Reading this article was difficult, and I don’t like writing about its findings. Politicians, both here in America and in Israel, too often conflate criticism of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric, seemingly for the purpose of shutting down discussion and coverage of atrocities occurring in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in Gaza.

I am not anti-Jewish—I have Jewish family members. I am not anti-Israel—I support Israel’s and its citizens’ right to prosper, live securely, and defend themselves against outside attacks. I support U.S. efforts to provide defensive military aid to Israel, just as I support efforts to provide defensive military support to Ukraine or any other people under attack by aggressors.

I do not support Hamas or any other group, Arab or otherwise, trying to wipe out Israel or harm its people. I condemn their actions against Israel and its people, just as I condemn anti-Semitism here in the United States and racism of any kind.

The charges of anti-Semitism thrown at those of us who point out these crimes reminds me out of the anti-Catholicism charges thrown at those condemning the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests.

I do not support Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian lands or the displacement of innocent Palestinians from their homes and land. Instead of withdrawing and establishing a reasonable buffer zone, perhaps managed by the United Nations, Israel has continued to expand its presence in occupied Palestinian territory, including its actions in Gaza, at the expense of innocent Palestinian families who have little or no control over their fate.

Reading the opinions of former Israeli military officers and other government officials about what is happening in the occupied territories at the hands of Israeli settlers confirms what many people have been saying for years, only to be labeled anti-Semitic or anti-Israel by those who want to silence them. These Israeli military officers, all of whom have spent their lives serving and fighting for Israel, dating back to the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, cannot so easily be dismissed as political hacks.

Retired Major General Eyal Ben-Reuven, for example, recently visited the Israeli-occupied West Bank with a group of other retired military officials to see for themselves what Israeli settlers are doing to Palestinians there. As reported and photographed by Ahmed, Odenheimer, and Bergman, they “walked through the remains of a Palestinian school looted by Israeli settlers” and “listened to Palestinian shepherds and farmers describe being tortured by settlers who seize their livestock and land.”

Ben-Reuven said, “This, what the settlers are doing here, is a real threat to Israel. This is more concerning to me than Iran, Gaza or Lebanon.”

Retired Air Force General Asaf Agmon said that the effort by settlers to “erase the Palestinian presence from much of the West Bank” reminded him of what the Germans tried to do to the Jews. “Once a society behaves this way,” he said, “that society is doomed.”

Retired Brigadier General and former Minister of Health Ephraim Sneh, who also participated in the tour, added, “This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.”

The military officials saw Palestinian homes raided and torched by Israeli settlers, as well as mosques and villages destroyed, “with seeming impunity” by Israeli settlers and, in some cases, with Israeli military involvement. Instead of protecting the Palestinians, the retired officials said, Israeli soldiers sometimes sit and watch and, at times, even “join settlers to assault Palestinian villages together.”

As reported by Ahmed, Odenheimer, and Bergman, the United Nations has documented thousands of attacks in the West Bank, injuring thousands of Palestinians, as Israeli settlers have been “emboldened by the most right-wing government in the nation’s history.” More than 3,200 Palestinians have been displaced by settler attacks in 2026, according to the report, roughly double the rate of 2025. The goal, the retired officials argue, is clear—and seemingly supported by elements of the Israeli government.

One can hope that these former high-ranking Israeli military officials, by documenting, reporting, and condemning what is happening, will add credence to what many people around the world—including Israelis and U.S. officials—have been saying, only to have their concerns dismissed as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.

As Ahmed, Odenheimer, and Bergman reported, these retired military officials “are part of a small but rapidly expanding array of influential Israelis, including many from the upper echelons of the military and intelligence apparatus, who are publicly declaring the lawlessness in the West Bank a threat to Israel’s existence as a democracy.”

Polling in the United States also documents what appears to be significant erosion of support for Netanyahu’s government—not only among influential Israeli officials and, I believe, many Israelis, but also among the American public.

As I write this column, Vice President JD Vance is speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2026 National Leadership Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada. His talk is not public and is billed as a “closed-door, fireside chat,” with no press allowed. The coalition is concerned about forces within the Republican Party, including Tucker Carlson and others, who have blamed Netanyahu and other Israeli officials for convincing President Trump to attack Iran.

Carlson, however, should be the least of their concerns. While many MAGA Republicans appear to have little concern about allegations of war crimes and other atrocities against Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, younger Republicans and many Democrats appear to have seen enough, according to recent polling, and threaten the long-term relationship between the United States and Israel.

The actions of Netanyahu’s government in Gaza, as well as its policies toward Palestinians in the West Bank, have caused significant erosion of support for Israel around the world. For this, Netanyahu’s government is responsible, but the Israeli people will pay the price in the long-term.

The generals, along with more than 200 other prominent Israelis, recently signed a letter “demanding that the government stop the attacks against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. The signatories included two former prime ministers, more than three dozen retired Army and Air Force generals, the former heads of the nation’s foreign and domestic intelligence services, as well as rabbis, a Nobel laureate, and one of Israel’s most revered novelists,” according to The New York Times.

In their words, they are calling for an end to “Jewish terrorism” and “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank. They accuse the Israeli government of spending millions of dollars “in government spending on illegal Israeli outposts and farms,” as well as “money spent on roads, water, electricity, vehicles and weapons to support them.”

They report that the violence against Palestinian civilians is “unchecked, indiscriminate and targets innocent civilians, with the intent of clearing large stretches of the West Bank so that Israelis can take it for themselves and stamp out any prospect of a Palestinian state.”

The Trump administration is largely silent about all of this, of course. Netanyahu and Trump are partners in crime, and Trump could not care less about the Palestinian people.

We, the American people, however, must not be silent. All of this is happening with U.S. government financial support, our tax dollars, and in our name. Trump doesn’t care, but those of us who still believe in basic human rights must.

As stated in 1905 by Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

One frequently hears about Section 338 of the Act, giving the president the authority to impose unilateral tariffs of 50 percent if a foreign country’s policies discriminate against the U.S. However, it needs to be noted that this Section 338 has never been utilized because the world learned after the Great Depression that global trade was essential for global economic growth.

Is Trump trying to drive the U.S. into another depression by killing economic trade with other nations? Today, many farmers and other manufacturers who export their goods to Canada and other international destinations are facing depression-like consequences.

It is difficult for many Americans to fault Canada for refusing to purchase American products after Trump, as well as other Trump administration officials, throw insult after insult north of the border. A majority of Americans are tired of Trump’s tariffs and his tariff war with Canada has many of us scratching our heads.

After the global trade collapse, amplified by foreign retaliation, U.S. trade fell by two-thirds during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1932. Unemployment reached about 25 percent. Clearly, Trump hasn’t learned anything from this history, nor is he likely interested in this history.

Between 1930 and 2026, only one U.S. president—Trump—failed to learn the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts of 1930 and dared to take the U.S. down that road again.

Did Trump believe that Canada would allow the U.S. to impose 50 percent tariffs on hundreds of imports from Canada without retaliating with their own tariffs on U.S. exports to Canada? Did Trump believe that he could insult the government and people of Canada without a significant drop in tourism from Canada?

About 20 million Canadians visit the U.S. each year, spending about $21 billion and supporting about 140,000 U.S. jobs. But after one year of Trump’s insults targeting Canada, about 5 million fewer Canadians traveled to the U.S. during Trump’s second year in office, costing the U.S. tourism industry over $3 billion. The U.S. tourism industry expects Canadian tourism to the U.S. to drop significantly more in 2026.

Canadians are also protesting Trump’s insults by refusing to buy American products. U.S. liquor, for example, has been removed from store shelves, not because of a requirement by the Canadian government, but by the will of the Canadian people. Will this generalize to other American products? I can only imagine that it will.

Canada exports about $450 billion worth of products to the U.S. Only Mexico exports more. Consumers in the U.S. will have to pay some or all or most of the 50 percent tariff tax on these Canadian products, raising prices and inflation, again, on U.S. consumers.

In exchange, Canada will charge a 50 percent tariff on American imports, hurting American exporters, including Wisconsin cheese, Main seafood, and GE appliances produced in Kentucky. All total, U.S. farmers and manufacturers sell about $350 billion in goods to Canada each year, the most to any country. Losing even a small percentage of this trade would be devastating.

Trump has been successful in uniting the people of Canada. His repeated threats to make Canada the 51^st state and insulting Canada as being “nothing” without the U.S., are uniting them against Trump, with Americans paying the price for his incompetence and bullying behavior.

Canada, in response, has stated that they will start purchasing fewer products from the U.S. and diversify their imports. Other nations are happy to sell their products to Canada, of course. For example, instead of Canada spending 70 percent of their defense purchases at U.S. companies, they have begun to sign contracts with European companies. This week, for example, they announced that Canada will purchase its next submarine fleet—up to 12 submarines—from Germany, not the U.S. This contract alone could be worth about $100 billion during the lifetime of the contract. That’s $100 billion not being spent in the U.S.

Trump is making Germany great again. Obviously, other nations are happy to trade with Canada. Once these new markets are developed, it is unlikely that Canada will return to U.S. sellers, at least not anytime soon.

Who could blame them.

By 1947, the U.S., along with other nations around the world, learned that eliminating their trade wars was critical to building a strong global trading system and economy that benefited all nations. The lesson was that trade wars made everyone worse off.

Trump is not noted for reading history and doesn’t seem to have any interest in learning from the past. In fact, he hasn’t learned anything from his first four years in office, including the lessons of his first-term tariffs. During his first term, Trump’s tariffs increased inflation and reduced real income in the U.S. by about $1.4 billion per month, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The Federal Reserve found that Trump’s first-year tariffs did not help most manufacturing industries. In fact, manufacturing jobs decreased during Trump’s first term as a result of his tariffs. The trade deficit did not disappear; it increased significantly. The Federal Reserve documented a decrease in GDP by early 2020.

Nevertheless, when Trump returned to office in 2025, tariffs became his primary economic tool and cure for all economic ills. They did not work during his first term, have not worked during his second term, and are likely to cause great economic hardship for most Americans who depend on global trade and international cooperation for success.

Trump doesn’t understand any of this. He is a bully, has been reinforced for being a bully, and believes his bully tariffs will magically work—this time.

Canada, however, will not bend the knee like Trump’s weak Republican supporters in Congress. Like the people of Ukraine standing strong against a much stronger Russian aggression, the people of Canada will stand strong against our bully president.

Many Americans are joining them.

I keep saying that Trump breaks everything he touches—sometimes literally. Yesterday, I wrote that in a Facebook post in response to what the Trump administration is doing to destroy Stars and Stripes, the U.S. military’s newspaper, whose roots go back to the Civil War.

While roughly half of its funding comes from the Pentagon, its primary purpose is to provide independent news to service members and their families, free from Pentagon interference or propaganda. You would not know it by the actions of the Trump administration, but that independence is protected by law and guaranteed by Congress.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently does not appreciate the history or mission of Stars and Stripes. He has initiated a plan to increase Pentagon oversight of the newspaper. In the process, he fired its ombudsman, Jacqueline Smith, whose position was created by Congress to protect the paper from Pentagon influence.

Last week, Hegseth also fired the paper’s editor-in-chief, Erik Slavin; publisher Max Lederer; and reporter Lara Korte for “insubordination” after they discussed the importance of the paper’s independence.

This comes at the same time that Raw Story reports on the existence of a U.S. Central Command blacklist of reporters to “disregard,” attempts to shut down the Pentagon’s decades-old press room, denial of press access to Defense Department officials, and Trump’s repeated characterization of journalists as the “enemy of the people.”

Once again, as with tariffs and congressional funding, Congress—controlled by Republicans—has been AWOL. Hegseth is overriding statutory requirements imposed by Congress, including requirements intended to preserve Stars and Stripes’ independence from Pentagon influence. Republicans in Congress can act to protect this important news source for our military, but don’t hold your breath.

After all, Trump is having a field day imposing tariffs on our biggest trading partners, including Canada, even though the authority to impose tariffs, except in certain emergency situations, belongs to Congress. Yet Congress, controlled by Republicans, sits quietly by as Trump’s tariff taxes raise prices for ordinary Americans.

Trump has redirected funding approved by Congress multiple times. For example, he has redirected much of the funding for our national parks to vanity projects in Washington, D.C. He has withheld funds approved by Congress for individual states that did not vote for him. He has closed, by executive order, programs mandated and funded by Congress. Yet Congress, with Republicans holding the majority, sits quietly and allows him to usurp its authority and constitutional prerogatives.

Republicans in Congress are afraid of Trump, will not stand up to him, and, I believe, will lose control of the House and Senate in November as a result.

Remember when Republicans touted “small government” and “local control”? Today, they have a leader who tries to control everything from local school policies to our universities. Don’t agree with the president? Lose federal funding—even if that funding was approved by Congress.

The takeover of Stars and Stripes is the latest example of the Trump administration’s attempt to bring independent agencies and commissions under its control. These include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and many others.

In several cases, Trump has removed members of these commissions without cause before their terms had expired. In the cases of NPR and PBS, Trump has simply cut funding approved by Congress. At the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, he replaced board members and made himself chairman. Since then, the Kennedy Center is failing financially because no one wants to perform there.

He breaks everything.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given its blessing to expanded presidential control over some of these historically independent agencies—agencies designed by Congress to operate independently of the White House and to protect the public interest, not the president.

Trump also fired more than 17 inspectors general across the federal government, including at the Defense Department, State Department, Veterans Affairs, Energy Department, and Transportation Department. Their jobs included investigating waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct within these departments. Trump does not welcome independent oversight while he breaks things.

Congress, controlled by Republicans, does nothing in response, even though federal law requires advance notice to Congress before an inspector general is removed.

It will be interesting when, in 2028, a Democratic president moves into the White House with all this new presidential power—power approved by a Republican Supreme Court and tolerated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

Who thinks they will have a change of heart?

Picture: Me holding the remains of an ice cream cone on Rainbow Street, Reykjvik, Iceland

In my last column (“A Morning Off”), I mentioned that my wife Susan and I were on vacation in a country with state-supported universal health care and a rainbow street. A colleague and reader of this column asked, “Are you in Iceland?” Yes, Dr. Sherril Moon, you guessed it! Surely, the rainbow painted street, located in the capital city of Reykjavik, gave it away.

We spent this past week in Iceland, and it was amazing. For geography lovers, Iceland has it in spades: mountains, volcanoes, glaciers, waterfalls, black-sand beaches, and ancient lava flows. What it doesn’t have is equally fantastic—mosquitoes and snakes top that list for me.

Iceland is not the place to go if you want to see an abundance of land wildlife. You will mostly spot arctic foxes, rabbits, small rodents, cows, free-roaming lambs (which are everywhere!), and Icelandic horses—the latter being the primary reason we traveled there, as Susan loves to ride them. Wild reindeer may be seen in parts of Iceland.

On the other hand, birds are plentiful, though mostly seabirds and waterfowl. We watched Atlantic Puffins flying around the ocean cliffs where they fish, ducks, gulls, and terns. We were even surprised to spot a couple of swans, which are fairly common around the local lakes and rivers. If you love coastal birds, Iceland has many accessible and beautiful places to sit and observe them.

Iceland is also an incredible place to study the weather. We were lucky to experience little rain, with temperatures ranging from 38°F at night to the mid-50s during the day. Our daily hikes required multiple layers. It was warm while hiking toward the glaciers, but once we walked near or stepped onto the ice, especially if there was wind off the ice cap, it became much colder.

The Icelandic people are wonderful. They seem to understand that, unlike our president, most Americans do not confuse Iceland with Greenland, and that we are interested in visiting their amazing nation, not invading it. I was particularly impressed by the international workforce there. While America deports vital immigrant workers because some citizens fail to appreciate their economic contributions, Iceland welcomes them to supplement its workforce—especially in the tourism sector, which receives about 2.3 million visitors per year according to the Icelandic Tourist Board. First- and second-generation immigrants now account for about 22 percent of Iceland’s total population.

For perspective, Iceland’s permanent population is only about 400,000, with over half living in Reykjavik.

Around 29 percent of Iceland’s visitors come from the U.S., followed by the United Kingdom (10 percent), Germany (7 percent), China (6 percent), France (4 percent), and Italy (4 percent). Meanwhile, Iceland’s immigrant workforce primarily hails from Poland (30 percent), Ukraine (6 percent), Lithuania (5 percent), Romania, and the Philippines.

Between the diverse workforce and the global tourists, visiting Iceland feels like a trip to the United Nations. Being exposed to so many nationalities in such a happy, harmonious place made me feel sad for our own nation, where some look upon diversity with disdain. I am certain this attitude will lead to our economic downfall, as many Americans fail to understand the central role immigration plays in a thriving economy. Other nations recognize this and remain welcoming. We met workers from all over the world; some were on temporary summer programs, while others fell in love with the country and stayed. Our own guide, originally from America, moved there a decade ago and shows no signs of returning anytime soon.

Returning to the geography, Iceland features roughly 10,000 waterfalls, many within walking distance of some hotels. Most are fed by the country’s estimated 250 glaciers. Vatnajökull, Iceland’s largest glacier and the largest ice cap in Europe by volume, covers about 8 percent of the island. Many of these glaciers are accessible to hikers equipped with the right gear and guides, and many are visible right from the main highway that circles the island.

It is difficult to describe how massive and impressive these glaciers truly are. Looking at them from a distance does them no justice. Sadly, as our guide pointed out, they are melting rapidly due to climate change. Just this summer, a popular trail we hiked had to be rerouted because the glacier had receded so much that the original path had turned into a lake from the melting ice.

Iceland is only about a six-hour, direct flight from Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and I highly recommend it.

While we were gone, I see that nothing unusual happened in the U.S. outside of our new normal. I missed the headlines about Donald Trump’s assistant, Natalie Harp. According to the Financial Times, she holds the titles of Special Assistant and Executive Assistant to the President, earning about $150,000 per year primarily for “managing information.” Her job is to provide him with articles, social media posts, and news stories she believes he will find useful or favorable. I suppose that is a necessary expense for Trump’s fragile ego, even as our country cuts Medicaid for the elderly and supplemental food programs for children.

Heck, if she can keep him distracted from invading Greenland—or accidentally, Iceland—more power to her.

Talk to you on Sunday!

Let’s start with some definitions. When you read about the “percent of the eligible population” who voted, that means the percentage of Americans who are legally eligible to vote, generally citizens age 18 and older, excluding those who are ineligible under state law. This is the standard measure of voter participation.

Another measure is the “percent of registered voters.” This compares the number of people who actually vote with the number of Americans who are registered to vote. Because many eligible voters never register, the denominator is smaller, producing a higher turnout percentage—typically about 10 percentage points higher, on average.

Second, we need to clarify the four different types of elections in our election cycle. These are frequently confused when looking at turnout, but they are not apples-to-apples comparisons.

You cannot compare general-election turnouts with primary-election turnouts. Nor can you compare presidential election turnouts with non-presidential or midterm election turnouts. In 2024, for example, about 64 percent of eligible voters participated in the general presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. By comparison, only about one-third of eligible voters participated in the 2024 presidential primaries to select the general-election candidates.

Here is a summary of typical turnout in the four different election scenarios:

• Presidential general election (as in November 2024): 60–66 percent of eligible voters

• Midterm general election (as in November 2026): 40–50 percent of eligible voters

• Presidential-year primary elections (as in 2024): 18–29 percent of eligible voters

• Midterm primary elections (as in 2026): 15–25 percent of eligible voters

So, what can we learn from the 2026 midterm primaries?

Compared with 2022, our last midterm primary elections, Democratic turnout has outperformed Republican turnout in a number of states. That could be an indication that Democratic enthusiasm is increasing while Republican enthusiasm is declining.

In one study of six states—Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas—Democratic turnout increased this year compared with 2022, while Republican turnout actually decreased. Another analysis by CNN of primary elections in 20 states this year found that 18 of those states showed Democratic primary turnout increasing more than Republican turnout relative to 2022.

As an example, about 4.5 million Texans voted in their primary—a record—and Democratic turnout, at approximately 2.3 million, was the highest in more than 50 years. Democratic turnout exceeded Republican turnout of approximately 2.16 million, an unusual result in a state that generally leans Republican.

North Carolina produced a similar result, with approximately 800,000 Democrats voting compared with about 626,000 Republicans. I mention Texas and North Carolina because both are traditionally Republican-leaning states.

Midterm primary turnout is historically low compared with presidential election year primaries. Nevertheless, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, turnout this year reached 30 percent or more in five states, while Oregon and California reached approximately 35 percent. During a typical midterm primary, such as in 2022, only about 15 to 25 percent of eligible voters participate.

Does Primary Turnout Predict November Turnout?

There is a relationship between higher primary turnout and higher general-election turnout, but the relationship is weak and inconsistent, especially in trying to predict which party has the edge. The reason is this: The sample of voters who participate in primary elections is different from the population of voters who show up on election day.

Higher primary turnout can be a useful measure of enthusiasm and engagement within a political party. However, primary voters tend to be the more politically engaged members of the electorate. Independent voters often do not participate in partisan primaries, but have a decisive role in general election outcomes.

In a close election, however, enthusiasm—as measured by primary election turnout—can help, and can also make a difference in which party gets out the vote in November and, ultimately, who wins.

There are other indicators we should watch as we approach the November midterms.

For example, are we seeing an increase in young voters in 2026? That would be helpful for Democratic candidates. The Civics Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping high school seniors register to vote, recently reported that more 18-year-olds were registered to vote for this year’s midterm elections than were registered at the same point before the 2022 midterms. This is a hopeful sign.

Historically, young voters participate at lower rates than older Americans. The Civics Center, however, found that young people who take the time to register do tend to follow through and vote in November. A majority of these newly registered young voters identify as Democrats or independents. The challenge, then, is getting more of the approximately 50 million Americans ages 18 to 29 who will be eligible to vote this November to register.

In 2022, Americans age 65 and older represented approximately 30 percent of voters in the general election but only 24 percent of the voting-age population. Meanwhile, voters ages 18 to 29, represented only about 12 percent of voters in 2022, made up approximately 20 percent of the voting-age population that year. It’s discouraging.

I am repeatedly disappointed by the turnout of young voters, and I am prepared to be disappointed again in November. Unfortunately, too many young Americans don’t connect the dots between their political participation today and the policies that will affect their future tomorrow. Democrats need to do a better job of engaging this important group of voters. I don’t know what it will take.

Some argue that Democratic Socialists and other progressive candidates are getting more young people involved in politics. The evidence for that, however, is mixed. For example, while New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani received approximately 80 percent of the 18-to-29 vote in the Democratic primary, overall turnout in the 2026 New York City Democratic primary was historically low—about 17 percent of eligible Democratic voters citywide.

So, what should we make of the 2026 primary numbers?

They are encouraging for Democrats in some respects, particularly when compared with 2022 turnout rates. Primary turnout, however, is only one piece of the puzzle. The November electorate will be larger, less partisan, and include millions of Independent voters and voters less politically engaged then those who take the time to participate in primary elections.

Ultimately, however, it will be about who shows up to vote. On that variable, based on the 2026 primaries, we can be hopeful.

Don’t listen to the rhetoric. Vote—and get your friends to the polls, too.

The Trump administration lost 23,000 jobs in July 2026. In addition, the Labor Department subtracted 103,000 jobs from its May and June job reports, resulting in a net loss of 126,000 jobs over the last three months. In total, since Trump took office in January 2026, the economy has added just 686,000 jobs over seven months, or an average of about 98,000 jobs per month.

I like reminding readers that President Joe Biden added an average of 336,000 new jobs per month during the 48 months he was in office before Trump took over. Remember that the next time he tries to sell the idea that he inherited a disastrous economy. In fact, Trump inherited a strong economy and has turned it into a weaker one.

As Democratic political strategist Simon Rosenberg stated, “Over his two terms Trump has the worse jobs record of any President since Hoover.”

Rosenberg also noted, “Since WWII, job growth has been three times faster under Democratic Presidents. Three times.”

Indeed, since 1989, Democrats have occupied the White House for approximately 20 years and Republicans for about 17.4 years. During the 20 years Democrats were president, the U.S. economy added almost 49.8 million jobs. During the 17.4 years Republicans were in office, the economy gained only 1.86 million jobs.

Last I checked, 49.8 million is larger than 1.86 million. As I used to say in my research courses, “That’s a significant difference.”

Leisure and hospitality lost 40,000 jobs in July and another 43,000 jobs in May, for a total loss of 83,000 jobs. This should not be a surprise to anyone as Trump continues to discourage international visitors from spending their vacations in the United States.

Following Trump’s tariffs and repeated criticism of Canada, for example, the number of Canadian tourists visiting the United States declined by approximately 25 percent during Trump’s first year back in office. As a result, Canadian spending in the United States fell by an estimated $2.3 billion in 2025, while spending by Canadians in other countries increased by roughly $2.5 billion.

Multiply this by the effects of declining tourism from other countries, and the consequences for American workers become significant. Thousands of Americans who depend on tourism and hospitality are paying the price for policies that discourage international visitors from coming to the United States.

Speaking of Canada, while Trump and the United States are losing jobs, Canada reported an increase of 88,000 jobs in May, 18,200 in June, and 75,000 in July. Yet Trump repeatedly argues that Canada cannot function without the United States. Seems they are doing pretty well without us.

In addition to the poor jobs report, Emily Singer, writing for the Daily Kos, reported that wage growth “also slowed in July, with hourly earnings up 3.2 percent, down from 3.5 percent in June and marking the lowest wage growth in five years.”

The effects of the economy are especially troubling for younger Americans. In 2025, more than 25 million adults under age 35 lived at home, according to Realtor.com. That is higher than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these young adults—70 percent—have jobs but do not earn enough to keep up with inflation, particularly the rising cost of rent.

Inflation and high mortgage rates are also preventing many young adults from purchasing their first homes. According to LendingTree, fewer than four in 10 non-homeowners can afford a “typical starter home.”

Economic growth under Trump, as measured by GDP—the federal government’s standard measure of economic activity—has also slowed compared with Biden’s presidency.

During Biden’s four years in office, from 2021 through 2024, GDP grew by an average of 3.6 percent per year: 6.1 percent in 2021, 2.5 percent in 2022, 2.9 percent in 2023, and 2.8 percent in 2024. Biden’s 6.1 percent growth in 2021 was heavily influenced by the economic recovery from COVID-19, so using that year alone would be an unfair comparison. Biden’s final three years provide a more meaningful benchmark.

Under Trump, GDP grew by 2.1 percent in 2025, a significant decline from the 2.8 percent growth during Biden’s final year in office. In 2026, GDP grew by 2.1 percent during the first quarter. The economy has slowed under Trump.

Trump also likes to brag about how well the stock market has performed during his presidency. The S&P 500 increased 17.9 percent in 2025, his first year in office. While that was certainly a strong performance, the S&P 500 increased 25 percent in 2024 and 26.3 percent in 2023 under Biden.

And while the stock market has performed well, the distribution of wealth tells another story.

The Federal Reserve recently reported that the share of wealth owned by the top 1 percent of Americans reached a record high. The top 1 percent now holds approximately $55 trillion in wealth—about the same amount held by the entire bottom 90 percent of Americans.

That, my friends, sums up the Trump economy, aided and abetted by Republicans in Congress.

Socialism can refer to either a form of government or an economic philosophy built around the idea that government and the economy should be organized to benefit society as a whole, not just the privileged and the wealthy. America itself was founded on principles that emphasized promoting the common good.

Among the principles often associated with democratic socialist thought are greater economic equality, a fair tax system in which everyone pays their share, respect for the rule of law, and the belief that all citizens should have access to essential services such as healthcare and education.

Republicans frequently describe these ideas as “extreme” or “radical.” Yet many developed democracies embrace versions of these same principles, along with a majority of Americans. For example, an Economist/YouGov Poll found that about 60 percent of Americans support “Medicare for all,” and Pew Research Center found that 66 percent of Americans believe that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans have health care coverage.

There are several forms of socialism, including democratic socialism, social democracy, and state socialism. Democratic socialism seeks to achieve its goals through free elections and democratic institutions—the same democratic process Americans rely upon to choose their leaders. Prominent American politicians who identify as Democratic Socialists include Senator Bernie Sanders and New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, among many others.

Republicans who claim that democratic socialists are communists are either ignorant or are deliberately using misleading rhetoric for political advantage.

Social democracies, such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, maintain capitalist economies while combining them with robust government regulation and strong social programs. Their citizens have access to healthcare, childcare, and educational opportunities regardless of income, and these nations consistently rank among the world’s highest in measures of quality of life and happiness. Yes, they pay more taxes, but this is more than offset by almost free health care, child care, and educational opportunities. Do the math!

State socialism is something very different and has historically been associated with countries moving toward or embracing communism. Nations such as China, and North Korea, and Russia have placed much of their economies under government ownership and control while allowing little private enterprise. Political freedoms have often been severely restricted, workers have few rights, and power has typically been concentrated in the hands of political elites. This is clearly the opposite of democratic socialism.

One could argue that Donald Trump and the current MAGA movement pose a greater challenge to American democratic institutions than Senator Sanders or Mayor Mamdani. Sanders and Mamdani advocate policies intended to create a more level economic playing field for ordinary Americans. Republicans, by contrast, have repeatedly promoted policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and well-connected.

Large tax cuts for high-income Americans leave fewer resources available for programs that benefit everyone else. The Republican “Big Beautiful Bill,” for example, provides substantial tax reductions for the wealthy while reducing funding for programs that benefit ordinary Americans.

The growing popularity of democratic socialists and their values represents a political challenge for Republicans because these candidates advocate popular policies aimed primarily at working Americans rather than the wealthy and privileged.

Supporting affordable health care, child care, and college tuition, along with stronger labor unions, higher minimum wages, and a fairer tax system, are not ideas that threaten democracy. They are positions that voters are free to support or reject through democratic elections. They do, however, challenge long-standing Republican policy priorities.

Critics of Republican policies point to efforts to restrict voting access, weaken worker protections, maintain the federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour while executive compensation continues to rise, reduce funding for social programs, and create what they see as a two-tier system of justice that favors the wealthy and politically connected. The handling of the Epstein files by Republicans reinforces the observation of ordinary Americans that wealthy and well-connected one-percenters have been and continue to be treated differently from ordinary citizens.

Republicans often argue that socialism threatens the American way of life. I would argue that democratic socialism primarily threatens Republican political priorities and values.

Columnist Zack Weissmueller recently wrote that Democratic Socialists “want to end America’s constitutional system as we know it.” I would argue that Trump has posed the greater challenge to constitutional norms through actions such as using the Justice Department against political opponents, resisting court rulings, expanding presidential authority through tariffs and executive actions, attempting to bypass Congress on spending decisions, dismissing members of independent oversight boards and commissions, and taking other actions that critics argue have weakened constitutional checks and balances.

Democratic socialism is not a threat to our democracy. It is, however, a challenge to Republican priorities when democratic socialists advocate universal health care despite opposition from pharmaceutical companies, which have been significant contributors to Republican campaigns, or when they oppose cuts to programs such as Head Start, nutrition assistance for low-income families, and health care programs for seniors.

Let’s also be clear about what many Americans see as the greater threat to our Constitution and our democracy. Democratic socialists did not attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump challenged those results, and many Republicans continued to support him despite the assault on Congress in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and even after he pardoned those convicted for their roles in the attack.

I can live with Senator Sanders and Mayor Mamdani as they advocate policies intended to make life more affordable and equitable for ordinary Americans. Unlike Trump and his MAGA supporters, they do not keep me awake at night worrying about the future for my children and grandchildren.

These nations view education as an investment in their people, their economy, and their long-term economic growth.

In the United States, both public and private colleges charge tuition. Although federal and state financial aid helps many students, the cost of higher education remains out of reach for countless high school graduates. Those who do earn a degree often leave school with some of the highest levels of student debt in the world.

Average tuition at a private four-year college in the United States is approximately $45,000 per year, while average in-state tuition at a public four-year college is about $12,000 annually. When housing, meals, books, fees, and other expenses are added, the total cost rises substantially.

In the United States, about 42 percent of high school graduates enroll in a four-year college, and roughly 64 percent of those students earn a bachelor’s degree within six years. Another 21 percent enroll in a two-year community college, and approximately 40 percent complete a certificate or associate degree within three years.

Surveys of students who leave college before earning a degree consistently show that financial pressures are among the leading reasons. More than half report that college costs, inadequate financial aid, or the need to work were primary or contributing factors in their decision to leave school. While some eventually return and complete their education, many never do.

According to Reuters, changes made by the Trump administration to federal student aid rules have left some low-income students ineligible for Pell Grants, reduced federal borrowing options for graduate students, imposed tighter borrowing limits on families, and increased reliance on private loans or institutional aid instead of federal assistance.

These policies are not making higher education more accessible for American or international students. As a result, first-year international student enrollment declined by 17 percent in 2025 compared with 2024, the final year of the Biden administration. Immigration and visa policy changes under the Trump administration appear to be a major factor in this decline. As applications to U.S. colleges have decreased, universities in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany have reported increased interest from international students.

The world’s brightest students have choices, and it is shortsighted for the United States to drive them elsewhere.

International students enrich American campuses academically, culturally, and socially. They also play a critical financial role in higher education. An estimated 70 to 90 percent pay full or out-of-state tuition because they are generally ineligible for federal financial aid and many state scholarship programs. That revenue helps colleges subsidize educational opportunities for American students. By comparison, only about 10 to 15 percent of full-time undergraduate students pay full tuition, as most receive institutional grants or scholarships. This is one reason colleges actively recruit international students and why restrictive immigration policies can have significant financial consequences for American higher education.

The economic effects of the Trump administration’s immigration policies extend well beyond colleges and universities. Following tariffs and repeated criticism directed at Canada, the number of Canadian tourists visiting the United States declined by approximately 25 percent during Trump’s first year back in office. As a result, Canadian spending in the United States fell by an estimated $2.3 billion in 2025, while spending by Canadians in other countries increased by roughly $2.5 billion.

These same factors have also contributed to fewer Canadian students choosing American colleges and universities during Trump’s second administration. At the same time, colleges in Canada and other countries have reported increased applications from Canadian students who might previously have considered studying in the United States.

Overall, first-year international student enrollment at U.S. colleges fell by 17 percent in the fall of 2025.

By reducing educational opportunities for both Americans and international students, the Trump administration risks weakening our nation’s long-term economic growth. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers with only a high school diploma earn an average of about $49,000 annually, compared with approximately $83,000 for workers with a bachelor’s degree. The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce estimates that the typical bachelor’s degree holder will earn about $1 million more over a lifetime than the average high school graduate.

College graduates are also more likely to receive employer-sponsored health insurance and retirement benefits, and they are less likely to experience unemployment. These individual advantages produce broader economic benefits through higher tax revenues, greater consumer spending, increased homeownership, and reduced reliance on government assistance programs.

Educational investment begins long before college. It starts with infants and young children. That is why it is deeply troubling that the Trump administration has proposed reducing federal performance standards for the Head Start program. The proposed changes include relaxing program standards, weakening wage requirements for employees, increasing class sizes, reducing home visits, and scaling back health and developmental screenings. The National Head Start Association and numerous child development experts have warned that lowering these standards could negatively affect the physical, cognitive, and social development of participating children.

Once again, the Trump administration appears willing to weaken another long-standing American institution.

When will Republicans recognize that investing in children’s health and education is an investment in America’s future? Instead, billions are being devoted to projects such as renovating a new presidential aircraft, constructing a new White House ballroom, and adding gold leaf to statues in Washington.

These vanity projects will not make America great. Nor will the $1.5 trillion Trump wants to spend on the military next year. Decreasing investments in educational opportunities for our nation’s children is making our nation weaker, less competitive, and ultimately poorer in the long run.

Ironically, the hearing also reminded Americans of the failures of Trump’s first administration. During Trump’s first term, roughly 400,000 Americans died from COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, Trump repeatedly rejected or contradicted public health recommendations from Fauci and other medical experts regarding masks, social distancing, and other measures intended to slow the spread of the virus and save lives. The senators might want to investigate that.

As NBC News reported, the Trump administration’s conflicting messages about mask-wearing created widespread confusion. While Fauci urged Americans to wear masks to protect themselves and others, Trump refused to wear one, contracted COVID-19 himself, repeatedly compared the virus to the flu, insisted the public risk remained “very low,” and predicted it would “disappear...like a miracle.” It never did.

ABC News also documented that during March and April 2020 alone, Trump promoted unproven COVID-19 treatments 11 times on social media and mentioned them 65 times during White House briefings, sometimes endorsing substances that medical experts warned against. Fauci repeatedly tried to provide accurate scientific information, but Trump continued to undermine him and other public health officials.

The greatest hypocrisy, however, is that many of the same Republican senators who spent hours attacking Fauci—recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush in 2008—later voted to place Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the nation’s public health agencies.

Fauci earned a bachelor’s degree (pre-med) from the College of the Holy Cross and a medical degree from Cornell University Medical College. After joining the National Institutes of Health in 1968, he became a board-certified physician specializing in immunology and infectious diseases.

Kennedy earned a bachelor’s degree in American history and literature from Harvard University and a law degree. Impressive, but he has no medical training. Yet, he routinely offers medical opinions and advice on issues ranging from autism to vaccines. Numerous scientific studies have found many of his claims to be false or, at best, misleading.

Despite his lack of medical credentials and his long record of promoting medical misinformation, Senate Republicans confirmed him to oversee America’s public health system. The results have been a disaster.

During Kennedy’s tenure, the United States has experienced its worst measles outbreaks since 1991. As of the end of July, there have been 2,318 confirmed measles cases in 2026, surpassing the 2,289 reported during 2025, Kennedy’s first year as Health and Human Services secretary. Kennedy has repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of the measles vaccine, despite overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that it is both safe and highly effective.

More than 90 percent of Americans hospitalized with measles have been unvaccinated, and the overwhelming majority of infections have occurred among children and young adults. The measles vaccine is approximately 97 percent effective after two doses and has one of the strongest safety records of any vaccine.

Many leading medical organizations have described the current measles outbreak as largely preventable and have criticized Kennedy for undermining public confidence in vaccination.

Senate Republicans, who devoted hours to questioning Fauci, have shown little interest in examining Kennedy’s policies, including those related to COVID. Last May, Kennedy directed the CDC to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women despite objections from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In August 2025, Kennedy canceled approximately $500 million in federal vaccine contracts while proposing that the NIH spend $5 billion studying a supposed link between vaccines and autism—a theory that has been repeatedly disproven by decades of scientific research.

Rather than strengthening public health, Kennedy has dismantled advisory committees, weakened disease surveillance, and altered long-standing medical recommendations. He has even cast doubt on the routine vitamin K injection given to newborns to prevent life-threatening bleeding disorders. As a result, doctors have reported preventable cases of severe bleeding, permanent brain injury, and death among infants.

The current Cyclospora outbreak has produced nearly 18,000 confirmed cases across 45 states, making it the largest outbreak on record. In July 2025, Kennedy made reporting Cyclospora and several other foodborne illnesses optional within the national surveillance system. The policy change was not publicly announced and became known only after NBC News reported it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not issued a Cyclospora outbreak warning since March 2025. Former CDC Director Tom Frieden described these changes as a “self-indulgent demolition” of America’s public health infrastructure.

These are current, preventable public health problems affecting Americans today. Yet Republican senators chose to spend hours attacking Fauci over recommendations he made more than six years ago during an unprecedented pandemic.

On a related note, Republicans were able to obtain and publicize Fauci’s personal diary, yet continue to struggle to persuade the Justice Department to release the Epstein files despite repeated public demands for greater transparency and a law they passed requiring the release. Sounds like a cover-up to protect Trump from charges of having sexual relations with underage girls.

Instead of investigating Kennedy’s public health decisions, rising grocery prices, the war in Iran, or other issues directly affecting American families, congressional Republicans have devoted their attention to Anthony Fauci and debates over how COVID-19 first reached the United States in 2019.

History will likely remember Fauci as a physician who devoted his career to protecting Americans from infectious disease. Regarding the Senate hearing, it will be remembered as an exercise in political theater rather than a serious effort to improve our nation’s public health.

The United States relies on a combination of private insurance and public programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration, for those who qualify, leaving millions of Americans without coverage. Under the Trump administration and its supporters in Congress, even fewer Americans will qualify for assistance, leaving millions more without affordable health insurance.

It is interesting to hear some Americans denounce socialism while benefiting from government-funded programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal and state financial aid for college, and essential public services like roads, police, and water systems. If Medicare is acceptable for those who qualify, why is the idea of Medicare for everyone considered unacceptable?

What is it about the American mindset that embraces government-funded services for some but opposes them for everyone, especially when it comes to health care, one of life’s most basic necessities?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, was intended to move the United States closer to the health care systems found in other developed nations. While it represented an important step forward, Republicans have repeatedly sought to weaken or dismantle the law, primarily by reducing the federal subsidies—funded by taxpayers—that make coverage affordable. Under Trump, with the support of Republicans in Congress, up to about 20 million Americans are expected to lose access to affordable ACA coverage because of cuts to those subsidies over the next two years.

According to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story yesterday (July 28, 2026), the Trump administration is planning additional ACA-related cuts before the end of 2026. The administration is targeting a subsidy program that has helped hold down premiums for the approximately 25 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. As the Journal reported, “The Trump administration plans to end a subsidy program that helped hold down premiums for Medicare drug plans, a move that could leave many seniors facing higher rates for their prescription coverage next year.”

The subsidy program was initiated under the Biden administration to reduce prescription drug costs for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Billions of dollars were invested to keep premiums affordable during 2025 and 2026. At the end of 2026, however, the Trump administration plans to terminate the program, according to an announcement on social media by Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Oz argued that the subsidies are no longer necessary.

Kendal Witmer, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said that Trump and his Republican allies “are doing everything they can to make health care unaffordable for Americans, especially for seniors.”

The Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill, passed in 2025, has already forced many hospitals to reduce services, close maternity departments, and lay off staff. Many hospitals may not survive these reductions. Forbes estimates that 446 hospitals are at a heightened risk of closure, representing nearly 69,000 hospital beds that serve approximately 6.6 million patients annually while employing about 275,000 people.

The hospitals identified by Forbes receive at least 20 percent of their revenue from Medicaid and other federal programs serving low-income Americans—programs that already reimburse hospitals at rates below the actual cost of care. Most of these hospitals are located in rural communities, where Medicaid enrollment is especially high. Additional reductions scheduled under the Big Beautiful Bill in 2027 and 2028 could push many of these hospitals beyond the breaking point.

America appears to be moving backward when it comes to meeting the health care needs of ordinary citizens. The Trump administration, with the support of Republicans in Congress, is leading that effort.

For those who argue that the United States cannot afford health care for everyone, consider this: Trump wants to increase the Department of Defense budget from just under $1 trillion to approximately $1.5 trillion per year. The current defense budget is already about three times larger than China’s, the second-largest in the world.

Also consider that the tax cuts enacted under Trump during his first and second terms are estimated to reduce federal revenue by approximately $5.3 trillion to $5.5 trillion over ten years, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. That’s trillions of dollars that could be spent on affordable health care for all Americans instead of giving millionaires and billionaires additional tax breaks.

It isn’t about what our nation can afford; it is about our nation’s priorities.

Whoever first said it, President Donald Trump seems determined to put it to the test with his new tariffs on imports from 80 nations this past Friday. After all, haven’t Trump’s tariffs worked out so well for the American people?

Not exactly.

On Friday, Trump announced new tariffs on imports from 80 nations covering roughly 99 percent of U.S. imports, arguing that these countries employ or tolerate forced labor. Seriously, does anyone believe forced labor is driving Trump’s trade policy? Most of the new tariff rates are around 10 percent, while Canada received “special treatment” with tariffs of 50 percent.

Trump has suffered repeated setbacks in his tariff agenda, including adverse court rulings, so now he is trying a different legal rationale centered on forced labor. It looks like desperation.

Reuters reports that these new import taxes will raise prices for Americans on clothing, shoes, furniture, electronics, machinery, household goods, toys, tools, chemicals, plastics, and much more.

Trump is either expecting these new tariffs to produce a different outcome than his previous ones, or he still doesn’t understand how tariffs work after years of evidence showing that they function primarily as a tax paid by American importers and, ultimately, consumers—not by foreign governments. Does he still believe other countries pay the tariffs? If so, he is an awfully slow learner.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, Trump’s tariffs cost the average U.S. household about $1,000 in 2025. The organization estimates that cost could rise to about $1,300 in 2026 if the new tariffs remain in effect, while other analysts estimate the annual cost could reach as much as $2,500 per family.

Trump, however, appears unconcerned about the financial burden on American families. During an interview with Reuters about rising gasoline prices following the war with Iran, he said, “I don’t have any concern about it... they’ll drop very rapidly when this is over, and if they rise, they rise, but this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit.”

When it comes to prices and inflation, Trump often seems to inhabit a different reality.

In April 2025, he wrote on Truth Social that “the cost of almost all products [is] going down, including gasoline, groceries, and just about everything else. Likewise, INFLATION is down.”

The following month, during a White House event, he declared, “Gas prices are way down, prices on groceries are coming down... Core inflation has dropped to the lowest levels in four years.”

During an August cabinet meeting, he added, “Groceries are down. Energy is way down.”

The list of similar claims goes on and on. Either Trump knows they are false and continues to repeat them, or he is badly disconnected from economic reality.

The American people, however, know what they pay every week at the grocery store and every time they fill up their gas tanks. A recent Marist/NPR/PBS poll found that 63 percent of Americans blame President Trump for higher prices, including one-third of Republicans and 63 percent of independents.

Likewise, a Harris Poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Trump’s tariffs have caused them to pay higher prices, while 72 percent say the tariffs have had an overall negative effect on the U.S. economy. Even 64 percent of Republicans surveyed said the tariffs have contributed to higher prices.

Trump’s response? More tariffs.

He reminds me of the doctor whose answer to every illness is, “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.” For Trump, the solution to nearly every domestic and international problem seems to be another round of tariffs.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.

The tariffs have increased costs for American families, hurt Trump’s approval ratings, and become a political liability for many Republicans seeking office. Yet the administration keeps doubling down.

One can make the same argument regarding Trump’s war with Iran. The more bombs that fall, the more instability follows. Yet the bombing continues under the belief that it will somehow produce a different result.

Trump says the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, however, his administration is supported Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear ambitions. Given Trump’s longstanding business ties to Saudi Arabia and those of his family, the contrast raises obvious questions.

Trump can bomb Iran relentlessly, but military force alone is unlikely to eliminate the resentment created when innocent civilians lose family members and homes. Every bomb risks creating new generations of people who hate the United States. The Iranian people are not America’s enemy.

Trump also wants to increase the Department of Defense budget to $1.5 trillion. That is more than the next 10 to 15 countries spend on defense combined. China, the world’s second-largest military spender, spends roughly $330 billion annually.

Imagine what even a fraction of that money could do if invested in affordable child care, health care for infants and young children, or making college more affordable for American families. The possibilities are nearly endless because our country has no shortage of urgent needs that continue to go unmet.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.

Come November, voters will have another opportunity to decide whether they want to continue that cycle—or choose a different path.

Republican President Gerald R. Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act into law in 1975. It established that children with disabilities, like every other child in America, have the right to a free and appropriate public education. Initially, the law applied only to school-aged children, but it was later expanded under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1986 to include infants and toddlers with disabilities. The reasoning was simple: the earlier educational and support services begin, the better the outcomes for children. In 1990, the law was expanded again and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) under Republican President George H. W. Bush.

This law has had an enormous positive impact on millions of children with disabilities, including children with developmental, physical, learning, and behavioral disabilities, children with hearing and visual impairments, and children with autism. Access to educational opportunities and appropriate supports soon demonstrated the true potential of many children who otherwise might have spent their lives in institutions or isolated at home, with their abilities never fully realized. Today, many individuals with disabilities attend college, contribute to their communities, serve in public office, pay taxes, contribute to Social Security, and help fill critical workforce shortages.

IDEA played an important role in ending the widespread institutionalization of children with disabilities and their segregated education. Although it took years for public schools to fully implement the law, it revolutionized and expanded educational opportunities for countless students.

Republican President George H. W. Bush also signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law in 1990. Widely regarded as our nation’s civil rights law for people with disabilities, the ADA established protections for millions of Americans who had long faced discrimination. It prohibited discrimination in employment, government services, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications with an emphasis on accessibility.

The ADA also transformed the physical environment of our communities. Wheelchair ramps, curb cuts, elevators, accessible parking spaces, and easier-to-use door hardware have made daily life more accessible not only for people with disabilities but also for millions of older Americans who experience mobility limitations later in life.

Importantly, a more accessible society continues to enabled millions of people with disabilities to take advantage of educational opportunities, and obtain and keep jobs that would have been physically inaccessible before the ADA. Accessible buses, trains, and public buildings opened opportunities that had previously been out of reach.

At the ADA signing ceremony, President Bush declared, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

The foundation for both IDEA and the ADA was established by leaders of both political parties, including Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Nixon expanded federal support for education through increased Title I funding, established the National Institute of Education, and initiated the reorganization of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that ultimately paved the way for a separate Department of Education. Carter completed that process by establishing the Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency in 1979.

Unfortunately, the federal government’s commitment to education in general, and to students with disabilities in particular, has been significantly degraded under the Trump administration. Trump is dismantling the Department of Education. While Congress has largely maintained federal special education funding for children, the Trump administration has substantially reduced staffing in many federal offices responsible for the administration and enforcing special education laws. For example, they have reduced the number of full-time staff in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) from 163 to 31. Also, the number of staff in the Office of Civil Rights within OSERS has been cut in half.

Trump wants to transfer OSERS, responsible for overseeing IDEA, monitoring compliance, and administering approximately $16 billion in special education funding, from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the administration’s effort to dismantle the Department of Education. As a result, responsibilities that were once coordinated within the Department of Education are now divided among six federal agencies.

According to advocacy organizations and a report by the Government Accountability Office, this decentralization has weakened enforcement of federal disability laws, with many complaints from parents reportedly going unresolved due to staffing cuts.

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) recently encouraged Americans to send messages to Congress in support of keeping OSERS part of the Department of Education. According to CEC, “IDEA is an education law. Moving special education programs to the health department would de-emphasize the purpose of IDEA to provide a free and appropriate public education…to infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities…”

The Republican Party’s “Big Beautiful Bill” reduced funding for several programs that benefit adults with disabilities, including assistance services, supported employment, and job training programs.

The Bill also limits funding for teacher preparation programs, including university grants that support special education certification, while restricting federal loans for graduate students pursuing master’s degrees in special education. These changes are likely to worsen an already serious shortage of qualified special education teachers. Last year, more than 70 percent of America’s schools reported difficulty filling certified special education positions.

Under Trump, the Republican Party has reversed decades of bipartisan progress in expanding educational opportunities and services for Americans with disabilities. In the long run, reduced investments in education and disability services will cost the U.S. far more through lost productivity and diminished opportunities.

More importantly, these policy reflect our national values. Disability rights and educational opportunities were once bipartisan priorities embraced by presidents and members of Congress from both parties.

Sadly, today, that bipartisan consensus has largely disappeared, and the new Republican Party under Trump has abandoned its commitments to Americans with disabilities.

Hegseth appears to believe that low testosterone among service members is a problem and must be addressed. He has said he wants America’s troops to be “strong, resilient and capable.”

One thing testosterone will not do is make a person more intelligent or empathetic. Nor will it help a person distinguish right from wrong. Judging by the Trump administration’s policies, intelligence and empathy do not appear to be highly valued as they reduce funding for food assistance and health care while extending tax cuts to billionaires.

Hegseth’s policy follows the death of a Navy SEAL recruit who reportedly had testosterone in his possession. In response, the Navy has expanded drug testing to curb the abuse of “any hormonal substance, chemically or pharmacologically related to testosterone, that promotes muscle growth.”

As he does frequently, Hegseth seems to be undermining the Navy’s attempts to keep our troops safe. While the military is attempting to curb the abuse of hormone supplements, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has pushed for easier access to testosterone replacement therapies, arguing that men should face fewer barriers to treatment.

The announcement comes after Hegseth reversed an earlier decision making flu vaccinations voluntary following an outbreak at an Air Force base that sickened approximately 300 people. Apparently, he concluded that the Air Force knew what it was doing, but don’t count on him admitting his error.

Kennedy has promoted broader access to testosterone replacement therapy despite criticism from many medical experts, who argue that treatment should be based on established medical guidelines rather than expanded indiscriminately. The Trump administration is making it easier to prescribe testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections as part of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. In addition, the FDA removed warnings regarding heart attack and stroke risks associated with testosterone products. I suppose that “manly men” need not worry about those things.

Research has shown that testosterone can improve libido, erectile function, muscle mass, and strength. Hegseth and Kennedy seem to believe that more of these attributes is better. One has to wonder, however, if they are the most persuasive advocates for improved libido, given that both have faced allegations of sexual misconduct. Hegseth reached a financial settlement related to one accusation, while Kennedy has also faced public allegations.

The timing of Hegseth’s announcement during the same week that Trump was forced to finally pay $5.6 million to E. Jean Carroll after a federal jury found him civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her, is also interesting. I don’t think the lack of testosterone is what ails these guys in regards to their inappropriate behavior towards women.

Hegseth has made it clear that he opposes women serving in combat roles in the military and has spoken of maintaining the “highest male standard” in military service. Since taking office, he has also blocked some promotions and reassigned or dismissed several female (and minority) senior military leaders. Females currently make up just under 20 percent of the U.S. military force.

Hegseth has also promoted Douglas Wilson, his pastor and co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, of which Hegseth is a member. He invited Wilson to preach at a Pentagon worship service even though Wilson and other CREC pastors advocated for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote. The denomination has also promoted the concept of one vote per household, cast by the husband, of course.

Given the issues our nation faces today after two years of Trumpism, I do not believe testosterone levels should rank among the administration’s greatest concerns. Unfortunately, there is no hormone supplement that promotes common sense. If there were, this administration could use a generous supply.

Perhaps testosterone treatments should be prescribed for congressional Republicans who have surrendered their independence—and, in many cases, their willingness to stand up to the president regardless of his conduct or the consequences of his policies. Maybe then they would find the backbone to defend what they know is right.

More testosterone will not make America—or our military—great again. What we need in our politicians, military, and law enforcement is better judgment, not bigger muscles (I’m talking to you, ICE). Consider Vladimir Putin. Russia has military strength and Putin plenty of displays of machismo. Yet, Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated the power of determination, strategic thinking, and a willingness to fight for its freedom. These are attributes not celebrated by the Trump administration.

Hegseth’s emphasis on projecting a “manly” military has produced unnecessary controversies. This past week, for example, a Blue Angels jet flew unusually low over a crowded Florida beach, sending sand flying, knocking over beachgoers, and frightening people. The Navy initially launched a safety review, but Hegseth canceled it, saying, “The flyovers will continue until morale improves.”

Military morale increases with civilian harassment? Hegseth has a warped understanding of the role of our nation’s military, and don’t we have enough civilian harassment with ICE?

Pensacola is home to the Blue Angels. Leave it to Trump and Hegseth to create unnecessary friction between the Navy and the very community that proudly supports it.

Instead of being a strong leader, Hegseth appears determined to be “one of the boys.” He intervened to reverse the suspension of eight South Carolina National Guard Apache helicopter pilots who allegedly put civilians at risk during an air show. He also lifted suspensions for two Army pilots who conducted an unauthorized flyover of Kid Rock’s home.

Nothing undermines military discipline faster than overruling commanders who enforce safety standards and accountability.

Hegseth remains an embarrassment to both the U.S. military and the nation. Our troops need strong and intelligent leadership, greater support for their families, and fewer unnecessary deployments—not hormone treatments. They deserve leaders who invest in their professional development rather than their muscle mass.

It appears the Trump administration does not welcome scrutiny of its operations abroad—particularly in places such as Venezuela. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said that “Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.”

Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty that established the ICC, the Trump administration has reacted strongly to criticism and investigations concerning U.S. actions overseas. It has objected when the legality of military operations—such as the destruction of fishing boats or the capture of foreign leaders—is questioned by international bodies.

Rubio has argued that the ICC could haul American service members before the court for the “crime of defending their own country.” However, the ICC has no police force and can not “drag” anyone into court.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, can only investigate crimes committed on the territory of states that are members of the Court. It is mandated to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

As of 2026, the ICC has 125 member states. These include most European countries, Canada, Mexico, most South American nations, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and many African countries.

The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute and therefore is not an ICC member. It joins countries such as China, Russia, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey in remaining outside the court—not the company one would expect for a nation that has long portrayed itself as a defender of human rights. Congress has declined to ratify the treaty, citing concerns that U.S. military personnel and government officials could become subject to ICC jurisdiction.

Ukraine accepted ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory, allowing the court to investigate, among other allegations, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children to Russia. That investigation led to an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin on alleged war crimes charges.

Another example is the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes committed during the conflict in Gaza. The court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in connection with alleged crimes in Gaza. The conduct of the Israeli military has also been the subject of reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry.

An arrest warrant is not a finding of guilt. It means prosecutors believe there is sufficient evidence to require the individual to stand trial, where the evidence can be examined in court. The ICC has no police force and depends on its member states to arrest and surrender suspects who enter their territory. In addition to warrants for Putin, Netanyahu, and Gallant, the court has also issued warrants for several Hamas leaders.

The United States has no authority over the ICC and cannot unilaterally dismantle it. However, the Trump administration has sought to pressure member nations to reduce their cooperation with the court. Brown reported that the administration is “pressuring other nations to abandon the court.” CNN further reported that nations continuing to recognize the ICC’s authority while relying on U.S. assistance could face increased scrutiny, including sanctions, visa restrictions, or travel bans. The administration has also threatened companies, banks, and other organizations that conduct business with the court.

I find it interesting that the Trump administration is threatening sanctions against countries that cooperate with ICC investigations into alleged war crimes while simultaneously easing certain sanctions on Russia, whose conduct in Ukraine has been described as war crimes by numerous human rights organizations.

Why does it seem that, under the Trump administration, the United States is so often on the wrong side of the question of right versus wrong?

Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), the Washington-based human rights organization founded by the late Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, said: “Rubio’s attack doesn’t just underscore U.S. hypocrisy, but undermines access to justice across the globe, from Ukraine to Sudan, and could amount to obstruction of justice, a crime under the Rome Statute in and of itself. It is not the ICC that Rubio is dismantling brick by brick, but the rules-based international order that grew out of the ashes of World War II.”

Even Jewish people—including Israelis—have been labeled “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Israel” simply because they have criticized the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon. That alone demonstrates how indiscriminately the charge is sometimes applied to legitimate concerns.

A recent AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults included interviews with 1,022 Jewish Americans. Among Jewish respondents who identified as religious, only half said Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza are justified. One-quarter agreed with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Among more secular American Jews, only 20 percent said Israel’s current military operations in Gaza are justified, and 40 percent agree that Israel has committed genocide there.

Labeling these critics as “anti-Semitic” ignores the fact that many continue to support the State of Israel, recognize its right to exist, and affirm its right to defend itself against attacks by Hamas and other groups.

When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing more than 1,200 people, few questioned Israel’s right to respond militarily. However, when that response resulted in the deaths of more than 73,000 Palestinians, mostly woman and children, responsible people have appropriately questioned Israeli action there.

Now, in Lebanon, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced that Israel is using what he called the “Gaza model.” Entire neighborhoods—including homes, businesses, electrical and water systems, schools, and medical facilities—have been destroyed to prevent civilians from returning. Critics argue that these are not military targets but part of a broader strategy to permanently depopulate areas that Israel later designates as buffer zones.

While Israel says it is targeting Hezbollah fighters, the systematic and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure has led many military observers to observe that these operations are not legitimate military objectives.

Following the “Gaza model,” The New York Times has documented, through satellite imagery, the destruction of schools, hospitals, mosques, and entire villages in Lebanon. The deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure—including water treatment facilities and electrical grids—may constitute war crimes if not justified by military necessity under international humanitarian law.

In Gaza, the Israeli military has destroyed a substantial share of the territory’s infrastructure, displacing much of the civilian population. Human rights organizations argue that this pattern of destruction constitutes evidence of genocide, while Israel strongly rejects that accusation.

Although Israel maintains that its campaign targets only Hamas fighters and that it takes steps to minimize civilian casualties, critics argue that the documented evidence tells a different story. For example, when explosives are used to level empty homes, schools, and entire neighborhoods, that argument does not hold.

As Ramzi Kaiss of Human Rights Watch has stated, “Deliberately and extensively destroying civilian objects or property, absent any military justification, is a war crime.”

Other documented allegations include the killing of hundreds of journalists and humanitarian aid workers in Gaza, documented by many international organizations, including the United Nations. The International Criminal Court has also cited evidence that, for weeks, Israel imposed severe restrictions on food, medicine, fuel, and humanitarian assistance entering Gaza. Aid organizations have reported widespread malnutrition and starvation, while the ICC has also documented the deaths of Palestinians seeking food at aid distribution sites.

The ICC further alleges that Israeli authorities restricted access to water by limiting piped supplies, disabling pumping, desalination, wastewater, and sewage facilities, blocking fuel needed to operate generators, preventing repairs, and restricting equipment needed to restore water systems. These allegations formed part of the basis for the ICC’s arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges that include using starvation as a method of warfare.

So what are Americans supposed to do? Avoid criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic or anti-Israel? I don’t think so.

Americans can oppose Donald Trump without being called anti-American. Likewise, we can and should oppose, when appropriate, Benjamin Netanyahu without being anti-Israel. And free people should be able to criticize inappropriate actions taken by the Israeli military without being branded anti-Semitic.

Parents do not hate their children because they identify inappropriate behavior. Nations do not hate their allies because they hold them accountable. Patriots uphold the rule of law—including the laws of war.

American taxpayers are financing a significant portion of Israel’s military assistance. Citizens should be free to question how their tax dollars are being spent and to protest military actions they believe violate international law without being subjected to personal attacks or accusations of bigotry.

Regardless of the name-calling, more Americans are demanding accountability. Polling shows growing dissatisfaction with Israel’s conduct of the war. A recent AP-NORC poll found that only about 20 percent of Americans view Netanyahu favorably, including only about 30 percent of Jewish Americans. The poll also found that 58 percent of Democrats now believe the United States is “too supportive” of Israel, including about 50 percent of Jewish Democrats. This is up from 45 percent in 2024.

Criticism is also emerging from parts of the Republican coalition. Some MAGA Republicans blame Netanyahu for encouraging President Trump to become involved militarily with Iran, arguing that doing so damaged America’s international standing and imposed economic costs at home.

President Trump has also criticized Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon. According to The Times of Israel, Trump recently urged Netanyahu during a phone call to “stop blowing up buildings” in Lebanon and reportedly told advisers he was frustrated that Netanyahu “wants to bomb everyone.”

Last week, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky introduced an amendment to eliminate the entire $3.3 billion in annual U.S. Foreign Military Financing provided to Israel. The proposal would affect funding used to purchase offensive military equipment but would leave intact the separate $500 million missile defense program.

Massie’s amendment is unlikely to pass. Nevertheless, the fact that a Republican member of Congress introduced it reflects growing debate over U.S. military aid to Israel. It will also require members of Congress to explain why they support billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel while simultaneously voting to reduce spending on Americans at home, including Medicaid funding.

America will not remain a model for democracy and human rights by limiting our criticism to non-allies, such as Russia, China, and North Korea. We need to be consistent in our condemnation when human rights are violated, especially when U.S. weapons are used in the commission of war crimes.

More importantly, we need to demonstrate our commitment to those values here at home. Given the recent murder of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by ICE agents in Houston, we are not currently a model of those standards ourselves.

If you’re a proud Democrat, like me, you may have heard Donald Trump describe us as “Communists.” That came as news to me—and to many of my progressive friends.

Ironically, however, the label seems better suited to the Trump administration than to today’s Democratic Party. More importantly, Trump’s name-calling tells us everything we need to know about the Republican strategy for the 2026 midterm elections: brand Democratic candidates as “Communists” and frighten voters into believing that our Constitution freedoms are at risk if Democrats win.

As one of my favorite writers, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, recently observed: “One thing about President Trump: He is consistent. He never surprises you on the upside. He has never been remotely interested in being the president of all the people, only his base. He never tries to win by addition, only by division—only by us versus them.”

The problem with “the-Democrats-are-Communists” strategy is that many Americans already believe their freedoms and constitutional protections are under threat by Trump, his supporters in Congress, and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

Consider the Court’s recent ruling on birthright citizenship. Four justices—all Republican appointees—voted in support of Trump’s argument that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to everyone born in the United States. I would argue that the language of the 14th Amendment is far clearer than that of the 2nd Amendment, which Republicans cite as protecting the right of ordinary Americans to own a broad range of firearms. The 2nd Amendment has long been the subject of constitutional debate. The 14th Amendment is clear and far less ambiguous.

This week, Trump inserted himself into another arena—the FIFA World Cup. He admitted that he called FIFA President Gianni Infantino and urged him to overturn a Red Card suspension issued to America’s top player, Folarin Balogun. The suspension was lifted, allowing Balogun to play against Belgium this past Monday night.

As sports journalist Tarig Panja wrote, Trump’s intervention “has no modern precedent at a World Cup,” a move that reportedly angered not only Belgium but soccer officials, coaches, and political leaders around the world.

Infantino’s willingness to accommodate Trump reminded many observers of the FIFA Peace Prize that Infantino created and awarded to Trump, a decision that the soccer world criticized as violating FIFA’s commitment to political neutrality. Many are now saying that FIFA stands for “Fix It For America.”

Trump has a remarkable ability to inject himself into institutions that traditionally stand above politics. Within a single week, he managed to politicize our nation’s Independence Day celebrations and embroil the American soccer team in an international controversy. Many Americans observed that had the United States defeated Belgium, the victory would have carried an asterisk in the minds of many fans because Team USA received what appeared to be special treatment after the President intervened.

Trump also seems to have an uncanny knack for bringing bad luck to American sports teams. The only game the New York Knicks lost during the 2026 NBA Finals was Game 3—the game Trump attended (Spurs 115, Knicks 111).

On behalf of my hometown of New York: Thanks, Trump!

Monday night, it happened again. Team USA had been playing outstanding soccer until Trump became part of the story. Belgium won 4–1, despite Balogun’s controversial reinstatement.

Thanks again, Trump!

The irony, as Eric Boehm wrote in Reason, is that Trump intervened on behalf of “a player who is now probably the most prominent American beneficiary of birthright citizenship. Fate sure does have a sense of humor.”

Trump has sought to eliminate birthright citizenship. Yet, as Boehm notes, Balogun became an American citizen only because an airline refused to allow his pregnant mother to board a flight back to the United Kingdom before his birth.

“If he hadn’t been born in the U.S.,” Boehm writes, “he would likely be playing for England or Nigeria. Instead, he is absolutely crushing it for the United States of America.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s chief of staff, Stephen Miller, has called birthright citizenship “the gravest and most preposterous of all constitutional abominations.”

In fact, Miller is an abomination, Balogun is an outstanding America citizen, and Trump is a confused old man.

Belgium 4, USA 1.

Thanks again, Trump!

These are important questions.

Trump has implemented many policies that I believe have harmed our nation, but I also believe America can recover from most of them—if the right leadership follows him in 2029. What I find interesting is the willingness of the Supreme Court and congressional Republicans to expand presidential authority without recognizing that those same powers will eventually be exercised by a president with a “D” after his or her name. I suspect many of today’s Republican supporters of expanded executive power will be crying tears of hypocrisy when that time comes.

Some of Trump’s policies, however, will have consequences that extend far beyond his presidency, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House in the future. For many people—especially children in the United States and vulnerable populations around the world—any corrective action will simply come too late, at least for them.

With new controversies emerging almost daily, it is easy to lose sight of what may prove to be the administration’s most consequential decisions. Millions of people, from Gaza to Ukraine and across the United States, have been affected by cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and international aid. Those decisions carry consequences that extend far beyond a single presidential term. When a child is deprived of adequate nutrition or healthcare during the earliest years of life, the effects can last a lifetime.

The same is true economically. Once a business closes because of tariffs or other government policies, reopening it is often impossible, even under a new administration. Likewise, when preventable diseases spread because vaccination rates decline, the damage cannot always be reversed.

As our nation celebrates its 250th anniversary, we also mark one year since the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was passed by congressional Republicans allowing for enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire. Since then, enrollment has declined significantly. By January 2026, approximately five million fewer Americans had health insurance coverage. According to National Public Radio, more than one million fewer people enrolled in health plans for 2026, while roughly four million others either dropped their coverage or could no longer afford their premiums after the subsidies ended.

At the same time, Medicaid enrollment declined by approximately 4.8 million people through March 2026. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that changes to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid enacted in the Republican “Big, Beautiful Bill” will leave roughly 16 million Americans without health insurance by 2034.

A future Congress and president could restore those subsidies. But for families—and especially children—who go without adequate healthcare and nutrition in the meantime, much of the harm will already have occurred.

Similarly, hospitals that close because of cuts to Medicaid funding will not simply reopen when policies change. Many rural communities have lost or are on the brink of losing access to healthcare for years.

Foreign policy presents another area where decisions made today may shape events for decades. Trump’s reluctance to support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, along with his treatment of longtime allies and major trading partners, has strained relationships that took generations to build. Rebuilding trust internationally is often far more difficult than damaging it.

By reducing support for Ukraine, our European allies, and NATO, the United States has raised questions about the strength of the alliances that have helped maintain stability in Europe since World War II.

The administration’s cuts to global health programs also have implications here at home. COVID-19 and Ebola demonstrated that helping other nations detect and contain infectious diseases protects Americans as well. Stopping an outbreak overseas is far less costly—and far more effective—than trying to contain it after it reaches our shores. Prevention is almost always less expensive than treatment.

Beyond economics lies a more fundamental issue: human lives. Cuts to healthcare and humanitarian assistance fall hardest on the most vulnerable, particularly infants and young children. They will not have luxury of waiting for a new U.S. administration.

Another policy with potentially long-lasting consequences is Trump’s campaign against renewable energy, particularly wind and solar power. His administration has worked aggressively to halt renewable energy projects, including canceling or delaying projects that states and private companies had already invested in. Critics argue these actions could slow America’s transition to cleaner energy while competitors such as China continue to expand their investments in renewable technologies. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to struggle with rising electricity costs.

Trump’s large-scale deportation efforts may also have lasting economic consequences. Agriculture, construction, healthcare, science, and technology all depend heavily on immigrant workers. Numerous studies have found that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, make substantial contributions to the U.S. economy. Reducing that workforce is creating labor shortages in industries that are already struggling to fill positions.

Immigrants also account for a growing share of America’s physicians, researchers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and university students. If the United States becomes a less attractive destination for talented people from around the world, many of the world’s best and brightest will simply choose to build their careers elsewhere and that trend has already been documented.

Trump’s negative impact on the U.S. economy is showing up in recent economic reports. The Labor Department reported that the United States added 57,000 jobs last month and averaged less than 10,000 new jobs per month in 2025. By comparison, President Joe Biden averaged approximately 335,000 new jobs per month during his four years in office. Retail employment also declined, as did employment in restaurants, bars, and hotels, reflecting weaker consumer spending.

Republicans have long argued that tax cuts and policies benefiting businesses eventually help workers through “trickle-down economics.” Critics contend, however, that the benefits often flow disproportionately to those at the top. Trump and his family have reportedly increased their wealth substantially during his presidency, while many Americans continue to struggle with rising costs.

There are many other Trump administration policies—both domestic and international—that may leave lasting marks on the country. Changes affecting reproductive rights, the federal judiciary, congressional oversight, presidential ethics, and public confidence in American institutions will take time to fix. Some of these developments may eventually be reversed. Others may not.

Ultimately, what happens next will depend on the choices Americans make at the ballot box. If voters want a different direction, they will have the opportunity to express that choice in November.

For those who care about the direction of our nation, this is not the year to stay home.

It has been my long-held belief that if you want to be successful in life or business, you should surround yourself with competent people because they will help you succeed. I’m biting my tongue to avoid making a political statement here—but I will resist.

Ernie is a professional writer. He served for many years as editor of the Daily Press newspaper in Newport News before retiring. A colleague wrote on LinkedIn that Gates was “the most respected journalist to lead a Hampton Roads media organization in the modern era.” High praise and true. Upon leaving the Daily Press, he became a freelance writer, contributed to the University of Virginia Magazine, and served for several years as ombudsman for the Stars and Stripes newspaper. Ernie sets a high bar for me and other writers.

Throughout my life, beginning in high school, I intentionally sought out people I admired and tried to emulate them. I was, shall we say, a work in progress. I wanted to be like them: Confident and competent.

The two people I was closest to in high school were members of the faculty: Fr. Bill Pitt, the school’s principal, and Nick Stavros, my biology teacher. We remained lifelong friends for over 50 years until their deaths. I learned so much from them. They made me a better person, and, along with my parents, I can trace many of my progressive values and beliefs to the conversations and experiences I shared with them. Both were remarkable men who provided the guidance, encouragement, and examples I needed while trying to become a responsible adult.

This past weekend, my wife and I drove to Abingdon, Virginia, to meet our friends Joel and Susan, who drove up from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where they live. Once or twice each year, we pick a place to meet and spend a weekend together talking and eating—with special emphasis on the eating.

During our three nights together, we go out to dinner one evening, and each couple takes a turn cooking on the other two nights.

Joel and I taught together for many years at McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland. We were hired only a year or two apart, both as special educators who shared similar beliefs and values about working with students with special needs. Joel and Susan became close friends soon after we moved to Westminster. They welcomed us, supported us, and helped us adjust to life in our new home.

The four of us have been getting together like this for many years. They even joined us on a family trip to Italy with our adult children.

They say your oldest friends are often your best friends because they know your story, share your history, and have lived many of life’s experiences alongside you. Joel and Susan are those kinds of friends, and I’m already looking forward to our next gathering somewhere between Winston-Salem and Westminster.

This year we chose Abingdon because my wife, Susan, spent many of her childhood summers there. Her father’s family is from Abingdon and the surrounding hills, and several of her cousins still live in the area. We visited a family who lovingly restored a cabin built nearly 200 years ago by either Susan’s great-great-grandfather or another close relative. We also drove past homes she visited as a young girl when spending time with her grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Some of those homes are gone, while others have fallen into disrepair. A few of the old barns, however, are still standing. Susan likes to tell the story of riding a big barn horse bareback through the fields as a little girl. It was the highlight of her summer vacations to “the country.”

These are the kinds of memories worth cherishing—stories that become even more meaningful when shared with old friends and cousins who know who you are and where you came from. Eventually, when grandparents, parents, aunts, and uncles are gone, friends, siblings, and cousins become the keepers of those memories. If you’re fortunate, they remember the stories, too.

As I grow older, I find myself thinking more often about the past, reaching out to old friends and relatives, and remembering the many people—most of them now gone—who shaped my life and helped guide me along the way. For those who are still here, I want to hold them close, knowing that our time together is precious.

At the very least, I want to enjoy every opportunity I have to be with them.

So instead of writing about you-know-who (the guy who hasn’t learned the value of surrounding himself with competent people) this morning, here’s to good friends and long-lost relatives.

May your time with them be treasured, your memories celebrated, and your friendships endure for years to come.

Thank you for reading my columns. Enjoy your day!

I live in Carroll County, one of the most conservative counties in Maryland—a red island in a sea of Maryland blue. When I look around at our schools, colleges, and local hospital, I see numerous examples of strong women successfully leading complex organizations and doing so extraordinarily well.

It was recently announced that Brian Cawley will begin serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of Carroll Hospital on June 29. As a member of the Carroll Hospital Board of Directors, I can say that we look forward to welcoming Cawley to our community.

As we welcome Brian Cawley, we are celebrating and thanking Leslie Simmons for serving as interim hospital president and COO since our former president retired several months ago. This is not a new role for Simmons. She served as president of Carroll Hospital from 2013 to 2020, a critical and transformative period in the hospital’s history.

During her tenure, Carroll Hospital merged with LifeBridge Health. Simmons subsequently became Executive Vice President of LifeBridge Health and later Chief Operating Officer, roles she continues to hold today. She is a very busy woman.

Simmons was the first woman to serve as president of Carroll Hospital. Before assuming that role, she served as director of nursing and held numerous other leadership positions. She holds a bachelor’s degree in nursing, a master’s degree, and numerous professional credentials and certifications in nursing and hospital administration.

Together with the outstanding staff at Carroll Hospital, including Chief Medical Officer Dr. Mark Olszyk and Chief Nursing Officer Leigh Chapman, Simmons has worked tirelessly to improve quality and patient-experience scores. The results have been significant.

Simmons is just one example from a long list of accomplished women leaders in Carroll County, particularly within our healthcare and educational sectors.

Jennifer Nickoles, for example, was recently named President and CEO of LifeBridge Health, the healthcare system that includes Carroll Hospital and many other healthcare facilities serving Carroll County.

Nickoles is the first woman to serve as President and CEO of LifeBridge Health. As she often says, “Carroll is our family hospital.” Having observed Nickoles for only a short time, I can confidently say that she will be an outstanding leader for LifeBridge Health and a strong supporter of our efforts at Carroll Hospital—her family hospital—to strengthen healthcare services for our community.

Another accomplished woman, Debbie Seidel, will begin a three-year term as Chair of the Carroll Hospital Board in July. Seidel is a retired financial-services executive who also serves on the LifeBridge Health Board and the Board of Trustees at McDaniel College, her alma mater. Susan Chambers, a Carroll County business woman, will serve as the hospital board’s Vice Chair.

All of these folks in this column remind me of the expression—If you want a job done well, ask a busy person.

These women are among many outstanding female leaders in Carroll County. Dr. Cynthia McCabe, for example, has served as Superintendent of Carroll County Public Schools since 2022. She rose through the ranks as an assistant principal, principal, elementary director, chief of schools, and ultimately became the first female superintendent in the 160-year history of Carroll County Public Schools.

Dr. Rose Mince serves as president of Carroll Community College. She holds a Ph.D. in Human Development with a concentration in Learning Theory and has many years of teaching and administrative experience. Before becoming president, she served in leadership roles at both the Community College of Baltimore County and Carroll Community College, including Provost and Associate President. She is the second woman to serve as president of Carroll Community College; Dr. Faye Pappalardo was the first.

Dr. Mince also serves on the Carroll Hospital Board of Directors, among many other volunteer roles in the community. Carroll Community College and Carroll Hospital maintain numerous educational partnerships, including the college’s nursing program. Once again, we see another busy leader working hard to make Carroll County a better place to live and work.

When Dr. Mince became president, her former role was filled by Dr. Kristie Crumley, Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs and Dean of Faculty. Patricia Davis also serves the college as Vice President of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer.

The president of McDaniel College, where I taught for 26 years before retiring, is Dr. Julia Jasken. She has served as president since 2021 and is the college’s tenth president and only its second woman to hold the position. Dr. Joan Coley was the first.

A native of Minnesota, Dr. Jasken earned her Ph.D. from Michigan Technological University and served in numerous leadership positions, including Associate Provost, Provost, and Executive Vice President, before becoming president. In addition to leading McDaniel, she serves on several boards, including the Maryland Independent College and University Association.

I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Jasken during my 26-years at McDaniel. She is another remarkable woman among the many we are fortunate to call our own in Carroll County. She is guiding McDaniel forward during a challenging period for higher education while remaining deeply committed to the broader Carroll County community.

Speaking of moving forward, Dr. Vickie Mazer serves as Dean of Graduate and Professional Studies at McDaniel College. She is expanding educational opportunities, including a joint Bachelor of Science in Nursing program with Carroll Hospital. Much of the program will be taught in new classroom space at the hospital, providing students with hands-on experience in a busy healthcare setting.

This is, of course, only a partial list of the many women in leadership roles throughout Carroll County. Indeed, many of our educational and healthcare institutions are managed by women. These examples demonstrate that our community is blessed with strong leadership from talented, educated, and dedicated men and women alike. We all benefit from their leadership and, most importantly, from their willingness to serve.

Back in Washington, it is unfortunate that Hegseth appears willing to discard a great deal of female talent while diminishing our military in the process. That is a disservice not only to the women affected, but to the nation they serve.