate followed with bipartisan support in June. That legislation creates a new regulatory structure for “stablecoins” a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the dollar. It is considered by some to be a step towards consumer protection, but in the judgement of the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, there is still a lot to do before the risk to financial stability will be manageable.

Share

The whole scheme undergirding cryptocurrency appears to be in direct violation of the provisions in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution that grant to Congress powers to regulate commerce and currency. Warren Buffet, perhaps America’s most respected investment guru, has called cryptocurrency “rat poison squared” without any value and relying on speculation.

Nobel economists Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson also have denounced the lack of usefulness as well as the failure to contain risk.

In a recent Substack post, Krugman, the 2008 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, pointed out “crypto facilitates anonymous transactions that don’t leave a paper trail. Such transactions aren’t necessarily criminal, but many are.” He also noted that “Bitcoin has increasingly become an engine of predation.,” referring to practice of companies buying cryptocurrencies with borrowed money and then marketing shares to naïve investors who don’t realize the volatility of cryptocurrency.

Johnson, who won his Nobel in 2024, is highly critical of the political power that the crypto industry has acquired “primarily through political donations.” Identifying the greater transparency of US financial markets as a major advantage for the US when compared to other countries, Johnson warns that failing to provide systematic government oversight of crypto allows risk that threaten not only individual investors but the whole financial system. Referring to current legislation recently passed by Congress, Johnson says “Congress has exposed Americans and the world to the real possibility of the return of financial panics and severe economic damage, implying massive job losses and wealth destruction.”

Share

A lead article in an early December edition of the Wall Street Journal warned that “turmoil in the crypto market” threatens traditional financial markets. Digital currencies had lost $1 trillion in value since October, including a bitcoin drop of more than 10 percent during the previous week. As a result, some crypto investors could be compelled to sell other assets.

A more recent article in the New York Times elaborated on the significant consequences of Trump’s embrace of crypto:

An array of boundary-pushing new crypto ventures have emerged this year, exposing more people to the volatile world of virtual currencies. More than 250 publicly traded companies are now stocking up on cryptocurrencies, which are digital assets that fluctuate in price like stocks, bonds or other investments.

A wave of companies have started offering products that make it easier to incorporate crypto into brokerage accounts and retirement plans. And industry executives are pitching regulators on a plan to offer coins that represent shares in public companies, which would be traded in a crypto-powered version of the stock market.

I don’t pretend to understand all the ins and outs of crypto, but it is clear that acceptance of its legitimacy, politically and financially, fueled by vigorous political lobbying and cultivated by Trump and his family, holds serious potential danger for America’s financial system. Citizens of the United States over the past forty-five years have had enough of financial film-flam and economic mumbo-jumbo. Let us have some transparency and stability for a change.

Share Putting In My Shovel

https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/what-is-cryptocurrency

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beccabratcher/2025/10/16/the-making-of-trumps-crypto-fortune/

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/11/the-crypto-trio-how-the-cryptocurrency-industry-has-made-its-mark-on-2024-elections/

https://coinledger.io/learn/what-is-a-memecoin?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20262843107&gclid=Cj0KCQiAr5nKBhCpARIsACa_NiO80ls4K7zC_tzOg5xhNe1ppF5YwDZJPDgeBc81kSk1iW6HEcQRrS8aAuzvEALw_wcB

https://apnews.com/article/democrats-crypto-genius-act-stablecoin-trump-9e56e7a4ea9881bc83d2c35a9a9a2a19

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stablecoins-issues-for-regulators-as-they-implement-genius-act/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_medium=email&utm_content=387555648&utm_source=hs_email

Paul Krugman

The Trump Trade is Unraveling

What is Bitcoin good for? It isn’t money — that is, it isn’t a medium of exchange, something you can use to make payments. It isn’t a hedge against inflation. It isn’t a hedge against financial risks — on the contrary, the price of Bitcoin has generally moved in the same direction as the AI-related stocks driving the stock market these days, but with ev…

Read more

9 months ago · 2260 likes · 295 comments · Paul Krugman

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/business/20250806/simon-johnson-crypto-crises-are-coming#:~:text=Simon%20Johnson%2C%20a%202024%20Nobel,a%20professor%20at%20the%20MIT

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/technology/trump-crypto-unleashed.html

Budgetary gridlock in the US Congress is not a new phenomenon. The last time America’s lawmakers passed all required appropriations measures on time was in October 1996, for the FY1997 budget. They are addressing the FY2026 budget.

The current stalemate was triggered by the failure of the appropriations bill before Congress to fund premium tax credits for the purchase of health insurance through federal or state healthcare marketplaces. Nor does the bill, crafted with only Republican support, address the steep hike in healthcare insurance premiums slated for next year. Democrats in the US Senate had refused to vote for the bill until Republicans agreed to negotiate some inclusion of the tax credits, leaving the measure short of the necessary 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Share

Instead of encouraging Congressional Republicans to seek common ground with their Democratic colleagues, Trump chose to punish innocent families, many with children, by denying access to essential assistance. His administration has fought vigorously to withhold congressionally appropriated funds to support SNAP as well as valuable research related to healthcare advancements.

At the same time his minions slashed federal jobs and furloughed without pay many indispensable federal workers.

Trump even suggested that Republicans in the US Senate use their majority to end the filibuster which would eliminate the capacity of the minority in that body to influence the legislative process. Given that the current GOP majority received fewer votes from Americans than the Democratic minority, this would be an epic blow to democracy.

When the deal agreed to by the US Senate Monday was first announced, the reaction among most Democrats in Congress and at large was strongly negative, but after some reflection, a less gloomy view is prevailing. Although the compromise does not address directly either the tax credits or the increase in healthcare insurance premiums, the GOP majority leader in the US Senate has agreed to hold a vote in December on funding the tax credits which will confirm Republican responsibility for the crisis.

The seven Democratic senators and one independent who decided to break ranks with their colleagues and to provide the needed votes pass the appropriations bill were motivated by a humanitarian desire to end the cruel pain inflicted on vulnerable Americans by Trump. But even if the agreement made possible by the rump Democratic caucus is implemented, it will not resolve the basic problems plaguing the American political system. There are other issues that need to be addressed.

Share

Almost every day there is a development in America’s financial landscape that strains credibility or common sense. Nobody seems to be in charge as events of significant economic consequences are proposed or occur in helter skelter fashion.

For example, one of the major reasons for the current budget crisis is the failure of both political parties to act decisively to reform the income tax structure. Protecting the 2017 Trump tax cuts for the wealthy which added nearly $2 trillion to the national debt required imposing severe restraints on a meaningful social safety net for all Americans. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the One Big Beautiful Bill will add $4.1 trillion to the national debt already at $38.1 trillion.

The inequitable nature of the tax code is reflected in the growth of billionaires in America. According to a recent study by the Wall Street Journal, there are now 1,135 billionaires in the US. There were 44 in 1987.

And the billionaires are accumulating a higher percentage of the country’s wealth with no slackening in their quest. Elon Musk has just won his demand for $1 trillion commitment for his part-time employment with Tesla. Apparently, there is no one minding the store at Tesla, protecting the interest of the individual stockholder nor is there any government entity with the power to restrain this kind of greed.

It is difficult to address the dangers that this concentration of wealth and resources imposes on the nation’s politico-economic system. Even before the notorious Citizens United decision, the wealthy and rich corporate interests were beginning to spend large sums of money to influence political elections at all levels. They also have created a massive lobbying complex that continues to be quite successful in furthering narrow special interests rather than broad public concerns.

American of all political persuasions need to realize that while today it is Donald Trump wreaking financial havoc and trashing the rule of law, he is but the product of the gridlock that is choking the nation’s ability to govern effectively. Today, Trump is acting with the complicit support of Republicans in the Congress and on the US Supreme Court, but merely bring in a new set of actors with different political labels will not be sufficient. The inequities that have resulted from the concentration of wealth at the very top need to be addressed. Enthusiasm for new technologies should be tempered with caution to ensure the public interest is served, not the advantage of a select few. And above all the wisdom of our constitutional system of governance deserves greater respect.

Share

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/12/house-bill-government-shutdown-vote

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/01/congress-has-long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/what-we-know-about-americas-billionaires-1-135-and-counting-98d22268

https://kanebridgenews.com/what-we-know-about-americas-billionaires-1135-and-counting

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/a-clear-eyed-look-at-the-consolidation-of-a-billionaire-class

There were short term concessions by both---Trump agreed to reduce some tariffs and to suspend export controls that would have prevented some Chinese firms from accessing American technology, while Xi suspended for a year limits on exports of rare earth metals and agreed to buy more US soybeans. Both pledged to suspend port fees against the other. Xi also warned against the “vicious cycle of mutual retaliation.”

The future of Taiwan, claimed by China, but an economic and military partner of the US, was not discussed. Neither did China’s access to Nvidia’s state-of-the-art Blackwell chips receive any attention

Share

True to form, the mercurial US president threw a last-minute curve ball in the game by announcing just as he was to meet Xi that he had “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.” Trump implied that China was not the target of his decision, but that did not ring true given that Xi has for several years now sought to “build a high-level strategic deterrence system” by expanding China’s nuclear arsenal. Xi did not appear disturbed by Trump’s gambit. The China foreign ministry issued a statement saying it hoped the US would stick to a moratorium on nuclear testing.

Trump’s nuclear weapons testing proposal got more pushback from US sources. American nuclear weapons engineers have said for years that computer modeling has replaced live testing. Also, the director of the Arms Control Association, Daryl Kimball warned it would take 36 months to resume underground nuclear testing in Nevada.

While Trump claimed Thursday’s meeting “was a 12” on a scale of zero to 10, there were few specifics decided. The closing statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry was more ambiguous:

President Xi noted that the two teams had an in-depth exchange of views on important economic and trade issues and reached consensus on solving various issues. They should work out and finalize the follow-up steps as soon as possible and ensure that the common understandings are effectively upheld and implemented, to inject confidence into the two countries as well as the global economy through solid deliverables.

It included references as well to issues that Trump did not mention in his summary:

There is good potential for the two countries to work together on combating illegal immigration and telecom fraud, anti-money laundering, artificial intelligence, and responding to infectious diseases.

Share

During his tour Trump visited several other countries with whom the US has important economic and political relationships, including Malaysia, Japan and South Korea. All are impacted significantly by the conflict between the US and China, but Trump’s unilateral trade negotiations have allowed them little say about their own future. For the most part, Trump was treated in those countries like a visiting potentate. In fact, South Korea figured out how to present him a crown, and the new Japanese prime minister said she was going to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump’s insistence that these countries also “invest” in the US may cause serious economic problems for them domestically. Their populations may come to view the Trump strategy as just another form of foreign imperialism.

Overall, Trump has not received high marks for his diplomatic accomplishments. He has minimum appreciation for the subtleties of international discourse. He gives short shrift to the challenges faced by other national leaders. And he grossly overestimates the effectiveness of tariffs as tools for trade negotiations or economic development.

Trump also fails to understand how a sound domestic foundation is essential to achieving any foreign agreement, economic or political. The country would have been better off had he stayed at home and tended to the burning domestic fires. His stubborn insistence that Congressional Republicans refuse to negotiate with Congressional Democrats regardless of the impact on the health of Americans, has shut down the Federal Government for a month with no end in sight. Whatever progress he thinks he might have accomplished during his Asian tour may die a slow death as our domestic turmoil continues.

Share

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-asks-pentagon-immediately-start-testing-us-nuclear-weapons-2025-10-30

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202510/t20251030_11743886.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20251030&instance_id=165444&nl=dealbook&regi_id=6462279&segment_id=209627&user_id=330c0900860a81d01c336801945b34c2

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/30/business/dealbook/trump-xi-china-meeting.html

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/against-china-xi-jinping-jonathan-czin?s=espzz005o4

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/business/south-korea-trump-tariffs.html

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/28/us/trump-news-south-korea

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/26/us/politics/trump-erratic-foreign-polic

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/25/business/trump-tariffs-southeast-asia-transshipment.html

“to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter.”

“to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise.”

This view of “negotiating” is reinforced by the financial website, Investopedia, which defines “negotiation” as “a strategic discussion that resolves an issue in a way that both parties find acceptable.”

Based on these definitions, the prospects for an early end to the shutdown in Washington are dim.

Share

First of all, there is a stark difference in how the problem is percieved by the parties involved. According to polling data collected by AP/NORC, a joint venture of Associated Press news service and the nonpartisan research center at the University of Chicago, a majority of all Americans see the shutdown as a “major” problem, 54%. But only 37% of Republicans consider it a major problem. Independents, 59% and Democrats, 69% view the stalemate of much greater significance.

At issue in the standoff is the extension of premium tax credits for purchase of health insurance through federal or state healthcare marketplaces. These tax credits were established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and first became available in 2014. As result of enrollment increases since 2017 and an expansion of the tax credits during the Biden Administration, the overall cost of the tax credits has increased from $49 billion annually in 2017 to $98 billion in 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also has estimated that elimination of the expanded premium tax credits would result in nearly 4 million Americans losing healthcare insurance coverage.

Share

The Repubican leadership, essentially Trump since he has unfetthered control over the GOP, is willing to allow the loss in coverage, claiming the tax credits are fiscally unsustainable, allow widespread fraud and serve as a subsidy to large health insurers. In his personal rhetoric regarding the issue, Trump has used vituperative language, describing Democrats as “deranged” and wanting to give health care in America to “millions and millions of illegal aliens,” even though undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in ACA plans.

Trump has shown little interest in creating an atmosphere for reconciling differences with Democrats. His AI shenanigans reached a new low last weekend when he posted an AI meme on Truth Social that depicted himself flying a fighter jet over protesters and dumping raw sewage on them. Earlier he used AI to mock Democrat Congressional leaders, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Vice President J. D. Vance seem in a competition to see who can be the greater syncophant towards he who would be king. Either failing to recognize the significance of history or thinking the public has a very short memory, Johnson insists Republicans will only discuss Democrat proposals to extend the Medicare tax credits after the bill in question has passed. Democrats who were not allowed any input when the original bill was drafted apparently are not interested in being burned twice. Vance accuses Democrats of using “policy disagreements as leverage,” when in fact they are using their very limited voting strength in a heavily gerrymandered US House as leverage to achieve a narrow, but important policy win for several million Americans.

Any expectation that Trump’s minions will not parrot his behavior would be wasted. Speaker Johnson who called the No Kings rallies “hate America rallies” has also claimed Democrats are afraid of their “far-left” base. Yet he refuses to convene the house at this critical hour, because he would have to swear in Representative-Elect Adelita Grijalva. The Arizona Democrat has pledged to be the 218th signers of a discharge petition that will force a vote to release the full Department of Justice file on Jeffrey Epstein.

Share

Trump and his official allies refuse to concede that opponents, whether Democrats or the few critics within the GOP, have any legitimacy. Ignoring the slim margin of his victory in 2024 and the continuing decline of his approval ratings since, the rhetoric emanating from the Oval Office has set the tone for all communication flowing from his administration and congressional supporters.

One has to suspect that Trump and the Republican are happy with the standoff. The “shadow president,” Russell Vought, installed as Director of Office of Management and Budget with the assistance of the servile GOP majority in the US Senate, is free to slash federal funds and jobs without justification. The primary author of Project 2025 is no longer denied by Trump, who now refers to Vought as the “Darth Vader” of budget cuts, “cutting Democrat priorities, and they’re never going to get them back.”

Granted, Republicans dominate all three branches of the Federal Government today as well as a majority of state governments, but the governance system created in the US Constitution is designed to block the exercise of absolute power and prevent one-man rule. The American Revolution was fought to remove the King, not to enhance his authority and to enrich him personally.

Share

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negotiate.

https://apnorc.org/projects/most-see-the-federal-shutdown-as-a-problem-and-think-there-is-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around

https://ballotpedia.org/Premium_tax_credits

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-09/61734-Health.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/20/politics/trump-no-kings-protests-vance-cia-analysis?iid=cnn

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/29/politics/trump-ai-generated-video-schumer-jeffries-shutdown

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/10/21/trump_praises_darth_vader_russ_vought_hec_cutting_democrat_priorities_and_theyre_never_getting_them_back.html

At the last meeting of our book club in mid-September at the Lanier Library in Tryon, NC, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder by Salman Rushdie was discussed. When the book was selected, I was not particularly enthused. I had never read anything by Rushdie and his reaction to his near death experience did not strike me as likely to have much current relevance. I was wrong.

First, let me recall for you Rushdie’s situation in August 2022, when he suffered the vicious physical attack described in this book. In February 1989, the-then Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning Rushdie to death for his novel The Satanic Verses, which Iranian cleric deemed blasphemous. A fatwa is an edict, or ruling, by a recognized religious authority on a point of Islamic law. It does not always call for the target’s death, but in this case it did. Khomeini also declared that anyone killing Rushdie would be considered a “martyr” and would go to paradise.

Rushdie, who was born in India to a non-practicing Muslim family, had become a British citizen by 1989. As such, he was provided British police protection for nine years following issuance of the fatwa. During a couple of years diplomatic relations between London and Tehran were severed, but in 1998, a new Iranian regime assured the British that they would not implement the fatwa. It was, however, not withdrawn.

The Indian author moved to New York City in the late 1990s and appeared to have outlived the reach of the fatwa. In 2007, Queen Elizabeth II knighted Rushdie for his contributions to literature, and he had become something of a free speech hero in the West for his campaign to highlight the importance of keeping writers safe from harm. This was the scheduled topic for the remarks of Sir Salman Rushdie when he stood on stage at the Chautauqua Institution on August 12, 2022.

Share

Before Rushdie had the opportunity to speak that day, a 24-year old assailant armed with a knife bolted to the stage and physically attacked him. Rushdie, 75, was stabbed at least fifteen times, losing the sight in his right eye and suffering significant blood loss. One of his doctors told Rushdie, “You’re lucky that the man who attacked you had no idea how to kill a man with knife.”

In his book, Rushdie describes his emotional and physical reaction to the attack and its fallout. He expresses his gratitude to those who helped him survive, with special nods to his wife Eliza and his sister Sameen. My own thoughts about what happened to Rushdie were crystalized when I thought about the slaying of Charlie Kirk just four days before our book group’s discussion of Knife.

For example, when you compare what happened to Rushdie with how Kirk died, you realize that guns really do enhance the negative results of physical violence. Rushdie was stabbed at least fifteen times by the young assailant wielding a knife the Indian author could not escape but he still survived. Kirk was shot by someone unseen and unannounced some 200 yards away and the political activist had no chance for survival. Yet our society is constantly working to make guns more accurate, more user friendly and more easily obtained and carried. Is that a strategy for a safer, saner society?

Consider the fatwa. It is supposedly a religious “tool.” When they drafted the First Amendment, did the framers envision religious freedom to include the right to advocate some dissenter’s death? Is there, in fact, any provision of the US Constitution that suggests anyone should be condemned to death without due process of law? But today we have in the United States political figures and other self-anointed individuals who freely use such threats against those who disagree with them. It is not that these individuals intend themselves to actually carry out such threats, but in our world of unfettered social media and poorly regulated firearms access, there are those who will feel called upon to act---violently.

As indicated in Knife, Rushdie had made significant adjustments in his lifestyle as result of the fatwa. He grew a bit careless, however, failing to realize that deadly violence which occurs in America today in schools, in churches, in supermarkets, in shopping malls, at sports events, and at neighborhood parties can also occur during a discussion on how to keep authors safe at a well-respected national forum like Chautauqua, hardly a site you might think of as just another place for deadly violence.

Share

When Trump won in 2016, there was some suspicion among political pundits that he really did not expect to win; that the campaign had been a publicity stunt by a reality TV star with a half dozen bankruptcies to his credit but not a clue about how to govern the world’s richest and most powerful nation. He floundered in choosing candidates for key Cabinet posts and tended to rely on recommendations from some old hands in the Republican establishment and a few special interest groups.

Trump was never happy with his first set of senior administrators. Although he came in with no government experience, he had strong opinions and little patience with informed advice. During Trump’s first term fourteen of his Cabinet appointees left. By comparison, only two departed in George W. Bush’s initial four years.

Share

In Trump’s second term, the former television celebrity came in with his own choices for senior administrative positions. The criteria for selection appeared thin, mostly related to personal loyalty to him. Quite a number have come from the ranks of Fox News and several have no notable qualifications or experience. Still, the GOP senators who control the upper house rarely have denied confirmation.

Despite his knowledge and experience deficits, Trump has effectively dominated the news cycle through his use of social media, primarily Twitter during his first term, and now his own vehicle, Truth Social. The short choppy messages with which he floods the Internet are full of threats, insults, conspiracy theories and false statements. Often his tweets have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but are designed only to demean their target. According to one estimate, Trump during his first term tweeted more than 25,000 times, an average of 18 times per day. Their contributions to informed policymaking is debatable.

Three serious international problems confront the United States today: Russia’s ongoing assault of Ukraine, the future of our relationship with China and the search for peace in the Middle East. Trump has failed to achieve any progress towards a satisfactory resolution of any of these problems. In fact, since his return to the White House, all have become more threatening to America’s long term national interest.

Share

Consider Ukraine first. Trump claimed before his election that once in office he would end the conflict in 24 hours. Instead, in an Oval Office “ambush” in February Trump humiliated the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, implying that he was the obstacle to a peace settlement with Russia and had been disrespectful of US assistance. Since then, Trump has been unable, or unwilling, to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table for any meaningful discussion about ending his country’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine.

Neither Trump nor his senior advisors appear to have any appreciation for what is at stake for the two combatants. Despite significant support for Ukraine among congressional members of both parties and the American public, the Trump administration has slow-walked efforts to find a solution to the conflict satisfactory to Ukraine. At one point, Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio summed up the administration’s position on ending the conflict in blunt terms:

“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on. It’s not our war. We have other priorities to focus on.”

In the face of Trump’s fecklessness, Russia continues to bludgeon Ukraine, but perhaps more importantly, America’s NATO allies who disagree with Trump’s cozy approach to Putin are assuming they cannot rely on the US in the future. Few things are more damning in international diplomacy than being considered an unreliable partner.

Share

US relations with China have been discombobulated by Trump’s wild and incoherent tariff threats. Besides his lack of any basic understanding about who will actually pay for the tariffs, Trump seems to think the US market is so critical to China’s economic well-being that he can impose an endless series of levies on the Chinese regime. But China possesses significant resources that are important to the US economy---near total domination of the world’s rare earth metals, manufacturing capabilities that are critical for several key US industries and finally a potential consumer base that far outstrips the US market.

Trump’s tendency to publicly interpret private discussions with leaders of other countries in a manner that indicates “acceptance” of US demands, i.e., China’s continued restrictions on providing the US access to its rare earth metals, does not earn him any negotiating points. Agreements among countries require confidence in the veracity of participants.

China does not appear to be overly concerned about Trump’s threats of 145% tariffs. While they seem to be making some effort to replace US trading partners, the Chinese are focusing more on expanding their influence in situations where the US has disrupted normal international activities. In fact, the Trump administration has been forced to call on China for assistance in convincing Iran not to close the Straits of Hormutz.

Share

Which brings us to the third major international crisis facing the US, the search for peace in the Middle East.

Trump has never understood the complexities of America’s relations in the Middle East. As a candidate in 2016, he denounced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated by the Obama administration to restrain the Iran nuclear program. Once in office Trump withdrew the US from JCPOA, adopting the Israeli hardline view that the agreement did not go far enough to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions nor Iran’s support for militant proxies in the region. Although Iran continued to honor the agreement for a brief period, the inspection mechanism included to insure Iran’s compliance has broken down, leaving the outside world uncertain about the progress the Islamic Republic might have made.

The conflict in the Middle East, however, is about more than nuclear proliferation. A significant source of oil and gas for the world, the region also is the locale of some of the most bitter religious and cultural rivalries on the planet. Every American president since Dwight Eisenhower has expended significant political capital, trying to play the role of an honest broker able to tamp down potential clashes.

Trump has chosen a different course. In his first term he took several steps that undermined such a role for the US. Moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017, sparked a strong negative reaction from Palestinians as well as from most major countries. The US had to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning the actions. A couple of years later Trump recognized as part of Israel the Golan Heights, taken from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has doubled down in his support of Israeli’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Twice, Trump has threatened Hamas with “hell to pay” if they did not release all the hostages taken in the October invasion of Israel. Although quiet in the face of Israel’s aggressive attacks on Gaza and Iran, Trump’s “Midnight Hammer” strike last month against Iran’s nuclear facilities appears to have been coordinated with Israel. The actual results of that strike have not been determined, but it will likely be far less than the hyperbolic claims hawked by Trump and his minions.

Either Trump does not realize the delicate position of Israel in a Middle East dominated by countries that perceive it as an unwelcomed interloper, or he fails to appreciate just how much damage can be inflicted on US interests during an open war in the region. He also does not seem to recognize that Iran is a nation of 92 million people with a culture that can be traced back to 500 B.C. and it will not fade away like a will-of-the-wisp.

To sum up, Trump came into office unprepared for the responsibilities he was assuming. Based on his record thus far, there is little likelihood that he will leave a foreign policy legacy worthy of being labeled, the Trump Doctrine.

Subscribe now

https://apnews.com/article/trump-russia-ukraine-war-633a216d0506c82353fc7745b69c0fe0

https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-security-guarantees-trump-meeting-washington-eebdf97b663c2cdc9e51fa346b09591d

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war.html

https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-tariff-rates-2025/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-deal-related-trade-was-signed-with-china-wednesday-2025-06-26/

https://connect.brookings.edu/how-will-ai-influence-us-china-relations-chinas-rare-earths-dominance-and-more?ecid=ACsprvt8U_tyTc0CQ7QH2Rl8DqcT4pHkZE_AtVs3aRybcilxVxlzq4X610ieH-ZX7wlUQB_YDNqO&utm_campaign=China%20Bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_content=368933188&utm_source=hs_email

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-urges-china-dissuade-iran-closing-strait-hormuz-2025-06-22/

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/irans-islamist-proxies

https://forbes.ge/en/the-most-sanctioned-countries/

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-do-we-know-if-us-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-facilities-were-successful/?utm_campaign=This%20Week%20in%20Foreign%20Policy&utm_medium=email&utm_content=368842828&utm_source=hs_email

Especially effective has been Trump’s tariffs on automobiles and auto parts. By frequently juggling the amounts intended and engaging in a shell game as to who and what will be covered, Trump has managed to alert Americans to the degree to which the production of cars in the world has been scrambled by globalization. Most Americans are very much aware of the competition between cars built by American automakers and those produced by foreign automakers, but few seem conscious of the fact that every automobile produced in the US contains at least 40% of auto parts made elsewhere. In some case, the entire automobile sold under the label of an American company has been produced elsewhere. For example, General Motors builds its Buick Envista in South Korea and in China.

Several foreign-based automakers now assemble vehicles in the United States. In addition to the massive BMW facility in South Carolina, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia, Mercedes and Volvo have production plants in this country. The number of cars produced by foreign-based automakers in the United States in 2023 surpassed the number produced by America’s Big Three, GM, Ford and Stellantis.

Share

Both American and foreign automakers are suffering whiplash trying to keep up with the latest Trump tariff manipulation. The Americans have sent him multiple pleas to cool it, while foreign companies have begun to re-examine the scope of their US operations. Take the case of BMW for instance. Last year their South Carolina facility exported to other countries automobiles worth more than $10 billion. Retaliatory tariff against the US could scuttle that business.

Since Trump’s whole tariff scheme is the work of one man and not part of a plan developed in cooperation with the US Congress, what the future might bring makes everyone uneasy. While in recent years Congress has been polarized and frequently unable to act, it had continued to be jealous of its control of the nation’s purse, but Congress has remained mostly silent as Trump, with an assist from Elon Muck, has proceeded to dismantle much of the federal government.

Share Putting In My Shovel

When Trump won the first time, it was a surprise to him as well as to most pundits and the general public. He really did not have any prospective cabinet members in mind and consequently, sought advice from friends and Republican Party leaders, including those in Congress, regarding appropriate appointees. In general, Trump’s cabinet choices in his first term were reasonably competent, even though sometimes too close to special interests. Many, however, have since been critical of either Trump’s abilities or his character, or both. This has intensified Trump’s sense of disaffection.

Trump made it clear in the election campaign that he would come into office with a fury, much of it fueled by a desire for revenge over perceived mistreatment. And this time he has selected his cabinet nominees without any input from Republican Party leaders, even though the party controls both houses of Congress. Instead, loyalty to Trump and his agenda has been the primary qualification for a cabinet position and for other major appointments. Little attention has been paid to actual competence or experience. This leaves him without valuable counsel.

Although during the election campaign Trump denied having any knowledge of or involvement with the Project 25 agenda, his proposals for radically restructuring the federal government seem to have been based on the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint. Trump has even installed its primary editor, Russell Vought, as head of the Office of Management and Budget. However, the overhaul has been poorly received.

Share

Since FDR, every chief executive has had his first 100 days scrutinized closely, and compared to those of the nation’s longest serving president. Generally, they come off lacking. With Trump, the contrast is quite stark.

FDR came in with mandate at a time of catastrophic economic conditions. He had won the presidency in 1932 with over 57% of the popular vote and carried all but six states. In 2024, with a bustling economy and low (4%) unemployment, Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote and lost 18 states and the District of Columbia.

On his first day in office, FDR called a special session of Congress to consider legislation to address the economic crisis. During the first 100 days the legislators approved 15 major acts and 77 other measures to stabilize the economy and then rebuild it. Trump during his first 100 days has asked the Republican-controlled Congress to pass “one big bill” which is still stalled, and he has signed only 6 acts.

Trump has outdone FDR in one area---He issued 130 executive orders in his first 100 days compared to FDR’s only 99.

Share

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/business/trump-tariffs-cars-auto-industry.html

https://www.boisestate.edu/cobe/blog/2025/02/the-u-s-automotive-industry-supply-chain-challenges-and-transformations/#:~:text=Mexico%20and%20Canada%3A,is%20happening%20in%20these%20countries.

https://gsabusiness.com/us-based-international-automakers-outproduced-the-big-3-in-2023/

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/02/bmw-is-americas-top-vehicle-exporter/

https://allamerican.org/research/auto-manufacturing-report/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24gze60yzo

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-good-the-bad-and-the-unpredictable-in-trumps-cabinet

https://www.fdrlibrary.org/documents/356632/390886/actionguide.pdf/07370301-a5c1-4a08-aa63-e611f9d12

https://www.wdsu.com/article/executive-orders-presidential-history-comparison-get-the-facts/63424275

But in the Federalist Papers the judiciary was not relegated to second-class status. Writing in support of ratification of the new constitution, Alexander Hamilton stresses the critical importance of an independent and impartial judiciary within the tripartite system. In Federalist Paper No. 78, Hamilton concedes that the judiciary is “the weakest of the three department of power,” but he is adamant that the judiciary should remain independent of the other two branches, “…liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments....”

A prominent Framer of the US Constitution, Hamilton goes on to assert that “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law.”

Later in his essay, Hamilton adds a significant affirmation with timely relevance:

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency in the mean time to occasion dangerous innovations in the government and serious oppression of the minor party in the community.

Whether or not the current US Supreme Court has either the will or the inclination to fulfill Hamilton’s description of the judiciary’s role and responsibility is still in question. During the past twenty-five years, the court has issued several decisions that have sometimes disrupted settled law and have often stirred partisan passions.

A major blunder of the current US Supreme court is its insistence that it cannot address the glaring inequities in popular representation that have resulted from obvious gerrymandering of state legislatures and Congressional representation in the US House. Allowing this problem to fester has enabled undemocratic cabals in many states to spend valuable time and resources manipulate election laws and processes that protect their tenure instead of addressing legitimate societal interests.

Share

The struggle over gross gerrymandering of the state’s legislative and congressional representation was the key focus in Wisconsin’s recent judicial election. And there was the added outrage over Elon Musk’s egregious attempt to buy a seat on the state’s supreme court for a Trump-endorsed Republican juris. He failed and his candidate lost decisively, 55% to 45%. A senior advisor to President Donald Trump, the world’s richest man spent more than $25 million in contributions to PACs supporting the GOP candidate. Musk also used his social media company X, formerly known as Twitter, to boost the Republican, and in addition, he gave away two million-dollar checks to Wisconsin residents in an effort to enhance Republican turnout.

But anyone interested in the future preservation of constitutional government in the US should not be sanguine about the results of this election. Wisconsin supposedly chooses judges through nonpartisan elections with fixed terms, yet that is clearly not the case in reality. Total spending in this struggle likely exceeded $100 million. The Democratic candidate had her billionaire supporters as well, such as Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker and philanthropist George Soros, although they did not become as personally involved as did Musk.

The Wisconsin situation is not unique. Initially, judges in the various states were appointed by either the governor or the legislature. Today most states require judges go through an election at some stage of the selection process. Like Wisconsin, most claim these elections are nonpartisan, which is obviously false.

Share

North Carolina provides another sad example of unconstitutional partisanship. Since gaining control of the state legislature in 2010, NC Republicans have engaged in a continuing effort to use their initial success, not to demonstrate their fealty to improving life for all citizens of the state, but to disenfranchised potential dissenting voters and to diminish the authority of those state offices still held by Democrats. Already the NC General Assembly, still controlled by Republicans, is attempting to strip powers from the newly elected Democratic governor and Democratic attorney general, while remaining strangely quiet as the Trump administration cuts off grants supporting science and medical research at NC universities and is withdrawing FEMA assistance from victims of Hurricane Helene in the western region of North Carolina.

The failure of the US Supreme Court to address the gerrymandering crisis is reflected in recent machinations in the NC judiciary.

In January 2022, a lower state court found that the NC General Assembly had deliberately drawn extreme partisan maps for legislative seats and congressional districts, but the court also found that partisan gerrymandering claims were “nonjusticiable.” This latter view was based primarily on the 2019 US Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. The lower court’s ruling was appealed to the NC Supreme Court which at the time had a 4-3 Democratic majority. Based on the NC Constitution’s Free Elections Clause, the NC Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was justiciable and that the maps in question were “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymanders.” The maps were sent back to the trial court to oversee redrawing. By February all maps were redrawn. The legislative maps were approved by the trial court, but a slightly modified Congressional map was ordered for use in the 2022 elections. These decisions were upheld by the NC Supreme Court and in the ensuing congressional elections the NC congressional delegation split evenly, 7-7 between Democrats and Republicans. In the prior election the split was 8-5 in favor of Republicans.

But the battle was not over. NC had switched the election for judges from nonpartisan to partisan in 2018. Two years later, in NC Supreme Court elections, the Republicans gained two seats and the lone incumbent GOP associate, Paul M. Newby was elevated to chief justice after a faceoff with the incumbent Democratic chief justice Cheri Beasley, an African American. Newby won, but only by 406 votes out of nearly 5.4 million. Beasley called for two recounts, but when they failed to change the result, she conceded graciously and did not challenge any particular group of voters. In 2022, the Republicans unseated two more Democrats and achieved a 5-2 majority. Almost immediately, the newly constituted court overturned the earlier decision related to reapportionment of both legislative seats and congressional districts, allowing the Republican-controlled legislature to re-draft reapportionment maps. Experts recognized that congressional districts were dramatically changed and as expected after the 2024 election, the new count was 4 Democrats and 10 Republicans, including a newly drawn seat for the Republican Speaker of the NC House. An indication of the extent of the gerrymandering, Democratic candidates received 46% of the congressional votes cast in the 2024 elections, even though a “sacrificial lamb” could not be found in one district packed with Republican voters.

Share

NC Republicans are apparently not satisfied. In addition to the legislation underway to diminish the powers of the governor and attorney general, the only 2024 race for a seat on the NC Supreme Court remains unresolved. The election was won by the Democratic incumbent with the slim margin of 734 votes, but after two recounts confirming the result, the Republican loser, a current judge on the NC Court of Appeals, refuses to concede. Unlike the Democratic chief justice defeated in 2020 by 406 votes, he has sought to have the ballots of more than 60,000 voters thrown out, including some from Republican officeholders at the local level.

Most of the challenged voters have been voting in NC elections for several years and in large part, the loser’s claims against them had been dismissed earlier by the NC Board of Elections. Still, the loser was able to secure a favorable ruling from his Republican colleagues on the appeals court. The Democratic candidate appealed to the NC Supreme Court which rejected the bulk of the loser’s protest, but by a 4-2 vote the higher court did order the NC Board of Elections to pursue claims involving two of the challenged groups: 1) military and other overseas citizens who used absentee ballots but did not provide photo ID, and 2) voters who have a connection to North Carolina through their parents, but who have never resided in the state. Voters in the first group have been given 30 days from when they are notified by their county board of elections about the need for photo ID documentation to provide the same, but voters in the second group were ordered “removed from the supreme court contest.” This appears to violate the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act passed by the NC General Assembly in 2011.

All four votes for the NC Supreme Court decision came from Republicans, but one GOP associate justice dissented. Justice Richard Dietz wrote, “I expected that, when the time came, our state courts surely would embrace the universally accepted principle that courts cannot change election outcomes by retroactively rewriting the law. I was wrong.” Dietz goes on to lament the failure to reject the loser’s protest, saying “…the door is open for losing candidates to try this sort of post-election meddling in state courts in the future. We should not allow that.”

The NC Supreme Court 2004 election saga probably will not play out until mid-summer. As with the Wisconsin judicial election, American voters will continue to bemoan the partisan bent of today’s judiciary. An independent and impartial judiciary capable of safeguarding the constitutional rights of all persons within the nation’s reach was the vision of the authors of the US Constitution. That is an elusive goal when judges must campaign for office like ordinary politicians.

Share

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8km3zg3kyo

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-rcna198353

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/most-expensive-judicial-election-ever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_election

https://ballotpedia.org/State_judicial_elections,_2025

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/north-carolina-republican-override-veto-democrat-governor-rcna183703

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5251896-hurricane-helene-recovery-paralyzed/

https://southerncoalition.org/resources/what-happened-in-north-carolina-redistricting-after-the-2020-census/

https://www.ncsbe.gov/news/press-releases/2025/04/12/statement-nc-supreme-court-order-griffin-protest

https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2011/h514?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

https://www.carolinajournal.com/top-nc-court-upholds-60k-votes-challenged-by-griffin-leaves-others-in-doubt/

Schumer’s decision to rescue the GOP opposition was a surprise. Congressional Republicans had crafted a highly partisan continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government for the remaining six months of the fiscal year and as late as Wednesday (March 12), the New York senator was quoted on NBC New expressing adamant hostility tothe controversial CR:

Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort, but Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input---any input---from congressional Democrats. Because of that, Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House CR.”

Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass. I hope our Republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown on Friday.”

But on Thursday (March 13), Schumer did an about face. In remarks on the senate floor, he explained his position by claiming that a government shutdown is a “far worse option” than passing the GOP CR. The Senate Minority Leader continued, “…a shutdown would give Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk permission to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now.” That assessment cannot be considered a strong message on which to rally the troops.

Share

Schumer’s flip flop angered his fellow Democrats, especially those in the US House. When House Republicans drafted the CR without allowing Democrats in the house any participation in the process, Hakeem Jefferies, the Democratic Minority Leader in the US House, persuaded his caucus, with one exception, to oppose passage. The House Republicans were able to pass the CR on their own, but it was anticipated by House Democrats and many other observers that in the Senate where the filibuster rule requires 60 votes (out of 100) to bring any measure to the floor for a vote, Democrats would block cloture (ending debate and holding a vote).

Thus far, Rep. Jefferies has not publicly criticized Schumer, but other House Democrats have been more willing to scold. Jefferies’ predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, blasted the New York senator, saying “You don’t give away anything for nothing.”

Share

While there is no way to undo the CR passage, Schumer’s decision making in this case calls for some close analysis, since the current circumstances in Washington are likely to produce more situations where a congressional minority has a tough time remaining relevant.

First of all, how sound was Schumer judgement about who would be blamed for the shutdown if Democrats blocked cloture. He appears to have assumes that even though the Republicans control all branches of the federal government and had refused to offer any concessions to Democrats, the public would hold Democrats responsible for the shutdown.

Of course, Schumer’s decision means whether or not that would have been the case will never be known. But a Quinnipiac Poll released March 13 (conducted prior to Schumer’s announcement), indicated that if a government shutdown did occur, 31 percent would blame the Republicans in Congress the most and 22 percent would blame Trump the most, while only 22 percent would have blamed the Democrats in Congress the most.

The impact of Schumer’s decision on the few remaining moderates in the Republican Senatorial caucus can be judged with greater certainty. Although there was little opposition to Trump Cabinet appointments among Senate Republicans, there were several who were courageous enough to withhold support in some cases. Among the senate majority there were some who questioned some of Trump’s priorities, such as closing down USAID or the Department of Education. By offering enough votes to guarantee passage of the CR, however, Schumer in effect made any Republican opposition to the partisan CR in the Senate unlikely.

Subscribe now

Schumer’s failure to consult with others in the Democratic leadership prior to his decision as well as prior to the announcement of that decision does not bode well for any future coordinated action. Jefferies’ admirable refusal to criticize Schumer simply magnifies the senator’s arrogance.

Trump’s continued assault against the US Constitution and basic human fairness and decency has not let up after the passage of the CR. Nor does there appear to be any likelihood that Trump will be deterred by negative court decisions. He has even decided to attack some of the country’s major law firms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/schumer-senate-democrats-votes-gop-funding-bill-shutdown-rcna196029

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5194440-schumer-liberals-gop-government-funding-bill/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/opinion/trump-musk-shutdown-senate.html?searchResultPosition=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/us/politics/trump-memo-lawyers.html?searchResultPosition=5

In his first term Trump attempted to extort support for his presidential re-election campaign from Ukraine’s president by threatening to withhold Congressional-approved funds to assist Ukraine’s resistance. Now, he is demanding Ukraine give to the US 50% of its revenue from mineral and natural resources, including uranium, lithium, rare earth reserves, oil, gas, etc. In addition, he is insisting “that US companies must hold 50% ownership in Ukraine’s rare earth elements deposits.”

If you think this reads like nothing a US-administration has ever done before, you are correct. The Lend-Lease program FDR entered into with European nations fighting Germany prior to our direct involvement in World War II, did not require receiving countries to give up resources or land. FDR recognized our joint benefits in opposing Nazi tyranny.

It does resemble a program being pursued by the current regime in China. An agreement signed in 2007 between China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo grants Chinese companies access to cobalt, copper, and other minerals possessed by the DRC, valued at an estimated $93 billion, in return for infrastructure development.

Share

Trump’s behavior in matters related to Ukraine have alarmed not only the Ukrainians, his actions and those of his chosen representatives Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard and J. D. Vance, have spooked our longstanding European allies as well. Ukraine sits in the heart of Europe. It’s not surprising political leaders in Ukraine and in neighboring European states expect to be involved in any negotiations about Ukraine’s future. Trump cannot be bothered.

Trying to understand the possible motives behind Trump’s obnoxious tactics is perhaps a fool’s errand. Sometimes leaders act with sinister objectives in mind. Sometimes they are just poorly informed and have surrounded themselves with inexperienced and/or self-serving advisors.

Trump has more than his share of those.

Perhaps Trump fails to recognize the differences between our current assistance to Ukraine and our earlier failed venture in Vietnam. The former serves today a clear American national interest. We eventually recognized the latter did not.

Share

America’s quagmire in Vietnam occurred incrementally. At first, we were motivated to help the French resist what appeared to a Communist-supported rebellion, not realizing that many Vietnamese saw us as defending continued colonial rule. The locals that the US supported later had significant ties the French and were more sympathetic to Western values than most Vietnamese. Our effort to influence the outcome of what was a civil war became a costly failure.

The current conflict in Ukraine is not a civil war. Ukraine became an independent country in 1991, after the collapse of the USSR. At the time Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 44 strategic bombers, but it indicated a willingness to give up nuclear weapons with appropriate security guarantees. These were eventually provided in a series of negotiations, culminating in the Budapest Memorandum signed in December 1994 by US, Russia, United Kingdom and Ukraine.

Russia and the US reaffirmed those guarantees in a 2009 Joint Declaration.

Until last week there was never any question about the US determination to honor that commitment. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin has never accepted the legitimacy of Ukraine’s sovereignty and has made it clear he wishes to absorb all of Ukraine into the Russian state.

Initially, Putin pursued clandestine efforts to subvert Ukrainian elections. Twice, he has resorted to naked military action.

In 2014, following the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, a Putin-sympathizer, Russian troops occupied Crimea’s parliament and installed a pro-Putin government. A sham referendum was held in March 2014, which led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Russian-backed militia continued to seek control of regions in eastern Ukraine.

Share

Putin’s second foray began three years ago with much greater violence. He apparently hoped to chase the Zelensky government away. Some observers speculated that Ukraine resistance might not last three days.

Instead, the Ukrainians have made the Russians pay dearly for the few gains they have achieved. More than 700,000 dead and wounded have dwarfed Ukrainian casualties. Unlike the Vietnamese, Ukraine has not asked for troops, but has fielded a million-man military, staffed and led by Ukrainians.

Ukraine does rely heavily upon allies for military weapons and equipment and it needs economic support, since Russia has targeted civilian industrial and energy infrastructure. Most of the aid Ukraine has received has come from the US and Europe, the result of the Biden administration’s leadership in organizing international opposition to Putin’s aggression.

America’s reputation is already in tatters as result of Trump’s perfidy. The British magazine, The Economist summed it up well:

When the use of power is untethered by values, the result can be chaos on a global scale….By turning away from the values that made postwar America. Trump will be surrendering the single greatest strength that his despotic opponents do not possess.

Subscribe now

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine-continue-to-differ-by-party/

https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-viability-us-ukraine-minerals-deal

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2593779-china-starts-7bn-road-building-project-in-drc

https://origins.osu.edu/read/soviet-ukraine-nutshell

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/world/europe/us-russia-saudi-ukraine.html?campaign_id=4&emc=edit_dk_20250219&instance_id=147909&nl=dealbook&regi_id=6462279&segment_id=191382&user_id=330c0900860a81d01c336801945b34c2

That he would pursue an aggressive and mean spirited agenda, motivated in large measure by his obsession with personal grievances, is not surprising. But two factors make his actions very damaging to America’s future: one, he obviously has no respect for the US Constitution and the basic system of separate branches it creates, and two, the absence of any serious pushback against his lawless abuse of the presidency from members of his party in Congress, especially those in the US Senate. When Lyndon B. Johnson went too far in Vietnam, Democrats in the US Senate were among his fiercest critics. When Richard M. Nixon attempted to use executive agencies to hide his personal corruption, Republicans in the US Senate called his hand.

Share

Commenting on each and every one of Trump’s unruly initiatives would be time consuming as well as repetitious which is exactly what Trump intends. Despite the fact that he campaigned as a “populist,” Trump’s strategy is not designed to address the needs of the underserved among the American people. His objective is to sow chaos across the board and to distract public attention while he and his close associates consolidate their control over the country’s political and economic institutions with the goal of enriching themselves with big tax cuts and enhanced opportunities to exploit the nation’s working citizenry.

I’ll make only a couple observations.

Trump claims a “mandate” from last November’s election. Since 1960 when I first voted for president (actually, I voted for a slate of electors committed to my candidate), there have been three presidential elections in which the winner received a popular vote total that could be considered a “landslide” and possibly indicative of a mandate: Lyndon B. Johnson collected 61.1% of the popular vote in 1964, Richard M. Nixon won 60.7% of the popular vote in 1972, and Ronald Reagan enjoyed a popular vote of 58.8% in 1984. All won by margins significantly higher than Donald J. Trump’s 2024 win with 49.8%; and none claimed that God was on their side. If She were interested, I’m sure She could have done much better.

In office, Trump is not wielding his “mandate” as “President.” He is abusing the authority and status of the office by claiming the right to rule without the checks and balances that have governed the Presidency since the days of George Washington. What Trump wants is to be King. Most members of the Republican Party in Congress apparently are willing to allow him to assume a “crown,” ignoring their personal obligation to honor and defend the US Constitution. “Advice and consent” is not an empty phrase added to US Constitution for flourish.

Consider one of Trump’s first actions in office, trying to end birthright citizenship through an executive order. Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14^th amendment of the US Constitution and has been consistently confirmed by US courts:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That clause is there to prevent a president or a congressional majority from changing the criteria for citizenship by whim or to achieve a fleeting political advantage. Amending the US Constitution is provided for in the document itself, but it requires debate, time and a significant majority. The right to American citizenship deserves to be vigorously safeguarded.

Share

In most of his actions Trump seeks to undermine the relationship between the public and their government. Agencies that have provide important services to the general public or to significant elements have been subjected to mindless funding freezes and/or thoughtless manpower reductions.

Cutting the staff of the Internal Revenue Service at the height of tax season? Who does that benefit? The average American waiting anxiously for his tax refund? Or the wealthy hedge fund manager concerned that a diligent IRS auditor will discover that he has abused one the 171 tax loopholes in the current federal tax code?

Another bizarre Trump decision is the shutting down of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis after ordinary Americans became incensed over losing their homes while government bailouts were granted to major banks viewed as “too big to fail.” In its decade of service the CFPB has returned more than $20 billion to taxpayers, much of it from banks and collection agencies who have blatantly exploited consumers.

And this brings me to the role of Elon Musk. The wealthiest man in the world, Musk apparently has become Trump’s enforcer in this chaotic scheme. Unfortunately, an “idea” man, not a manager, Musk has deployed a team of “investigators” who are maybe technology savvy but who are sorely lacking in management skills or historical knowledge. Their inexperience raises questions about the soundness of their staffing recommendations. For example, on the basis of their recommendations, the Department of Energy fired and eliminated the jobs of employees responsible for designing and maintaining the country’s nuclear weapons. This alarmed national security experts across the board since these positions require high-level security clearances and training that can take 18 months or longer. The original dismissals have been rescinded, but whether or not all employees will return is not known.

Share Putting In My Shovel

Then there is the matter of Musk’s own conflicts of interest. In addition to the IRS and CFPB, there are nine other federal agencies that have pending complaints, investigations or regulatory disputes regarding Musk or one of the six companies he controls. They include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Election Commission, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior and Justice, and the Office of Government Ethics.

“Government Ethics,” apparently has become an idea for the “ages,” but not for the “here and now.” America deserves better.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-results

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-irs-prepares-lay-off-thousands-workers-nyt-reports-2025-02-14/

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Tax-Expenditures-FY2025.pdf

https://www.usnews.com/banking/articles/should-you-be-worried-about-the-cfpb-halt

https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/148-million-returned-to-consumers-in-two-cfpb-actions/article_dbeb64a2-b102-5253-8d0f-554388aa592d.htm

https://fortune.com/2025/02/14/doge-firings-nuclear-weapons-specialists-energy-department-layoffs-nnsa-elon-musk/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/elon-musk-companies-conflicts.html?searchResultPosition=1

Share