© 2026 MMM

Introduction

Happy 4th of July to us. This day belongs to us, all of us; it’s not just the personal domain of the Trumps, the Vances, the Hegseths, the Millers or the Johnsons. They’re just chaff in the wind. They don’t define the country or our world. We do.

This is the 250th anniversary of the American experiment, and many people fear it’s in danger of failing, as Trump has stressed and tested our country beyond the norm. But as Bob and Liz have written, this isn’t the first time we’re facing what seems to be insurmountable obstacles.

In the 1770s, the possibility of successfully breaking from England appeared, in some ways, to be madness. How did the colonists expect to beat the world’s most powerful country? Its navy dominated the seas while its army would potentially swamp any force the colonies could field.

To be sure, England would have to contend with time and distance. Using a baseball metaphor, the Yankees, quite literally, had the homefield advantage. England would have to ship its forces over thousands of miles before they could land. But once in our waters, barring any catastrophic storms, the fleet could reach any point along the coast far more quickly than an army could march. Further, numerous colonists, the Loyalists or Tories, didn’t want to break from England. And in fact, Philadelphia truly became the city of brotherly love as it wined and dined the English army as Valley Forge became a byword for suffering and death for the Americans.

Yet despite these odds, including the very real possibility of being hanged as traitors if caught, the revolutionaries elected to declare independence. And the story as to how the colonies were able to overcome partisan differences and to successfully break away from England is well documented. We’re also familiar with the primary cast of characters on both sides of the aisle, as well as France’s vital contributions.

And this long-winded introduction brings me to the point I want to make for this piece. Each of us has the power to effect change despite the current state of affairs.

Henry Knox and John Glover

During the revolution, individuals stepped up, though it was beyond their experience at the time. One such man is Henry Knox.

Knox, a Boston bookseller and avid reader of military tactics, engineering and treatises, emerged as a Revolutionary War leader. During the British siege of Boston, he was charged to go to Fort Ticonderoga, located at Lake Champlain. The British had surrendered the fort to Benedict Arnold and to Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. It was a storehouse of small arms and, more critically, cannons, that Washington needed to drive the British out of Boston.

Knox arrived at the fort, some 300 miles from the city. He and his men subsequently transported and dragged 60 tons of artillery in the dead of winter, through ice and harsh terrain, to reach the city. Placed on Dorchester Heights, the cannons overlooked and commanded the British lines below leading to a British evacuation. And Knox, who was promoted to General Knox, commanded the American artillery through the rest of the war.

Another patriot is John Glover. A New England merchant and politician, Glover and his command helped save the army multiple times and played a pivotal role in helping to keep the revolution alive.

While Glover was in the militia before the Revolution, like Knox, he was not an experienced combat officer. But when the war began, he arrived in Boston. His schooner, the Hannah, was commissioned by Washington to harass and attack British supply ships. It’s considered the first vessel in the American navy.

Glover, though, commanded a regiment composed of militia and Marblehead Mariners. It was also the first integrated regiment in the army.

Glover and his sailors were the ones who rowed Washington’s army back to safety after the disastrous defeat on Long Island. His men worked through the night, with skill aided by a dense fog that covered the evacuation.

On the heels of a further retreat from New York, Glover commanded a small force that stopped the British from cutting off Washington’s army during the retreat. The British, taking advantage of its naval superiority, landed a force at Pell’s Point to do so. But Glover and his troops used concealed positions and the protection of stone walls to continuously harass and attack the enemy troops, giving Washington and the army time enough to escape.

Following these defeats and further retreats, the revolution was on the verge of collapse. But on December 26, 1776, Washington and the army crossed the Delaware River and attacked the British position at Trenton, New Jersey. The stationed Hessian troops were defeated, which breathed life back into the revolution. Gover’s mariners were crucial in helping to carry Washington’s army across the river in harsh weather conditions.

Glover, made General Glover, subsequently served through the war after a brief hiatus. Currently, there’s a drive to preserve and repair the Swampscott, Massachusetts, farmhouse that was Glover’s home.

And So

How does this relate to our discussion?

Both Henry Knox and John Glover were only two of the many men and women who worked to secure the country’s independence. They were neither full-time politicians nor deeply versed in actual military affairs. And while Glover was an experienced mariner and had assumed responsibility in the local militia prior to the war, he and Knox learned, to an extent, on the job. They both supported the country’s independence, and defeat meant certain imprisonment or death. They worked assiduously to reach what initially may have appeared to have been an unattainable goal.

But they didn’t falter. And so too can we continue to move forward.

The Trumps of the world have certain powers to inflict pain, but it’s not absolute. It can be and has been blunted. And the secret is to never stop trying to do so. Like Knox and Glover, you don’t have to have a world of experience. You just have to be willing not to surrender your mind and soul.

And while Trump and his gang will continue to try to corrupt the Constitution, trade favors for money and to use the Supreme Court to destroy years old precedents, the power to support and sustain our Constitutional Republic lies in our hands, in our voices…in our good works.

It’s our Constitution. It’s our 250th birthday. Not just Trump’s.

© 2026 MMM

From Herodotus who lived in the 5th century BCE.

Will the heavens be under the earth and the earth up in the sky on top of the heavens? Will men habitually live in the sea and fish live where men did before? It’s a topsy-turvy world if you Lacedaemonians are really planning to abolish equal rights and restore tyrants to their states, when there is nothing known to man that is more unjust or bloodthirsty than tyranny.

A Supreme Court decision threw open the door to end the protection afforded to Haitian and Syrian migrants that had enabled them to temporarily live in the US. The ruling came after a series of Trump Administration decisions and subsequent legal challenges. It will also affect other groups living in the country under the same program.

In a separate ruling, the Court also supported the administration’s stance pertaining to the asylum system. This topic, though, will be covered in subsequent podcasts.

Introduction

The Supreme Court decision comes after a series of legal and political maneuvers by both the government and those representing the migrant groups. The Trump Administration initially stripped Temporary Protection Status, also known as TPS, from thousands of Haitian refugees in the United States. The TPS program was created by Congress to provide a safe and legal haven for nationals from other countries living in the US who can’t return home because of natural as well as human-made disasters. And as implied by the name, it’s a temporary safe harbor with an expiration date. It’s also a humanitarian program, and upon a determination of a country’s status, the timeline could be extended.

But the Trump Administration wanted to shred this legal status, to cut short the end dates, and to start mass deportations. For the Haitians, the TPS was set to expire on February 3, 2026, by an order from Kristi Noem, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the DHS. Through consultations with other government agencies, the secretary is charged with making TPS designations. This includes determining when and if it would be safe for such individuals to return home. The people potentially affected by the DHS Secretary’s decisions range from Haitian to Venezuelan to Syrian migrants.

Noem’s directive was challenged in court, and one of the plaintiffs’ key arguments was that her

actions were motivated, at least in part, by racial or ethnic animus, in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. (1)

Another key issue was the statute governing the TPS program. It states such decisions could not be reviewed by the courts. But a door was left open as it was charged that Noem didn’t follow appropriate procedures as she moved toward terminating the TPS protections.

The Decision

Noem’s directives were not immediately implemented as US District Judge Ana C. Reyes ordered a temporary stay of what amounted to a mass deportation order. A section of Reyes’ memorandum opinion follows.

Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down…Her conclusion that Haiti, a majority nonwhite country, faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record…. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so…. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy….

The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability….

Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that. (2)

After an appeals court declined to issue a stay of Judge Reyes’ decision, the administration turned to the Supreme Court. The Court subsequently heard oral arguments in April, 2026. At stake, in this particular case, was the status of Haitian and Syrian migrants. There were also attendant implications for other groups living in the US under the TPS system. If the protection for one group could be terminated, this could potentially be extended to other groups.

During the April oral arguments, the US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration’s position, stated the statute essentially gives the secretary a blank check in making TPS determinations. This includes disallowing judicial reviews. So, Noem’s directions should stand.

Ultimately, the Court found for the administration by a 6 to 3 margin, the conservatives forming the majority. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and it reads, in part,

None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications. (3)

Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. She states that the Court’s

majority asserts that the Secretary’s compliance with the TPS statute is in every respect unreviewable by the courts. But in fact the statute allows judicial review of whether the Secretary adhered to the procedures it mandates—which is what the plaintiffs dispute here. Second, the majority claims to see no evidence that race played any role in the Haiti decision. But the evidence is there, plain to see, in the President’s statements, which the majority, and for that matter, his own lawyers, cannot even bear to repeat. Once that much is established, the case for interim relief is made: There is no dispute that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent postponement of the TPS decisions. (4)

So, according to Justice Kagan and the other dissenting Justices, the statute doesn’t disallow a review of the process by which the Secretary makes a decision—the procedures. Further, unlike the majority opinion, race did play a role in the Secretary’s decision based on a long litany of Trump’s statements. For example, Trump called Haiti, among other nations, “shithole countries” during a meeting. (5)

And it’s not just Trump. In Noem’s case, she posted on a social media site,

I just met with the President.

I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.

Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS.

WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE. Dec 1, 2025 · (6)

Further, as part of the secretary’s deliberation, a determination should be made as to the viability of migrants safely returning home--have conditions improved to the point where people can return home safely? (7) And taking the Haitian migrant group as an example, Haiti, unfortunately. has not reached this point. The US State Department has issued a Level 4 advisory about the country:

Do not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited health care. (8)

It’s not a safe place to return to at this time, and the same scenario is playing out in other countries. Syria, for example, is also under a Level 4 Do not Travel Advisory. It reads, in part,

Do not travel to Syria for any reason….

Syria has experienced active armed conflict since 2011. No part of Syria is safe from violence. Hostage taking, terrorism, unexploded ordnance, and aerial bombardment pose significant risk of death or serious injury. The destruction of infrastructure, housing, medical facilities, schools, and power and water utilities has also increased hardships in Syria. (9)

Even though the advisories are directed toward American citizens, they point to unsettled and dangerous living conditions. In fact, many of the reasons why thousands left their countries in the first place are still prevalent today. Yet, the Trump Administration wants to cut off the TPS designation and make hundreds of thousands of migrants return to these conditions.

Conclusion

Following the data and the arguments made by Judge Reyes and Justice Kagan, it appears that Noem didn’t adequately follow the procedures concerning the termination of the TPS protections. This includes appropriate consultations with other government agencies, including the State Department. And as we’ve just noted, the State Department’s own analyses point to countries that are still in chaos.

But it doesn’t really matter, because of the Supreme Court’s decision, Sauer’s blank check statement concerning the secretary’s decision-making power holds true, at least in the eyes of six of the Supreme Court Justices.

Ultimately, the Court cleared the path for TPS terminations. It also decided, in favor of the Trump Administration, further increasing the power of the presidency. In Trump’s hands, it can be a tool of corruption. Witness the thousands and thousands of lives already lost because of the Administration’s USAID funding cuts as documented in prior podcasts. Add to this the hundreds of thousands of migrants who will be returning to their home countries, which may still be wracked by violence, unsanitary living conditions and destroyed infrastructures.

In the administration’s drive to purify the US of undocumented immigrants and those living in the country under TPS protection, it is willing, with the Supreme Court’s compliance, to deliver people to what may be hell on earth. It’s unethical and antithetical to whom we’re supposed to be as a people and to the intent behind the Semiquincentennial. The deportations, though, will not take place immediately, and there may be options for some to follow a path to stay in the US. For most, however, they may be forced to leave. (10)

Finally, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the Trump Administration’s projected actions, I’m closing with the same quote from Herodotus that opened the podcast. It concerns the Spartans addressing their allies to restore a despot in Athens who had recently been overthrown. Athens was emerging as a regional power and had embraced the roots of democracy. And while Sparta played a role in freeing the city, it now wanted to restore the prior form of government.

In a more colloquial translation of Herodotus, we hear the Corinthian Socles speaking to the Spartans and the assembly:

Will the heavens be under the earth and the earth up in the sky on top of the heavens? Will men habitually live in the sea and fish live where men did before? It’s a topsy-turvy world if you Lacedaemonians are really planning to abolish equal rights and restore tyrants to their states, when there is nothing known to man that is more unjust or bloodthirsty than tyranny. (11)

He then finished by saying, setup a despot in your own state before you try to do so in other places.

It’s a speech against tyranny and one that is applicable to our current situation. To President Trump and the six Justices, if you want to follow this path, do so, but not in my country. Go someplace else. You’re not wanted here.

Notes:

(1) “Racial Animus Claims May Play a Key Role in the TPS Cases,” by Roger Parloff, Lawfare. April 28, 2026. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/racial-animus-claims-may-play-a-key-role-in-the-tps-cases

(2) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRITZ EMMANUEL LESLY MIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-02471 (ACR). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/02/us/haitians-tps-ruling.html Please Note: APA stands for the Administrative Procedure Act. It lays out certain functional guidelines for federal agencies like Homeland Security.

(3) Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S._ (2026). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf

(4) Ibid.

(5) “Trump derides protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries,” by Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post. January 12, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html

(6) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRITZ EMMANUEL LESLY MIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-02471 (ACR). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/02/us/haitians-tps-ruling.html

(7) 8 U.S. Code § 1254a - Temporary protected status. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a

(8) “Travel Advisory.” US Department of State. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/haiti-travel-advisory.html

(9) “Travel Advisory.” US Department of State. https://travel.state.gov/en/international-travel/travel-advisories/syria.html

(10) “Supreme Court Clears Path to End TPS for Haitian and Syrian Nationals,” by Leonard J. D’Arrigo, Harris Beach Murtha. June 25, 2026. https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com/insights/supreme-court-clears-path-to-end-tps-for-haitian-and-syrian-nationals/

(11) “Herodotus. Histories. Book V,” by Charles Chiasson. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. August 2, 2020. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2020/2020.08.24/

© 2026 MMM

This is One for the Road 1776

Introduction and Commentary

We’re in the middle of a debate with the president as to the direction the country will be heading in the next decade. Given the divisions in the country and the uncertainty as to where the next administration or two may take us, it’s hard to make concrete predictions beyond that point.

It’s obviously important to support and plan for the long term, but if the Trump Administration taught us anything, it’s that nothing is certain. We used the Bizarro World example from Superman, in earlier postings, in reference to where we stand today. In Bizarro World, up is down and down is up, similar to Trump World, where bad is good and what’s good is considered bad.

We’re living through a convoluted mess, but it’s also a mess that we have to untangle else the Trumps, the Vances and the Millers of the world will be dictating our future. And that’s one hell I want to avoid and won’t accept.

Good Words Part 1

Centuries ago, Plutarch wrote The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. His biographies were meant to provide moral instruction and were, in a sense, morality plays that could be viewed as models as to how you should live your life. *

It’s tempting to use Plutarch as a guide to write a modern-day version of his work. But given the tenor of our times, it would star Trump and select acolytes with, of course, the word “noble” struck from the title.

As Senator Lloyd Bentsen famously told Dan Quayle during the 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” and just as surely, I’m no Plutarch.

So, as an alternative, I would like to present a small collection of works, words, that might help get us through the Trump era. These are quotes and passages from writers, among others, that have special meaning to me. We all have such a collection, and I hope you may find one or two from mine that may resonate with you.

I’ve known some of the works, such as those from T.E. Lawrence and Marcus Aurelius, for years; others, more recently. They’re also reminders, I think, of who we are as individuals and can be as a people. Ultimately, when needed most, they can be a good swift kick to help keep us going.

But before I introduce them, I want to make note that some of the works are fairly old, and language conventions may reflect not our time but the time in which they were written. The term presentism plays a role in this discussion.

It can be defined as

the practice of interpreting historical events and figures through the lens of contemporary values and understandings, often leading to anachronistic judgments that do not align with the norms of the past. This bias can manifest in various ways, such as viewing historical practices with modern moral standards, which can distort the true context of those events. (1)

In essence, presentism occurs when we examine and evaluate past events and individuals primarily according to contemporary values rather than exploring them within the context of their own time.

When applied to language, what we would consider sexist by modern standards may have been acceptable writing conventions in the past. For example, the term men may have also included women and may have referred to humanity as a whole. Or, at other times, men might simply mean men. And as you’ll hear, given the age of some of the works, the language situation plays out a number of times. Bill Maher, the comedian, writer, and host of HBO’s Real Time, has covered presentism and the problems with judging the past by contemporary standards.

Finally, I‘m going to present the pieces without comment. They stand on their own. And like Plutarch’s Lives, they can support us through tough times, especially when it seems that evil may prevail.

But they also present us with hope. Light still pierces the darkness, but it’s a light that we must be willing to fight to attain and, ultimately, sustain.

I hope this podcast may inspire you to share some of the works on your own lists.

Great Words Part 2

Some of the quotes come from books, of which there may be various editions. When possible, I’ve listed free versions that are available through Project Gutenberg. You’ll find this information in the podcast’s Notes section.

The quotes are also listed in no particular order, except the first one from Edward R. Murrow. He brought home World War 2’s London Blitz to a US radio audience. He also took on Joe McCarthy in 1954. George Clooney dramatized Murrow’s integrity and courage about this incident in a movie and on stage.

I thought this would be an appropriate start, for as you read Murrow’s words from his TV program, See it Now, you may be struck by the similarities with the Trump era. More important, his words still ring true about how we, as citizens, should act.

And now, the quotes.

1. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” (2)

Good night, and good luck.

Edward R. Murrow

CBS studios, See It Now, March 9, 1954

2. It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. (3)

Theodore Roosevelt

Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

3. There was one of two things I had a right to: liberty or death. If I could not have one, I would take the other, for no man should take me alive. (4)

Harriet Tubman

4. All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did. (5)

T.E. Lawrence

Severn Pillars of Wisdom

5. Love the art, poor as it may be, that you have learned, and be content with it; and pass through the rest of life like one who has entrusted to the gods with his whole soul all that he has, making yourself neither the tyrant nor the slave of any man. (6)

The Meditations

Marcus Aurelius

6. I like cigarettes, Miss Taggart. I like to think of fire held in a man’s hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking, I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind - and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression. (7)

Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged

7. You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, ‘I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.’ You must do the thing you think you cannot do. (8)

Eleanor Roosevelt

Diplomat and Human Rights Advocate

8. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today…. (9)

Dr. Martin Luther King

“I Have a Dream” speech, March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

August 28, 1963.

9. We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again. (10)

General Nathanael Greene

Revolutionary War

10. An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Attributed to Mohandas Gandhi

11. I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Notes:

* Plutarch’s works are still widely available today.

(1) “Presentism and Cultural Bias,” EBSCO. 2021. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sociology/presentism-and-cultural-bias#full-article

(2) Edward R. Murrow. CBS studios, See It Now, March 9, 1954 https://speakola.com/political/edward-r-murrow-on-mccarthy-1954

(3) “It Is Not the Critic Who Counts,” by TRCP Staff, TRCP. https://www.trcp.org/2011/01/18/it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts/

(4) From goodreads. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/59710.Harriet_Tubman

(5) Seven Pillares of Wisdom. A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook, eBook No.: 0100111h.html, by T.E. Lawrence. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100111h.html#intro-ch

(6) Meditations. A Stoic Breviary: Classical Wisdom in Daily Practice. Liam Milburn. https://stoicbreviary.blogspot.com/2018/05/marcus-aurelius-meditations-433.html#:~:text=Love%20the%20art%2C%20poor%20as,like%20one%20who%20has%20entrusted Please Note: You can download a copy of Meditations from Project Gutenberg: Translated by George W. Chrystal. The Project Gutenberg Book. Updated October 23, 2024. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/55317/pg55317-images.html

(7) Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. https://books.google.com/books/about/Atlas_Shrugged.html?id=bVyCd7da8OcC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

(8) “62 Uplifting Quotes from Famous Women,” Business.com https://www.business.com/articles/40-inspiring-quotes-from-trailblazing-women-we-admire/

(9) “Read Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech in its entirety.” Updated January 16, 2023. Heard on Talk of the Nation. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety

(10) Nathanael Greene. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39335-we-fight-get-beat-rise-and-fight-again

Overview

50 Years, of Trump?

Trump acts as though he owns the country; Washington is his to do with as he pleases. This is exacerbated by his goal to place his name on everything, it seems-the renaming of the Kennedy Center, his planned ballroom, the huge arch, and his image and signature on currency, passports and National Park passes.

And the excuse for these developments is the country’s 250th anniversary. Trump’s Administration claims this is all part of the celebration. But if this is true, wouldn’t it make sense to highlight the images of those who actually founded the country rather than his own picture?

But he couldn’t have done all of this by himself. The Republican senators and representatives who vote in support of his initiatives are also guilty. So too is Trump’s cabinet. The sycophantic praise by his cabinet is remarkable.

Back to Lincoln

In preparation for the UFC fight at the White House, a pre-fight meeting was held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The memorial celebrates President Lincoln and his works, not a fight Trump is promoting.

This site has also witnessed historic events. One of the most memorable is the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. On this occasion, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech. “Free at last, Free at last, Great God a-mighty, We are free at last.”

And now, on these very same steps that gave birth to this speech, UFC fighters face-off. Donald Trump has desecrated the site and what it represents to us.

And this leads us to the White House and the upcoming UFC fight. It’s inappropriate.

Historians will make note of how you disgraced the Lincoln Memorial and the “People’s House.” You may think your name and administration will be praised in the future? In reality, for these reasons and so many others, it will surely be censured.

© 2026 MMM

Introduction

The Trump Administration launched a campaign of exclusion from the first day he took office. It has manifested itself in many forms, and we’re primarily focusing on the most egregious, the anti-DEI mandate. It has an enormous impact on the life of our country, including today’s podcast’s focus, the military establishment.

DEI, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, is the concept and process of supporting the equitable treatment of potential employees, students and, in this case, officers, among others, from underrepresented groups who may have been excluded in the past. These include people of color and women.

But for the Trump Administration, its goal is to dismantle any construct it views as being driven by DEI principles. At its core, it’s racist and sexist, and its enablers include the Republican-controlled Congress, the President and his Cabinet. And one such cabinet member, in particular, is Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense.

DEI and the Military

In June 2026, Hegseth

blocked the promotions of nine Navy officers who had been selected by a board of senior Navy admirals…. Mr. Hegseth’s actions, which appear to violate the rules governing a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit-based, were described by five current and former defense officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.

No female officers were included on the new one-star list, which was released publicly in late May, despite the fact that women make up about 21 percent of the active-duty Navy. The list appears to include only two nonwhite officers, even though sailors who identify as racial minorities make up about 38 percent of the active-duty Navy. (1)

This isn’t the first time the secretary interfered in promotions. As reported in our April 17, 2026 podcast, he similarly blocked the promotion of army officers in a prior anti-DEI round. One can only assume that the other branches of the military are being queued up for similar treatment.

This unfortunate situation reminds me of a famous Yogi-ism. “It’s deja vu all over again.” * And with Pete Hegseth, it is.

There’s also a direct line from these events to the September 2025 meeting when some 800 US military leaders from around the world were summoned to hear Hegseth’s directives and vision for the armed forces. This created global command voids, by the way, since so many people were meeting in Quantico, Virginia, rather than being on-station.

The secretary’s message included at that time,

For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth said. The approach, he said, made the Pentagon “less capable and less lethal.” Hegseth talked up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength. (2)

The assumption, of course, is that many promotions were influenced by DEI mandates. Further, they claim these alleged DEI-based promotions have affected the Pentagon’s preparedness and martial capabilities.

But the administration hasn’t presented any evidence, other than conjecture and racist and sexist tropes, to support these claims. This is in contrast with the real-world cost of Trump’s and Hegseth’s decisions.

In one case, it’s a brain drain. Rather than promoting vetted individuals to positions of higher authority where their experience and knowledge may be further tapped, they’re blocked. Over time, you’re cutting off a valuable resource that may actually realize Hegseth’s fear of making the Pentagon less capable.

So, congratulations, Pete. You’ve become your own worst enemy.

The Impact

The blocked officers had been vetted and were subsequently placed on the promotion list by their superiors. They were, that is, until Hegseth decided to remove them for no apparent reason other than the raising of the DEI flag. So, individuals who are meritorious and have made sacrifices to serve their country are summarily dismissed by the whim of one individual and the administration he obediently serves. What message does this send to others who either just entered a service or are progressing through the ranks?

Exclusion

These are just a few markers on the Trump Administration’s DEI path of exclusion. If you don’t fit a certain mold, an administration-approved mold, you get removed. If you are a person of color, a woman or a member of another marginalized group, your past history, which had been available online, may have been removed from a Department of Defense website. If you’re Harriet Tubman, the well-known Civil War abolitionist who risked her life to help bring captives out of slavery, you’re removed from a National Park Service webpage about the Underground Railroad.

But this act touched off such an outcry that some of the information was restored. The problem, though, is the volume of data from multiple sites. Have accurate records been kept as to what has been removed and from where? Have the removed data been safely stored in an archive or permanently wiped? Further, as reported by CNN, information not even related to DEI was removed, including Holocaust and 9/11 remembrance as well as mental health and sexual assault prevention resources. (3)

As an aside, I would be curious to know if the people who ordered the removal of this data have the courage to do the deeds of the people they tried to erase from our history. Harriet Tubman, for one, was a former slave who had the courage to go back into hostile territory to help rescue and free others. If caught, she most likely would have been killed. Yet, she didn’t falter. Would these modern-day digital data burners have done likewise?

Conclusion

To wrap up, there are two final points about the administration’s anti-DEI campaign. Trump and Hegseth have used it as a political cudgel to eliminate programs that have served underrepresented groups and, in the context of this discussion, to block military promotions.

But, by their actions, they’re also undercutting the authority of senior military leaders. These individuals vetted the officers slated for promotion. But at the last minute, the Secretary of Defense, who generally wouldn’t interfere, decides to block the process for a political motive. It affects those whose names have been removed as well as the officers who vetted and approved of the promotions. This actually weakens the military infrastructure that Hegseth and Trump claim they want strengthened, as you’ll never know when you’ll be second-guessed.

Second, Hegseth’s action raises the specter that some officers only reached their current rank because of a DEI-mandate. This is heinous and damnable. It casts an unjust and unworthy aspersion by an inexperienced secretary and his president, a chicken-hawk. It’s a damnable lie promulgated by an administration that lacks competence and any ethical foundation.

The midterms can’t come fast enough.

Notes

* The term Yogi-ism describes Yogi Berra’s well known sayings. Yogi was, of course, a catcher for the most storied team in baseball, the New York Yankees. And who doesn’t like the Yogi or, for that matter, the Yankees?!

(1) “Hegseth Strikes Female and Black Navy Officers From Promotion List,” by Greg Jaffe and Kate Kelly, The New York Times. June 1, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/us/politics/hegseth-navy-promotion-list.html

(2) “Pete Hegseth had a lot to say when he summoned military leaders. Here are some facts and context,” by Julie Watson, Laurie Kellman and Deepth Hajela, AP News. September 30, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/military-combat-women-race-hegseth-d406029d0e0dfd52443ef8d7fcb765cb

(3) “24,000 articles on chopping block in Pentagon website purge,” Natasha Bertrand reporting, CNN. Mar 20, 2025.

© 2026 MMM

Trump threatened, once again, to bomb Iran unless its leaders agree to his peace plans. Not the plan of the United States—but his. It’s as though it’s his personal battle without the appropriate consultation with Congress. But one has to show bravado in these situations, per the chicken-hawk manual.

And we should never have been here in the first place. Trump withdrew from an existing treaty with Iran that focused on forestalling the development of a nuclear device. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also called the Iran nuclear deal, drafted during President Obama’s Administration, was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It was a multinational agreement, and despite Trump’s claims that there should have been more safeguards, such as the elimination of sunset dates for certain provisions and curtailing missile development, many experts thought it was a success.

At the very least, it could have served as a starting point for new negotiations. But the Trump Administration chose war, possibly thinking that Iran would be overawed by the US, much like Venezuela. And now, the optics seem to change on a daily basis between a ceasefire and a return to war.

Congress should have also attempted to intervene more forcefully, as we’re well beyond the War Powers Act’s 60-day limit where a president can continue engaging in offensive operations without Congressional approval. But administration officials claim that once a ceasefire was established, the 60-day clock restarted.

And as has been the case in other situations, much of the blame for this situation also falls on the Republican Party. While some members of both Houses still believe in the rule of law, most ultimately follow Trump’s wishes. And while it’s true that Trump isn’t the only president to overreach in this type of situation, the difference is that no other president has tried such a power grab with, in Trump’s case, the Supreme Court’s acquiescence. Our May 10, 2026, podcast discusses the Court’s role

Incompetence Magnified

The Trump Administration’s incompetence is just striking. Part of the problem appears to be its inability to understand the context in which events play out. These may cut across geopolitical, diplomatic, legal, military, ethical and even ancient historical lines. This knowledge and comprehension could help guide one’s decisions. And if you throw in a little Greek tragedy and hubris, possibly…just possibly…Trump and the gang may never have started down a path that ended in war.

Some key points that should have been considered include the following.

1. Develop a coalition force rather than one only fronted by the US and Israel. It’s good to have friends, as the Beatles and US presidents have discovered. Further, you should have a working knowledge of your existing treaties. Despite Trump railing against it, NATO is a defensive pact. It isn’t designed to support offensive and, what many consider illegal, operations against another country. Iran in this case. Don’t blame NATO. Blame your own ignorance.

2. As covered in a prior podcast, the US was not prepared to contend with Iran’s asymmetric warfare plans, such as its use of drones. Asymmetric warfare generally describes a military action between two or more opponents, one side of which is superior in resources and possibly weaponry. The weaker side may adopt unconventional methods and weapons to try to blunt the stronger force’s advantages. This is a well-known formula that has been used in prior conflicts, including World War I, when TE Lawrence, also known as Lawrence of Arabia, helped pioneer the modern use of such tactics.

And Trump or Hegseth should have read Lawrence’s book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. It’s an autobiography that outlines his tactics during World War 1. This includes hit-and-run attacks and draining an enemy’s supplies, through these quick attacks, rather than seeking pitched battles. And this is what the Iranians, in part, have done with their drones. It’s pretty simple but expensive math.

A drone may cost under $50,000, while a Patriot missile, one of the US defensive options to destroy drones and missiles, may run into the millions of dollars per shot. Iran’s attacks also depleted US defensive weapon consumables faster than they could be replaced. Sounds a bit like Lawrence’s tactic, and, ironically, it’s taking place in the same broad region of the world.

3. During the ceasefire, Trump regularly threatened to start fighting again unless Iran acceded to his demands. And while no one is fighting right now on a regular basis, and it appears that a longer ceasefire may take place, combat could also resume at any time. It would make sense, then, that the Secretary of Defense would be focused on his potential wartime responsibilities.

So. what happened?

Hegseth recently campaigned for a primary candidate opposing Representative Massie, a critic of the war and one of the few Republicans who doesn’t follow Trump’s orders in lockstep fashion. And while Trump’s Administration has achieved a number of firsts, many of which are questionable, this is a new one. Military leaders, including the Secretary of Defense, are supposed to abstain from political and partisan activities. And campaigning for Representative Massie’s opponent is being partisan to the extreme. It’s also dangerous as it mires the military in the political arena.

As covered by Politico,

He even nodded to his critics at the outset. “For the lawyers,” he said, “I’m here in my personal capacity as a private citizen, a fellow American and a fellow combat veteran.”

The race is the latest stop in Trump’s campaign to exact revenge on his opponents that has already led to the defeat of most of the state lawmakers he targeted in Indiana over redistricting and delivered a death knell to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, who voted to convict Trump on impeachment charges in 2021. (1)

What’s interesting is Hegseth’s comment that he came there as a private citizen. Does this mean he’s only the Secretary of Defense on a part-time basis? And when the Democratic Representatives and Senators told those in the military that they can refuse to follow illegal orders in a video some months ago, could they not have been doing this as private citizens, like Hegseth’s claim?

4. Trump and Hegseth should have read a real history book or two.* Throughout the war, we’ve heard the administration talk about Iran’s destruction. It started prior to the war when the US and Israel bombed the country’s nuclear facilities in the summer of 2025. Trump then proclaimed their facilities were obliterated. Not destroyed or damaged, but obliterated. Yet, the nuclear capability issue resurfaced when the US and Israel attacked Iran to start the war in 2026.

When the full aerial assault against Iran was then launched in the current war, we heard about how many targets were destroyed and how Iran’s military infrastructure and weapons were, once again, obliterated. The expectation was that Iran was defeated, and Trump actually declared, at different times, the war would be over “soon.” (2) It appeared the expectation was that Iran had to surrender, given the supposed destruction of its military forces and the death of its political leaders. According to Secretary Hegseth during one of the Pentagon briefings,

We said it would not be a fair fight and it has not been. As I stated during our first press conference on day two – that was 10 short days ago – the combination of the world’s two most powerful air forces is unprecedented and unbeatable. Between our Air Force and that of the Israelis, over 15,000 enemy targets have been struck. That’s well over 1,000 a day.

No other combination of countries in the world can do that. So today, as we speak, we fly over the top of Iran and Tehran, fighters and bombers all day, picking targets as they choose, as our intelligence gets better and better and more refined. Looking up, the IRGC and Iranian regime sees only two things on the side of aircraft: the stars and stripes and the Star of David, the evil regime’s worst nightmare.(3)

Yet, the Trump Administration forgot the lessons history can teach. Mass destruction may not always equate to a surrender or a country’s willingness to sue for peace, regardless of the terms. The Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage stand as an example. What’s relevant for our discussion is that Rome suffered cataclysmic losses at the beginning of each of the first two of three wars.

When the first war began, which started in 264 BCE, Rome was a land power while Carthage controlled the seas. But Rome sought to challenge Carthage and became a naval force. Storms devastated its fleet, though, and while many countries may have sued for peace, Rome didn’t. New ships were built and crewed, and, over time, Carthage was defeated. A similar ending played out during the Second Punic War. This was Hannibal’s war, the brilliant general who brought Rome to its knees. But still, Rome didn’t surrender, and, through a subsequent series of tactics and campaigns, eventually won. **

Lessons to Be Learned

So, what lessons could Trump and Hegseth have learned by reading about 2,200-year old wars? While you may claim victory and that a war is almost, if not entirely over, the country you’re fighting might not agree. (4) Further, the continuous bombing of a country doesn’t mean it will surrender or give up the fight. By any measured standard, Rome was defeated but carried on. And while there are differences between the Roman and Iranian psyches, among other factors, a similar scenario seems to be playing out. In one case, though battered, Rome had deep and broad resources it could tap. And for Iran, while the aerial attacks caused widespread damage, reports suggest it still retains a sizeable portion of its missile and drone arsenal. And historically, air attacks, alone, don’t win wars.

But why didn’t President Trump, Secretary Hegseth and Prime Minister Netanyahu think about this before they started a war? Did they think Iran would quickly surrender as implied by Trump when the war began? The unfortunate lessons taught by past wars, including Vietnam, Afghanistan and others, are powerful and instructive reminders. And on a contemporary note, most experts thought Ukraine would have been overrun by Russia during the first year of its war. But Ukraine and its people have shown tremendous courage and tenacity in the face of this illegal assault.

And finally, if the Iranian war does end with an agreement, what did the US gain that could not have been accomplished by renegotiating the original treaty vacated by Trump? While it’s true Iran’s arsenal has taken a major hit, which at least will help Israel, will the enriched uranium still be in its hands? Will Iran still be in a position to support its proxies in the Middle East? Will this war end, as so many have, where nothing tangible changes except, as is usually the case, people die?

And for the Iranians, will they still be ruled by a tyrannical government that routinely murders its own citizens? Will the new Iranian government be even more forceful in trying to rein in anyone who challenges its rule? Rather than helping to free the Iranian people, which would have been a true achievement, will the war actually exacerbate the current state of affairs?

Conclusion

I’m still astonished by the Trump Administration’s arrogance. Trump is running our foreign policy like it’s his personal domain. And given how impotent Congress has appeared, it’s not surprising.

And under Trump, the US is emerging as one of the world’s pariah nations. Iran is justly accused of terrorist acts, but we’re not guiltless. The sinking of unarmed boats without proof of drug running; threatening Greenland and Cuba; attacking Venezuela; and launching a war with Iran in the middle of negotiations all fall under this umbrella. And while other presidents have ordered pretty questionable acts as well, the Trump Administration glories in its actions with Trump as the central figure.

And finally, there’s one more history lesson for the Trump Administration. Its people should have read the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. It’s a classic work that describes the war between Sparta and Athens that took place from 431 to 404 BCE. **** As written in an Opinion piece by Lydia Polgreen in The New York Times,

It is not hard to see the parallels to America’s situation. Like the Athenians, the Trumpians saw their romp in Venezuela as a sign of their irrefutable power. And like the Athenians, they overreached — attacking an enemy they underestimated with muddled motives, uncertain support at home and no clear plan for victory. Entranced by their own capacity for violence, they thought their power to effect their will was limitless. (5)

But as we’ve discovered, in reality, it is limited. The “quick” war has dragged on for months. Iran, which was supposed to surrender, hasn’t. And as we watch the negotiations for a continued ceasefire, we’re reminded there was peace and a working treaty, developed and enforced by an international coalition. Why didn’t Trump use it as a stepping stone to a more comprehensive agreement?

Regardless of the answer, people have died, and this loss of life, among others, will forever be linked to Trump’s Administration. As a man who likes seeing his picture on banners hanging from buildings and who is designing memorials to himself, this linkage will be disappointing. But what’s more disappointing is that he, and certain members of his cabinet and staff, don’t have the wherewithal to even recognize this.

Notes:

* While Pete Hegseth authored books, which included coverage of historical times, particularly the Crusades, most of his claims and ideas have been debunked by historians. In many ways, they’re diatribes against Islam, both during the Crusades and today. As written in a prior podcast, Hegseth had served in the military and should receive thanks for his service, but his work as a writer of military campaign and doctrines are flawed, suspect and anti-Muslim, per the article’s title.. Please see:

“Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth’s books foreground anti-Muslim rhetoric,” by Jason Wilson, The Guardian. November 28, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/28/pete-hegseth-trump-anti-muslim-book

** This is a quick look at both wars. Numerous resources are available if you want further information. These include Livy’s The History of Rome, and some 2,000 years later, The Punic Wars, by Adrian Goldsworthy.

**** It also gave rise to the term Thucydides Trap, which has been in the news lately. It describes the tensions and fears that might arise when an established power is challenged by a rising one. It might lead to war.

(1) “Hegseth enters the war between Donald Trump and Thomas Massie,’’ by Paul McLeary and Lisa Kashinsky, Politico. May 05, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/18/pete-hegseth-war-donald-trump-thomas-massie-00926616

(2) “Trump says Iran war ‘will be over with soon’ as progress reported in ongoing talks,” The Times of Israel. 22 May 2026. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-says-iran-war-will-be-over-with-soon-as-progress-reported-in-ongoing-talks/

(3) Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing, U.S. Department of War. March 13, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/-force-gen-da/

(4) “Why Did the Romans Not Sue For Peace After the Battle of Cannae?,” by Robin Levin, April 26, 2022. https://thedeathofcarthage.com/1904/why-did-the-romans-not-sue-for-peace-after-the-battle-of-cannae/

(5) “Trump and His Advisers Clearly Haven’t Actually Read Thucydides,” by Lydia Polgreen, The New York Times. May 18, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/opinion/trump-xi-iran-war.html

© 2026 MMM

Description

We’re taking a slightly different path today to talk about something other than the Trump Administration. And part of the decision to do this right now is because it’s May, which means graduation for most colleges and their students. But as I’m writing this, it looks like the job market is stagnant. So, we wanted to give some advice to new graduates.

The advice isn’t exactly how to get a job, it’s more of how to avoid losing the job you’re applying for. It’s about interviewing and what not to do.

I’ve been through a number of interviews over the years. A few have been really good. But some have also been very, very bad, and it’s this last group that I’ll be talking about.

There are 4 examples of interviews I’ve gone through. They’re great lessons on what not to do. Some may also be funny as I look back at them.

Regardless, I hope this may be helpful or, at the very least, remind you of some of your own “choice” interviews.

As an introduction, the recent Supreme Court decision, which undercut the Voting Rights Act, has possibly handed the Republicans additional Congressional seats through very partisan redistricting. Critics believe it’s a racist decision and will set back civil rights advances that so many have fought for over the years.

USAID was one of the country’s humanitarian programs and reached around the globe. Its yearly budget was .3 to .4 % of the overall US national budget in 2024, and helped save millions of lives. But under Trump, the budget was sliced, and estimates indicate that millions may die from starvation and disease.

Thanks to MindfulLiving for the use of Bourbon Street Blues. From Pixabay, https://pixabay.com/users/mindfulliving-25449691/

For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,

For the want of a horse the rider was lost,

For the want of a rider the battle was lost,

For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail. *

In April of 1775, Samuel Prescott, William Dawes and Paul Revere rode through the night to warn the colonists that British troops were marching to seize stored ammunition and weapons. And on April 28, 2026, some 251 years later, King Charles arrived in the US with his wife Camilla and addressed a joint session of Congress.

In this podcast, we’re going to explore several of the Trump Administration’s actions when measured against two of the key statements made in the speech. These are a reference to ties between the US, UK and NATO and the twin concepts of the rule of law and an impartial judiciary. The latter are particularly important to any living democracy.

But unlike Charles’ soft-diplomatic approach, we’re going to take a hard look at the Trump Administration and its actions.

1. NATO

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article Five for the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together – as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder, through two World Wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security. (1)

In our reality, President Trump has stated on numerous occasions that NATO has never helped the United States. The latest barrage has come during the war with Iran. Countries, which weren’t contacted before the attack, understandably backed away from the Trump Administration’s request to work with the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Further, the Trump Administration’s statement concerning NATO’s help is simply not true. Article Five, which can be considered NATO’s The Three Musketeers*** clause for defensive purposes, is triggered if a member state is attacked. NATO was not created as an offensive alliance, and in this case, the US launched an attack on Iran, not the other way around.

Historically, the first and only time Article Five has been invoked is after the 9/11 attacks in New York City. At that time, nations in the alliance came to support the US, and troops from NATO nations subsequently served alongside and bled with US soldiers in, for example, Afghanistan. These include British and Danish forces.

Yet, in January 2026, President Trump, during an interview, questioned the value of the NATO alliance. He then added that allied forces stayed “a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan. (2) The backlash was immediate and appropriate. Soldiers from NATO members died during the war, and UK politicians, among others, noted this remark was from an individual who avoided the draft and military service in Vietnam. Basically, a chicken-hawk.

And what exacerbated an already bad situation was the Trump Administration’s threat to invade Greenland. This was intermixed with proposals to buy the island. But like the UK soldiers who died in Afghanistan, the Danish military, whose country is politically, legally and historically tied to Greenland, also suffered losses. And Denmark is both a NATO member and a long-standing US ally of over 200 years.

So, while the King’s statement concerning NATO and the US is optimistic, the reality is not. The Trump Administration lied about the alliance and unjustly condemned it for not helping the US to get out of the Iranian quagmire of its own making. What’s worse, Trump denigrated the lives of those soldiers who died in support of the US mission, and he threatened to use force to take Greenland. This would be the first time one NATO member attacked another, and the alliance would be dealt a fatal blow. And by extension, what would happen to Ukraine? Trump has already turned his back on President Zelensky and his country, and the potential US action would almost surely prevent NATO from continuing its support of Ukraine in its war with Russia. The ramifications are staggering, all brought about by one uninformed man whose Administration “cannot see the forest for the trees.”

2. And the King Continued. Part 1

Our common ideals were not only crucial for liberty and equality, they are also the foundation of our shared prosperity. The rule of law: the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice (1)

This is one of, if not the most, critical moments in the speech, pointing out the importance of the rule of law. Not the whim of an individual, but established legal guardrails that help to keep any democratic system whole. It defines a nation that supports an independent judiciary and one that doesn’t bend the knee to the head of state.

As covered in past podcasts, the lower courts have blocked and delayed a number of Trump’s illegal actions during both of his terms. The goal? To serve the rule of law.

In one example, the Trump Administration had plans to deploy National Guard units in Chicago and Portland. And mirroring the original deployment in LA, the Portland plans were opposed by the city’s mayor and Oregon’s governor.

At that time, Judge Karin Immergut issued a Temporary Restraining Order, a TRO, to halt the federalization of the troops and their deployment. The DOJ represented the federal government, while the city’s Attorney’s Office and Oregon’s AG represented Portland and the state. The Judge’s opening is a powerful statement about the constitutional issues raised by the Trump Administration’s potential deployment of National Guard troops.

This case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. The third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States. (3)

And in this particular case, Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, sided with the rule of law. An issue, though, is that lower court rulings can be reversed or stayed. And in Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has, by and large, found in favor of the Trump Administration in the cases and petitions it has reviewed. And it’s not just that they’ve found for the Administration, it appears they’re marching in lockstep with Trump as he continues to expand Executive power at the potential cost of our democracy. And unlike their lower court brethren, the Justices, including Trump’s appointees, favor the President who appointed them. Based on the record, this doesn’t appear to be an independent judiciary.

And while there may be some rulings against Administration policies, such as the recent overturning of Trump’s tariffs, it’s the measuring stick of a few findings against the many for the Trump Administration. The Administration has also filed a number of emergency applications with the Supreme Court challenging rulings impeding its policies. It sided with Trump entirely or in part, a vast majority of times. (4) Think about it this way. If you were a gambler working with these odds, you could retire tomorrow! It’s almost like having the bookie on your side.

As part of this progression, the Court has issued shadow dockets, expedited and unsigned rulings with little comment and, typically, no oral arguments. It may be a one-page document, but one with potential monumental implications as it may enable the Administration to proceed with its plans pending a further legal review.

And according to the Brennan Center,

A clear pattern has emerged: The Court is using the shadow docket to quickly and dramatically expand executive power. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.” (5)

We’re living, it seems, at a dangerous time in respect to judicial equity and the growth of the executive office’s unbridled power.

And the King Continued. Part 2

In a related case concerning the rule of law, immigrants who are legally in the US under the Temporary Protected Status, or the TPS program, face deportation. The TPS provides temporary legal status for nationals from other countries to live in the US if their countries are beset by armed conflict, natural disasters and other life-threatening situations. Yet, as part of the Trump Administration’s goal to deport undocumented immigrants as well as those who are under a TPS designation, Kristi Noem, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, issued a termination order for Haitian and Syrian nationals, among other groups.

This order for the Haitian nationals was temporarily stayed, however, by Ana C. Reyes, a United States District Judge. The text of her ruling articulates some of the key points governing this issue. As Reyes writes

….The Secretary has exclusive authority to engage in the “single act” of designating a country or terminating or extending its designation thereafter….As all agree, the Court cannot override one of these “substantive” determinations…. But Plaintiffs do not ask for that. They instead assert that the Secretary failed to consult; engaged in a pattern or practice of terminating TPS…; preordained the outcome of her review; engaged in both unreasoned and unsupported decision making; and, among other failures, acted with discriminatory animus. These claims challenge purported deficiencies in Secretary Noem’s group of decisions, practice, and procedure in reviewing Haiti’s TPS designation. (6)

In essence, the courts can’t review the substantive decision made by the Secretary concerning a TPS designation. It has been argued, however, that there are procedural grounds that must be followed, including holding appropriate consultations with other agencies. (7)

In the case of the Haitian nationals, Noem indicated it was safe to return home. But in fact, based on the State Department’s own bulletins, a Level 4 Travel Advisory for Haiti is still in effect,

due to the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care. (8)

And while these advisories are released to keep US citizens informed about conditions abroad, it clearly points out the potential danger the Haitian nationals would face if forced to leave the US.

Discriminatory animus was also raised in Reyes’ ruling. Discriminatory animus can be defined as

Discrimination, motivated by hostility, against a particular group of people based solely on race, religion, gender, or other similar characteristics. (9)

,

So, did such discrimination, which is illegal, play a role in Noem’s termination orders?

Ultimately, the government requested a stay of Judge Reyes’ decision and an expedited hearing by the Supreme Court. The hearing was granted but not the stay. At the same time, the Court joined a similar case, by Syrian nationals, to this one. (10)

So, the upshot is the Court held a hearing at the end of April 2026, and is expected to issue its decision sometime this summer. It’s anticipated the ruling will not be narrowly focused but will cut across the TPS universe.

Finally, the cases had one final implication. They’ve thrown a spotlight on the Trump Administration’s overt discrimination, which is antithetical to the rule of law. Truth doesn’t prevail, but rather, discrimination based on race and other factors. Beyond its unethical underpinnings, it can turn a level legal playing field into an uneven rock-strewn slope.

Judge Reyes noted, for example, that the

…administration has translated this racial animus into policy. Every country whose TPS designation has been cancelled is majority nonwhite. And, while it is expelling nonwhite TPS holders, it is giving preferential treatment to white—and only white—South Africans…. (11)

Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor, for her part, observed that President Trump

had called Haiti a “filthy, dirty, and disgusting S-hole country” and “complained that the United States takes people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden, or Denmark.” “I don’t see how that one statement is not a prime example of” how “a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision,..” (12)

And this is the President and Administration that will supposedly deliver impartial justice? I think not, to the detriment of us all.

Conclusion

Where does the US stand in relation to the King’s speech? A baseball metaphor works well here. Of the New York Yankees teams during my lifetime, we’re definitely not the Yankees of the Joe Torre era that won four World Series. Under Donald Trump, the US is more like the Yankees from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, when they were in a multi-year drought and failed to win the Series.****

And our legal system and diplomatic relationships are experiencing a similar drought, contrary to the ideals expressed in the speech. Instead of working to support democracies, though as imperfect as they may be, Trump has threatened them. Instead of enhancing our legal system to help support an independent judiciary, the Trump Administration has attacked it and the judges, hoping to bend it to his concept of justice. And this isn’t the justice of equality. In certain quarters, it’s a corrupted political and justice system based, in part, on racism, and one in which the highest court in the land is seemingly playing a supporting role.

I also want to note that other issues relevant to our present discussion will be covered in future podcasts. This includes how the Supreme Court struck down a voting map in Louisiana, and with it, dealt a blow to a landmark civil rights law and opened the door for other states to redraw their congressional maps. It has set off a redistricting race, to the benefit of the Republican Party.

But despite the Court’s ruling, it could have possibly taken steps to stop, at least until after the 2024 election, the gerrymandering wars. But it chose not to. No great surprise here.

And finally, when I finished the podcast, I thought, how could one man cause so much damage? We’ve dealt with corruption before, as is the case with Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. But neither person so affected the country and the world.

President Trump has also made his mark on the US in an unprecedented fashion. And we’ve gone so deep down the rabbit hole, it will be difficult to climb out.

But I think I found a partial answer to my question. It’s the essence of the old poem that opened this podcast. And now, I hope it makes some sense. For you see, Trump is the one who pulled the nail from the horse’s shoe.

For Want of a Nail

For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,

For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,

For the want of a horse the rider was lost,

For the want of a rider the battle was lost,

For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail. *

Notes:

* “For the Want of a nail the shoe was lost,” ascribed to Benjamin Franklin, Goodreads. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/626466-for-the-want-of-a-nail-the-shoe-was-lost

** The US is considered a Constitutional Republic, but the term democracy or representative democracy, also applies.

*** The famous line from the Dumas book is: “All for one, and one for all;” “Tous pour un, un pour tous.”

**** The current Yankees team is in a similar slump. They last won the Series in 2009.

(1) “Read the complete transcript of King Charles III’s speech to Congress,” AP. Updated April 29, 2026. Please note: all of the King’s speech remarks are from this cite unless otherwise noted.

https://apnews.com/article/king-charles-iii-us-congress-speech-9ff638ae63a41289dbd9ebfbb550e40e

(2) “Trump claim on NATO role in Afghanistan draws UK condemnation,” by Caolán Magee, Al Jazeera. January 23, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/23/trump-claim-on-nato-role-in-afghanistan-draws-condemnation

(3) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. https://www.portland.gov/federal/documents/10-4-2025-state-city-v-trump-temporary-restraining-order-granted/download

(4) “Judges vexed by Supreme Court ‘shadow docket’ rulings in Trump cases” by Jan Wolfe and Nate Raymond, Reuters. September 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judges-vexed-by-supreme-court-shadow-docket-rulings-trump-cases-2025-09-10/.

(5) “Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker — Challenges to Trump Administration Actions,” Brennan Center. Updated April 16, 2026. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket-tracker-challenges-trump-administration

(6) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRITZ EMMANUEL LESLY MIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-02471 (ACR). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/02/us/haitians-tps-ruling.html

(7) “Court considers whether Trump administration properly ended temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals,” by Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog. April 29, 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/court-considers-whether-trump-administration-properly-ended-temporary-protected-status-for-haiti/

(8) Haiti Travel Advisory, Department of State, April 16, 2026. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/haiti-travel-

(9) “Animus-Based Discrimination Definition,” https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/animus-based-discrimination

(10) “Federal Court Stay of Haiti TPS Termination Remains in Effect; Case Now Before the US Supreme Court” by Eric S. Bord, Morgan Lewis Law Firm. March 19, 2026. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/federal-court-stay-of-haiti-tps-termination-remains-in-effect-case-now-before-the-us-supreme-court

(11) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRITZ EMMANUEL LESLY MIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-02471 (ACR). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/02/us/haitians-tps-ruling.html

(12) “Court considers whether Trump administration properly ended temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals,” by Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, Apr. 29, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/court-considers-whether-trump-administration-properly-ended-temporary-protected-status-for-haiti/

We’re taking a different tack with this week’s podcast. We’ll be covering a main story and concluding with short briefs about other news events that will be part of later podcasts.

On to the main story.

President Trump and his self-reported ability to accurately complete a cognitive exam.

The Beginning--Checkup and Vitriol

President Trump has, like other presidents, undergone medical exams that end up as news stories. Rumors may swirl about suspected illnesses, or in some cases, they’re treated like routine check-ups.

But with Trump, he has a tendency to focus on the cognitive tests he’s taken as part of his overall medical exam. For example, after one such test, he wrote in Truth Social that he’s in “perfect” health and “aced” the test. He added that all candidates should be required to take it, as we don’t need a “stupid” president.

According to Trump,

The White House Doctors have just reported that I am in “PERFECT HEALTH,” and that I “ACED” (Meaning, was correct on 100% of the questions asked!), for the third straight time, my Cognitive Examination, something which no other President, or previous Vice President, was willing to take. P.S., I strongly believe that anyone running for President, or Vice President, should be mandatorily forced to take a strong, meaningful, and proven Cognitive Examination. Our great Country cannot be run by “STUPID” or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE! (1)

When I first heard the news story, I thought it would be interesting to look at the test. As reported, it’s the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the MoCA. (2) A link to a sample test is posted in the Notes section of the podcast, and it’s worth taking a look at.*

According to the company that developed this screening tool, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

is a brief, 30-question test that helps healthcare professionals detect cognitive impairments very early on, allowing for faster diagnosis and patient care. MoCA is the most sensitive test available for detecting Alzheimer’s disease, measuring executive functions and multiple cognitive domains … (3)

So, the test is used to help identify cognitive impairments in individuals, and Trump evidently thinks all presidential candidates should be required to take it. Because, you know, as Trump stated,

Our great Country cannot be run by “STUPID” or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE!

What’s novel about Trump taking the tests and publicly posting the results is his self-praise for passing them. What’s sad and insulting is his further use of the results as a platform to degrade and berate others. These include former President Biden, particularly after the last presidential debate, and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett. In Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett’s case, he stated that they were

“low IQ” and…they wouldn’t do well if tested.

“Those are really hard, they’re really aptitude tests, I guess, in a certain way. But they’re cognitive tests,” Trump said. “The first couple of questions are easy. A tiger, an elephant, a giraffe, you know. When you get up to about five or six, and then when you get up to 10 and 20 and 25, they couldn’t come close to answering any of those questions.” (4)

In yet another example of what seems to be an obsession on the president’s part, a reporter on Air Force One asked a question about which part of Trump’s body was imaged in a recent MRI. His response was,

“I have no idea. It was just an MRI,” Trump said. “It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and aced it. I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing.” (5)

So, again, he announced to the world that he’s cognitively fit. But then, he turned this remark into an insult. It’s the act of a narcissistic bully who thinks he can do or say whatever he wants. And at least so far in this term, his political party’s support has made this a reality.

Unwrapping All of This

There are a number of points to unwrap about this issue.

1. It appears that Trump sometimes confuses a cognitive test with an IQ test. The cognitive test isn’t given to measure someone’s IQ.

2. Were this any other president, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. For example, we’ve heard other presidents talk about health issues. Remember LBJ? He famously showed his gallbladder surgery scars to reporters after a recent operation. (6) He wanted to dispel rumors that he had cancer surgery. But he didn’t tell us it was a perfect operation with better scars than any other president.

So, Johnson showed the scar to make a political point. He didn’t use it to launch a personal attack on an unsuspecting reporter.

3. President Trump’s behavior patterns mirror his other actions. It’s a show of bravado that he’s smarter and knows more than anyone else. And this may be married to a series of insults directed at one or more individuals. But these are not the actions of the supposed leader of the free world. It is more the behavior of a bully. (7) And unfortunately, this self-aggrandizement can have dire consequences.

4. President Trump had an opportunity to demonstrate his “high IQ” during the war with Iran. But as we talked in prior podcasts, he and Secretary Hegseth made a series of mistakes that would fall more in the bailiwick of, using Trump’s own words, “low-IQ” individuals.

For example, neither Trump nor Hegseth was prepared for Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Instead of assembling a coalition force to keep the strait open, the war was launched without taking this crucial step.

Further, despite Iran’s expertise in designing and using drones, they apparently ignored this information as well. As a result, the US was depleting our supply of multi-million dollar Patriot missiles to shoot down inexpensive drones. Not exactly a cost-effective strategy and one that may leave further US and allied installations open to attack if the war resumes.

5. People who are smart generally don’t have to say it or have the need to prove it. For example, I may have missed the moment, but I’ve never heard Einstein boast about how smart he was or how “low IQ” others may be. And though Trump may deny it, Albert was quite a bit smarter than he. Also, much, much wiser.

Conclusion

If Trump had acted like any other president and just mentioned he had taken and passed a cognitive test, all would have been well with the world. But he didn’t. He used it as a self-congratulatory tool and a mechanism to point out that he thinks he’s smarter than anyone in the room.

And while I realize Trump may use this tactic to insult some of his opponents, it has gotten old and tired. More importantly, this public display has further eroded any semblance of respect for the presidency. The saying used to be, you may not respect the person, but you should at least respect the office. In this case, any respect for the office and person has fallen by the wayside.

And I’m sure Trump’s defenders will rush in and once again say, “It’s just Trump being Trump.” But this, too, is getting as old and lame an excuse as his insults.

Some News Stories to Watch

As stated at the top of the podcast, we’re including an introduction to some of the ongoing news stories we’ll be covering in future podcasts. These include the following.

1. A recent Supreme Court Decision Impacts the Voting Rights Act.

According to the New York Times,

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a voting map in Louisiana, and with it dealt a blow to a landmark civil rights law and opened the door for other states to redraw their congressional maps in ways that could affect elections for years to come. (8)

The Court struck down the Louisiana voting map for racial gerrymandering. Essentially, according to the Court, you can’t gerrymander or create voting districts to ensure the equitable representation of underrepresented groups. But it’s okay to gerrymander strictly for political purposes. It sort of defies logic. It’s OK to gerrymander for X but not in support of Y. And the Y in this case happens to be groups of voters who have historically been either denied the right to vote or who have been disenfranchised.

This situation also points to the importance of controlling a state’s legislature, as it may be the designated party to draw up the voting districts. The pursuit of controlling this political body has been a Republican priority for years, while the Democrats have come to this table fairly late in the game.

The Court’s decision also had an immediate impact. The governor of Louisiana called for a halt in primary voting for Congressional seats until a new redistricting plan, benefiting Republicans, can be drawn. However, voting for the primary has already begun, and those who voted for the House seats would have to vote again, as their current ballots, at least for Congress, would be invalid. But given the confusion this will cause, a court challenge will most likely be coming. (9)

It should also be noted that gerrymandering is not a new process. Yet under Trump, it has raised a partisan conflict to a higher level. A more equitable and balanced redistricting plan has to be created; otherwise, given the poison pill the Trump Administration dropped in the well, the damage to our Republic may be difficult to reverse.

And there is, in fact, a possible roadmap to move forward. Some states use an independent commission to determine redistricting. A commission may or may not allow those holding political office to be members. (10)

While this set-up may not be perfect, it’s superior to situations where one political party dominates the legislature and governor’s office.

2. Trump as King.

King Charles is paying a visit to the US, and in one photograph posted by the White House, we read the caption, Two Kings. While this is most likely a play on the No Kings Protests, this isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. And maybe the King title won’t work in the US, but an authoritarian figure who may not surrender his power when his term is up may be more fitting. Or more to the point, a dictator in the making.

Some examples:

The number of Supreme Court Rulings for the Trump Administration, particularly through Shadow Dockets, greatly outweighs any losses. Some of these decisions support the notion of an Imperial Presidency.

We’ve talked about the banners, each with a picture of Trump’s face, on public buildings. Now, there are plans to put Trump’s signature on US paper currency and his picture and signature on a limited number of new passports. According to the White House, these are part of our nation’s 250th anniversary celebration. But let’s not forget, Trump is also adding his name to buildings and other constructs. No other president would have gone this route. But Trump has, in the fashion of an authoritarian figure.

In April 2026, he posted an AI image of himself as a Christ-like figure. (11) And some of his supporters reportedly believe he was sent by God to lead the nation.

President Trump destroyed the White House’s East Wing on his own volition, with the intent of building a large ballroom. This circumvented any established rules governing such an action.

Further, the arrest of a gunman during the Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25, 2026, is now being used as an excuse by some Republican politicians to support the building of Trump’s ballroom. While this was a horrible situation and can’t be tolerated, it still shouldn’t be used as an excuse to build what is viewed, in many quarters, as an illegal structure. More importantly, you don’t invoke a tragedy to build a vanity project as opposed to supporting gun control legislation, among other options.

Finally, Lindsey Graham has called for making 400 million dollars of tax dollars available to complete the construction for security reasons. It was originally supposed to be funded by private grants. A lawsuit to stop construction by the National Trust for Historic Preservation is ongoing. And, as an aside, what Graham and the others don’t mention is that the proposed ballroom would be too small to house this type of dinner.

The president didn’t consult Congress about the Venezuelan assault or the war with Iran. Nor did he assemble a coalition force before the Iran attack as his predecessors had done in other circumstances.

Trump’s second term has been called the vengeance tour. He’s using the Department of Justice, for example, to attack his political enemies. This includes, most recently, James Comey, the former FBI head. He is also using agencies, such as the FCC, with the same goal in mind. ABC and Jimmy Kimmel are under FCC scrutiny for a second time because Trump wills it so.

3. We’ll continue to cover the war in Iran, Ukraine and our relationship with NATO.

4. We’ll continue to cover how budget cuts have impacted Medicaid recipients. \We’ll also update information about the dismantling of USAID and its impact on its US and international workforce.

The podcast’s other focus will be on how USAID programs became an international humanitarian fixture in a number of countries and helped save millions of lives. But estimates indicate that over 10 million individuals may die from hunger, horrific diseases and other factors during Trump’s presidency, because of his cuts.

So, we’ll spend millions to build a vanity ballroom and, potentially, a supersized arch inspired by the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. And for Trump and his Administration, the legacy for which it will be remembered, as well as those politicians who followed his lead, is the death of millions. This action will forever stain their names.

And possibly ours, if this obscenity continues.

This is one of the reasons why the upcoming midterm election is one of the most important in the country’s history; I know this claim has been overused, but given Trump’s orders, which are obediently followed by Republican politicians, the last two years of his term could be hellish unless some balance is brought to Congress.

That’s it for now. Thanks for listening to One for the Road 1776.

Notes:

* https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/cog/MoCA-8.3-English-Test-2018-04.pdf

(1) President Donald Trump.Truth Social. Jan 02, 2026. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115825378093317232

(2) “What Trump’s Cognitive Tests Can -- and Can’t – Reveal,” by Judy George, MedPage Today. December 12, 2025. https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/generalneurology/118990

(3) MoCA Cognition. https://mocacognition.com/about/

(4) “Donald Trump Confuses Dementia Screening for ‘Very Hard’ IQ Test as He Brags About Results,” by Greta Bjornson, People. Updated on October 28, 2025. https://people.com/donald-trump-mistakes-dementia-screening-for-iq-test-11837935

(5) “Trump unleashes latest insult at female reporter as he says he will release MRI results,” by Mike Bedigan, Independent-US edition. December 1, 2025. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-female-reporter-insult-mri-results-b2875360.html

(6) “President Lyndon Johnson shows the press his gall bladder surgery scars. For years, this was seen as LBJ’s rustic behavior,” Everett Collection. https://everett.printstoreonline.com/history/president-lyndon-johnson-shows-press-gall-bladder-surgery-scars-42493461.html#:~:text=President%20Lyndon%20Johnson%20shows%20the,seen%20as%20LBJ’s%20rustic%20behavior

(7) “Former US Envoy to Ireland Brands Donald Trump a ‘schoolyard bully’,” by Jack Beresford, The Irish Post. November 29, 2018. https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/former-us-envoy-ireland-brands-donald-trump-schoolyard-bully-162305

(8) “Court Further Weakens Voting Rights Act, Igniting Political Scramble,” by Abbie VanSickle, Nicholas Corasaniti and Emily Cochrane, The New York Times. April 29, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/29/us/supreme-court-voting-rights

(9) “Louisiana will delay House primaries after Supreme Court redistricting ruling,” by Ben Kamisar and Melanie Zanona, NBC News. April 30, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/louisiana-delay-house-primaries-supreme-court-redistricting-ruling-rcna342858

(10) “State-by-state redistricting procedures,” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

(11) “Trump’s AI image of himself as Jesus-like figure follows feud with Pope Leo,” by Brad Brooks, Helen Coster and Joseph Ax, Reuters. April 13, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-posts-ai-image-himself-jesus-like-figure-drawing-outrage-2026-04-13/

© 2026 MMM

This is Part II of our examination of President Trump’s and Secretary Hegseth’s Competence, Complacency & Ethics and the war with Iran.

But, a quick update before we begin.

1. The Secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, has been fired. This action and the other firings by Hegseth are beyond the norm and signal a wave of confusion at the Pentagon. This isn’t a good position to be in during a war.

2. The Republicans defeated multiple Democrat Party efforts to push through a War Powers Resolution. The legal limit the President can continue to act without Congressional input is also winding down. There’s the possibility for an extension, but not for offensive operations.

3. The ceasefire between the US and Iran is holding, and the US is maintaining its blockade and has, among other actions, turned a number of Iranian vessels back to port. Iran has retaliated against other ships but evidently, as long as they aren’t US-flagged ships, the US is ignoring these attacks. And the Strait of Hormuz is closed to most vessels through the US and Iranian actions. Many ship owners also don’t want to risk going through the Strait as long as there’s a potential for the resumption of hostilities. But this situation can change tomorrow in what’s a rapidly evolving scene.

It’s also an odd ceasefire and blockade. A blockade is usually considered an act of war and firing on another nation’s vessels is also typically considered a violation.

4. As part of the broader campaign, Israel has been attacking Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization that’s a proxy of Iran. But on April 17, it was announced that a ceasefire in Lebanon had been agreed to.

Finally, one can only hope that the war will end soon. There have been too many deaths. And while the events of the war will be part of the discussion, a critical analysis and commentary about the Trump Administration’s choices and actions will be at the forefront. In some ways, these choices and actions transcend the war itself as they’re markers of the Administration’s ethos, or the lack thereof.

Lack of Preparation

The preparation for the war is questionable. Both the President and Secretary appeared to be surprised that Iran was ready to fight back, including closing the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. What did Trump and Hegseth expect the Iranians would do? If you start a war, you should expect that the enemy will retaliate. Further, at a Pentagon press briefing, Secretary Hegseth called a CNN report “unserious” since the organization indicated the Administration was not fully prepared for the Strait of Hormuz situation. (9) But, if the Administration was prepared, why didn’t Trump assemble a coalition force as other Presidents have done in the past? The Administration did call for assistance at one point, but this should have been settled before the US and Israel launched their attacks.

It also appears that the Administration’s ease of securing Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, after the assault on Venezuela, may have lulled the Administration into complacency. But Iran isn’t Venezuela. Iran has either been engaged in combat or has been preparing for it for years. It also developed its own arsenal of weapons, including military drones that have been deployed in the current war.

Drones

Iran’s use of such drones is reflective of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare generally describes a military action between two or more opponents, one side of which is superior in resources and possibly weaponry. The weaker side may adopt unconventional methods and weapons to try to blunt the stronger force’s advantages. This is a well-known formula that has been used in prior conflicts, including World War I, when T. E. Lawrence, also known as Lawrencia of Arabia, helped pioneer the modern use of such tactics. **

In the case of the war with Iran, the US is using its systems to target and strike down Iranian missiles and drones. The problem, though, is that a drone may cost under well under 50,000 dollars while a Patriot missile, one of the US defensive options, may run into the millions of dollars per shot. This doesn’t include the cost of the launch system itself, and it becomes an unsustainable cost ratio if a country is engaged in an extended conflict.

A further issue is the rapid depletion of missiles and other ammunition, possibly at a faster rate than they can be produced. And even though the US has less expensive defensive weapons in its arsenal, the cost and depletion problems are prevalent.

So, if you’re the weaker force, what could your strategy be? Possibly, to keep launching the drones, in this case, to deplete your enemy’s missile and ammunition stockpile. The potential result? Your opponent’s defensive capabilities may be compromised or overwhelmed. Ultimately, the conflict may become too expensive to sustain, and if it’s extended, it may also have a political and financial fallout.

In the case of the US, Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which had blocked the flow of oil and other products, contributed to this financial impact, leading to rising gas prices and the cost of fertilizer and other goods at home. There’s also wide speculation this may have political implications come November’s mid-term election.

And of course, on the flip side, Iran has felt the impact of the US blockade, the aerial assaults and the prior sanctions. Given the country’s news blackout, their full impact is still open to conjecture, but they are adversely affecting its economy and people. This will only increase as Iran’s reserve funds decrease.

Finally, and to wrap up this part of the podcast, it appears the US wasn’t ready for Iran’s response to the US and Israeli attacks. Further, the Trump Administration’s inaccurate assessment of the war’s length and potential impact led many to question the competency of our leadership. And this was exacerbated by the continuing flow of statements, such as the Iranian weapons systems were obliterated, when they really weren’t.

Disregarding Ukraine

Ukraine has broad and deep experience in using its own drones to deliver payloads and in stopping Russian attacks. But the Administration refused to take advantage of the Ukrainian’s expertise in this matter. Some of Iran’s neighboring countries did, but according to a PBS News report,

The relationship between Washington and Kyiv on drone cooperation has been unclear.

Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine was awaiting White House approval for an agreement on drone production. But a day later Trump spurned Ukraine’s offer of assistance, telling the “Brian Kilmeade Show” on Fox News Radio: “No, we don’t need their help on drone defense.” (10)

If this were just hubris on Trump’s and Hegseth’s part, it could be dismissed as another chink in their armor. But this extends beyond hubris. The US military is being placed in danger, and more civilian lives may be lost as the war is potentially extended by refusing to accept Ukraine’s help.

And this incident, in particular, highlights a further lack of leadership on the Administration’s part. One of the reasons for this refusal may be Trump’s personal and unjustified animosity toward President Zelensky. Nothing substantive but personal. And in fact, Germany recently signed an agreement with Ukraine to tap its expertise in drone technology as part of a defense agreement. (11)

Further, since the US doesn’t have Ukraine’s depth and breadth of experience in using drones, turning down President Zelensky also ties in with the Trump Administration’s complacency issue. President Trump stated we don’t need Ukraine’s help as the US is already well versed in this area.

From an outside perspective, this isn’t exactly true. If it were, the US and its allies would have fielded truckloads of small, inexpensive drones to knock down Iranian drones in the war. This would have also conserved the more expensive defensive weapons, such as the Patriot missiles, to hit enemy missiles. Ultimately, you want to design and field a multi-layered defense that can handle both missiles and drones with an appropriate economy of scale.

The Trump Administration signed off on an accelerated drone development initiative fairly early in its new term. This is building on the Replicator program started late in the Biden Administration. It appears the goal is to build more than one class of drone. Generally, some will be less expensive and more limited in speed, range and other characteristics. These drones may also be disposable, much like conventional ammunition after it’s fired. Another class are larger drones with enhanced capabilities. (12)

And while the Pentagon is undertaking to speed up its drone development program, there are also issues of software development, communications and probably what’s most important, training drone operators.

While the US is actually upping its training in small drone use in the field, the scale of development is still small, especially when compared to Ukraine. This might change over time. But if you think you’re going to start a war with a country that heavily relies on drones as weapons, you should have been prepared to meet this threat, including working with Ukraine to tap its real-world experience. (13)

And finally, as an aside, the deployment and expanded use of drones has two other implications. First, as covered in earlier postings, the Trump Administration is proposing the development of a new class of battleship, which will have an impact on the launching of other vessel classes that might be more appropriate in the age of uncrewed weapons systems. These drones include different systems designed for air or sea combat.

Second, AI is making inroads in drone warfare as well. While this integration should make drones more flexible and able to quickly and autonomously respond as battlefield conditions change, what happens if a glitch occurs?

It’s beyond this podcast’s purview to explore the second topic, including the Trump Administration’s proposal for a national AI mandate to prevent states from creating contrary laws that may affect AI development. Yet, strong state-based legislative guardrails may actually be vital regardless of which party is in power. ****

So.

…a different discussion for a different day.

Conclusion

Despite some diplomatic failures, the possibility for peace still exists. If peace does break out, this raises a question--did the President achieve what he set out to achieve?

When the war first started, there was confusion on the US government’s part as to the goals of the war. But why would you start a war if you didn’t have a clear picture of what you wanted to achieve? Israel apparently did; yet, from what we heard from the Administration, the US reasons shifted from one explanation to another.

But as time went on, three general goals were identified: to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon and a long-range ballistic missile, to initiate regime change and to destroy Iran’s military capabilities.

President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have declared that the US won a resounding victory. But on closer examination, this may not be true.

First, Iran still possesses their stockpile of highly enriched nuclear material. We keep hearing this won’t be allowed, but unless Iran turns it over as part of a possible peace settlement, how does the US intend to get it? Would this require restarting hostilities and securing the material by a raid or a larger armed force on the ground? The boots on the ground scenario has found little support in US quarters.

The retrieval of the material would also be a difficult task, particularly if hostilities still existed between the US and Iran. You would have to potentially move a number of heavy storage containers, which may or may not have sustained damage during the June 2025 attack, when Iran’s nuclear program was supposed to have been “obliterated.” (14)

As discussed in an earlier section, an existing treaty, which at the very least would have been a reasonable starting point to address the uranium issue, was abrogated by Trump. And the timeline of the development of the long-range ballistic missiles, as stated by the Administration, has been disputed in many quarters.

Second, regime change never occurred. Despite the killing of Iran’s top leaders, others, including the Ayatollah’s son, filled the void. And while the Administration claimed a new, more open regime was running the country, this isn’t true. While the old guard was slain, so to speak, a new one, possibly even more radical than the last, took its place.

As for the people of Iran. Thousands were slaughtered in protests held during the early part of the year. And Trump has repeated that the Iranian people should rise up against the government, and thus, lead to regime change.

In a video announcing the assault early Saturday, Mr. Trump encouraged Iranians to rise up, saying that “the hour of your freedom is at hand” and that when the attack was finished, “take over your government, it will be yours to take.”

Since then, Mr. Trump has adopted a more passive tone. “They’ll have that opportunity, but honestly that’s going to be up to them,” he told The Times. “They’re going to have to make that decision.”

But there is no guarantee that Mr. Trump would welcome the outcome of a popular revolution, analysts warn. (15)

Trump has vacillated on this question. He shifted from a call to rise against the regime, and the US will be there to help, to you’re on your own. What’s particularly malevolent about the situation is Trump’s call for freedom but without substantive ground support. If Iranian soldiers didn’t join in a revolt, more protesters may have been slaughtered by a government that was essentially unchanged.

And finally, as pointed out in the last line of the quoted text, if the people do overthrow the regime, you can’t be sure as to the final configuration of the new government. Given the extent of damage from the war, both administratively and materially, could Iran fracture into multiple states, some, most likely, with more radicalized governments?

Third, this is the piece that Trump and Hegseth called somewhat accurately. Iran’s military forces have been dealt a heavy blow. But they still possess a fleet of drones and other weapons, and they can block the Strait of Hormuz if so desired. So, the question is, did the US and Israel trade starting a war for a temporarily weakened Iran? And if you want to ensure the continuance of such a weakened state, this may necessitate a large ground force and financial commitment, as was the case with Iraq.

Or, even simpler, the US could have kept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump withdrew from during his first term. Many experts agreed it was successful, and any future tenets could have been based on the original treaty. And extending the treaty didn’t rule out the use of military force if necessary. But in this scenario, the US would have been joined with the original treaty’s signatories and supporters in contrast with the current war. But Trump chose his path and has dragged the US and the world to a place most would have wanted to avoid.

Postscript

As stated at the top of the posting, Vice President Vance met with an Iranian peace delegation on April 12, 2026, in an attempt to convert a two-week truce into a peace treaty. Unfortunately, both sides could not come to an agreement. This failure also raised a question about the truce. What happens when it expires?

Further, in the same general time frame, two events struck me as sad commentaries about where we stand as a nation under the Trump Administration. You could probably choose from several such events, including Trump’s threat to end the Iranian civilization, which will be covered in a later podcast. But for now, let’s first focus on an April 8, 2026 Press Briefing with Secretary Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Air Force General Dan Caine. The way each opened his brief speaks volumes.

Hegseth stated that,

Other presidents marked time and kicked the can down the road. President Trump made history. From the strike that took out Qasem Soleimani to tearing up the disastrous Obama Iran deal, to the precision campaign that obliterated Iran’s nuclear sites in Operation Midnight Hammer, to the decisive military victory we just achieved in Operation Epic Fury, no other president has shown the courage and resolve of this commander in chief.

President Trump forged this moment. Iran begged for this ceasefire, and we all know it... Iran wants it to happen. They’ve had enough. Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield...

Next, General Caine.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here. I want to start this morning by honoring the 13 members of our American Joint Force who were killed in action thus far during this operation. Their sacrifice and that of their families is deeply important to us and we were grateful — we are grateful for each of them and will continue to mourn their loss. Their names and their bravery will never be forgotten. (16)

It’s pretty clear. Hegseth made his opening remarks a political statement, apparently to appease the President. It’s the politicization of the military.

For General Caine, his first words were for those who were killed in action and to their families. You remember and honor the fallen.

This was very appropriate and should have been the opening remarks for the overall briefing. It wasn’t, as Hegseth chose to follow a political path.

For the second event, there was a report by The New York Times that while Vance was in Pakistan, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were going to Florida to watch an Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC event. And

Mr. Trump had told reporters that it did not matter to him if a deal with Iran was reached or not: “We win, regardless,” he said. “We’ve defeated them militarily.” (17)

So, when US military personnel were still in the field, and the potential for the loss of additional civilian lives throughout the Middle East hung in the balance, the President and Rubio went to watch UFC fights. And the quote’s last line seemingly sums up Trump’s thoughts about the war. It wasn’t the destruction or the deaths of US military members or the civilian casualties. It was that he could say, “We win, regardless.” “We’ve defeated them militarily.”

It’s damn sad. And even more than this, it’s pathetic.

Notes; Continuation

** Lawrence, for example, adopted hit and run tactics and destroying railway lines. The goal was to tie down enemy forces, which meant they couldn’t be used elsewhere.

**** For information about the Trump Administration’s proposed AI policy, the following document is a good roadmap, particularly as there are cites for additional information at the document’s end. ENSURING A NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Executive Orders. December 11, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/

(9) Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing, U.S. Department of War. March 13, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/

(10) “Zelenskyy says Ukraine is using drone expertise to help 5 countries against Iran attacks,” by Hanna Arhirova, Associated Press, PBS News. March 20, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/zelenskyy-says-ukraine-is-using-drone-expertise-to-help-5-countries-against-iran-attacks

(11) “Ukraine strikes drone production, military support deal with Germany,” by

Al Jazeera Staff, AFP and AP. Al Jazeera. April 14, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/ukraine-strikes-drone-production-deal-with-germany

(12) “Pentagon unveils Drone Dominance Program with ‘Gauntlets’ to rapidly expand its small UAS arsenal,” by Brandi Vincent, Defensescoop. December 2, 2025. https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/02/hegseth-drone-dominance-program-ddp-gauntlets-website-rfi/ Also, please see: “Unpacking Iran’s Drone Campaign in the Gulf: Early Lessons for Future Drone Warfare,” by Kateryna Bondar, Center for Strategic and International Studies. March 10, 2026. https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-irans-drone-campaign-gulf-early-lessons-future-drone-warfare

(13) “As small attack drones become vital in warfare, the US is trying to catch up to other countries ,” by Jay Price, WUNC News. April 17, 2026. https://www.wunc.org/military/2026-04-17/small-attack-drones-war

(14) “Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say,” by Dan Vergano ; edited by Clara Moskowitz, Scientific American. March 11, 2026. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/

(15) “Iran’s Secret Outreach Highlights Trump’s Challenge,” by Michael Crowley, Julian E. Barnes and Ronen Bergman, The New York Times. March 4, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/us/politics/trump-iran-intelligence-leaders.html

(16) Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing, U.S. Department of War. April 8, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4454648/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/

(17) “Trump Was Watching a U.F.C. Fight in Miami While Iran Talks Collapsed,” by Katie Rogers, The New York Times. April 11, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/11/us/politics/trump-ufc-iran-war.html

The ceasefire continues; however, the prospect of ending the war has diminished. And in light of the failed talks, the Trump Administration initiated a naval blockade to cut off Iran’s capability to trade and sell oil.

Introduction

When the war began, which President Trump has also labelled as an “excursion,” he indicated it would be a short-term engagement. But this time-frame has stretched well beyond a month. How did this happen? We’ve been told that an overwhelming US force has moved to the Middle East, and in tandem with Israel, short work will be made of Iran’s military capabilities.

And it’s true that Iran’s military, from the air to the sea, has been devastated. The country, though, still possesses weapons that can damage US assets as well as the infrastructure of neighboring Arab states.

So, the question is asked once again. How did we arrive at this juncture when we were told Iran would be out of the fight in short order? Part of the answer lies in the way President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth approached the war with Iran.

And this last point is, in fact, the focus of these two postings. One can only hope that the war will end soon. There have been too many deaths. And while the events of the war will be part of the discussion, a critical analysis and commentary about the Trump Administration’s choices and actions will be at the forefront. In some ways, these choices and actions transcend the war itself as they’re markers of the Administration’s ethos, or the lack thereof.

Trump as Chicken-Hawk

As covered in other postings, the President is a quintessential chicken-hawk. Briefly, this is a person who avoided military service but who supports overt and aggressive military actions. In Trump’s case, he received educational deferments and, ultimately, a medical deferment for “heel spurs.” This was during the Vietnam War. (1)

So, he dodged military service, but during his two terms as President, he’s exhibited a public military ardor. This included wanting and eventually getting a military parade, much like the authoritarian leaders of Russia, China and North Korea. Trump also regularly supported and continues to support such a martial stance. And while a number of Presidents didn’t serve, the martial drum beating exhibited by the Trump Administration appears to be beyond the norm.

A chicken-hawk is also not a sterling qualification for a President who starts a war. And in Trump’s case, it appears he may lack the gravitas to serve as an effective Commander-in-Chief.

For example, two of the Administration’s demands are that Iran surrender its enriched uranium supply and that work on long-range ballistic missile development stop. It was also claimed that the country was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.

Yet, during his first term, Trump withdrew from an existing treaty with Iran that focused on forestalling the development of such a device. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also called the Iran nuclear deal, drafted during President Obama’s Administration, was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It was a multi-national agreement, and despite Trump’s claims that there should have been more safeguards, such as the elimination of sunset dates for certain provisions and curtailing missile development, many experts thought it was a success.

At the very least, it could have served as a starting point for new negotiations with the Trump Administration. And actually, negotiations were taking place when the US and Israel launched their 2026 attack.

In regard to long-range ballistic missiles, the Iranians were a number of years away from possibly developing such a weapon. It seems the claims about Trump’s missiles mirror those of President George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction in the earlier Iraqi war.

So, what did President Trump decide to do? He withdrew from an operational agreement in his first term, followed by launching a war in the middle of negotiations in the second term.

This action placed our military forces in bases scattered throughout the Middle East in harm’s way, as were the pilots who flew numerous sorties. Add to this list potential and actual civilian casualties, including Iranian school children who were killed by a US Tomahawk missile that was guided by outdated targeting data. (2)

But at the time, it seems that Trump may have preferred fighting to negotiating. The Administration also justified the attack with a series of shifting reasons, ranging from the erroneous missile development issue to seeking regime change in Iran.

The President also stated that there could be US casualties, but “that often happens in war.” (3)

And this somewhat flip and chicken-hawk sounding statement reminds me of two lines from a refrain in I Ain’t Marching Anymore, a 1965 Phil Ochs anti-war song. The lines go, “It’s always the old to lead us to the wars. It’s always the young to fall.” But did and do people have to fall when there’s a possible alternate path through negotiations and other means? The Obama Administration secured an agreement, so why not the Trump Administration?

And finally, at this point, it’s also important to note that the Iranian regime has been horrific, particularly toward its own people. Thousands upon thousands of innocents have been slaughtered for daring to question the government and for engaging in protests. It’s a theocracy that controls by brutalizing its own citizens as it promotes terrorism in and beyond the region. And at some juncture, it could develop a nuclear weapon.

But we should also remember that the US has supported those who committed their own atrocities in the region, which helped bring us to where we are today. Before the 1979 revolution in Iran, we supported the Shah and his government. And while the regime may not have matched the current government in its ferocity toward its people, there were secret police, the SAVAK, and other control mechanisms in play. The US also supported Saddam Hussein during the brutal war between Iraq and Iran. And Hussein was yet another dictator who bled his own people, including the Kurdish civilian population. *

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth--Introduction and Personnel Issues

We’ve primarily focused on President Trump in most of our postings. But given the war with Iran, it seems appropriate to spend more time with Hegseth.

To start, according to his Defense Department biography,

Hegseth was commissioned as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard after graduating from Princeton University in 2003. He participated in a number of active-duty deployments during his time in service, including operations in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Hegseth also served in multiple staff positions in the National Guard. (4)

He was also awarded two bronze stars, among other medals.

As a veteran, Secretary Hegseth merits recognition and appreciation for his service. However, this experience doesn’t mean he’s qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. And since he took office a year or so ago, a lot has transpired.

1. Hegseth was involved in two communication screw-ups. They were serious enough that if the involved parties had not been senior-level officials, some of the individuals would possibly have been fired.

First, an Atlantic reporter was brought into a group chat covering information about an upcoming military mission in Yemen. While Hegseth didn’t run the chat, he was a member. For the second, in the same time-frame, the Secretary allegedly initiated and engaged in a group chat with his wife and others, about another upcoming mission. (5) If details had been intercepted, those flying the mission could have been placed in harm’s way.

2. Secretary Hegseth and President Trump talked to some 800 military leaders at a command performance on September 30, 2026. No one knew what the meeting was about, and based on later comments, no one knew what the meeting was about when it was over.

According to Politico,

More like a press conference than briefing the generals,” said one defense official, who, like others, was granted anonymity due to fears of retribution. “Could have been an email. (6)

Further, Pete Hegseth managed to insult past and current military personnel during his talk. At one point, he stated that

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth said. The approach, he said, made the Pentagon “less capable and less lethal.” Hegseth talked up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength. (7)

Military commanders from around the world had to come to the meeting. This essentially created on-site command voids, including at potential hot spots, so Hegseth and Trump could allegedly talk about nothing substantial.

Hegseth also implied that “too many” leaders /were promoted for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion or DEI reasons. One of Trump’s quests in his second presidency is to eliminate anything that looks, tastes or smells like DEI, and this has been adopted by his subordinates.

In this case, a possible implication is that someone may have been promoted based on a DEI consideration rather than qualifications and experience. It is, at the very least, insulting. It’s also racist and sexist.

Approximately six months later, Secretary Hegseth continued down this path when he reportedly removed the names of four Army officers from a promotion list. Two are men of color, and two are women. Initially, it was reported that Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll declined to remove their names, given the quality of their service records. So, Hegseth crossed out the names himself. (8) This appears to be another instance where the Trump Administration’s anti-DEI mantra came into play. And again, the implication is that DEI mandates played a role in the proposed promotions. It’s a case of race and gender bias, and given Hegseth’s past remarks, it fits the pattern.

There are a number of problems and issues with these decisions. First, a man just appointed as the Secretary of Defense, who never commanded such a large and complex organization, had the temerity to lecture career officers who have deep operational and command experience. Second, Hegseth’s decisions lack a moral quality and clarity. Third, other than the Administration’s DEI bias, is there information that supports the promotion and firing decisions? Fourth, the armed forces and the country have lost command experience and talent. By excising entire groups of people, Hegseth initiated a brain drain. And in times of combat, including the war with Iran, such losses could have major implications. It’s a show of incompetence and a lack of leadership at the highest government levels.

And finally, to exacerbate the situation, Hegseth fired top military officers in March, 2026, in addition to his earlier dismissals. And what’s even more remarkable about these decisions is that he eviscerated part of the top US military echelon in the middle of a war.

Notes:

* The assault against the Kurds was a genocide. Poison gas was used and prisoners were tortured in Amna Suraka Prison, now a museum. Years later, Kurdish forces supported the US operation against ISIS. Some 11,000 fell during the fight. Yet, in 2019, Trump abandoned the Kurds as US forces pulled out of Syria. What was Trump’s excuse for this action: the Kurds didn’t support the US during the Normandy invasion. You just have to shake your head at this answer.

(1) “Did a Queens Podiatrist Help Donald Trump Avoid Vietnam?,” by Steve Eder, The New York Times. December 26, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/politics/trump-vietnam-draft-exemption.html

(2) “United States was “likely” responsible for bombing of girls’ school in Iran, per early U.S. assessment,” by Margaret Brennan, Olivia Gazis and Camilla Schick, CBS News. Updated on: March 9, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-iran-war-bombing-girls-school-assessment/

(3) “U.S. and Israel launch a major attack on Iran, Trump says Supreme Leader Khamenei killed,” by Joe Gambrell, Associated Press, Konstantin Toropin, Associated Press, Aamer Madhani, Associated Press and Josh Boak, Associated Press, PBS News. February 28, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-and-israel-launch-a-major-attack-on-iran-trump-says-supreme-leader-khamenei-killed Easy to say, but words with terrible implications.

(4) HON Pete Hegseth. Defense Department. Secretary of Defense. https://www.war.gov/About/Biographies/Biography/Article/4040890/hon-pete-hegseth/

(5) “Pete Hegseth Fast Facts,” by Editorial Research, CNN. Updated February 18, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/politics/pete-hegseth-fast-facts

(6) ‘Could have been an email’: Officials balk at Hegseth’s generals meeting,’ by Jack Detsch and Leo Shane III, Politico. September 20, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/30/hegseth-meeting-pushback-00588181?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

(7) “Pete Hegseth had a lot to say when he summoned military leaders. Here are some facts and context,” by Julie Watson, Laurie Kellman and Deepth Hajela, AP News. September 30, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/military-combat-women-race-hegseth-d406029d0e0dfd52443ef8d7fcb765cb

(8) “Hegseth Strikes Two Black and Two Female Officers From Promotion List,” by Greg Jaffe, Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Adam Entous, The New York Times. March 27, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/27/us/hegseth-promotion-list.html

Thanks for listening.

© 2026 MMM

Introduction

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us….****

These are the marvelous opening lines from “A Tale of Two Cities,” by Charles Dickens. And on the night of April 1, 2026, when President Trump started his address to the American people, the words immediately came to mind. It was the same night that the Artemis moon journey began.

If you’re a space exploration proponent, that night was, indeed, the best of times. And regardless of your position concerning the pros and cons of the space program, the Artemis launch did signal the start of our return to the moon, the human exploration of space. It’s a trek that generations of individuals before us would have wished they could have witnessed. So, despite the 50-year hiatus, we’re going back.

Now to the flip or Trump-side, the worst of times. We’ve posted, over the past year, some of the Trump Administration’s acts, including the current war with Iran. The incompetence demonstrated by Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth in launching this operation is remarkable. Trump’s repeated lies about Iran’s inability to fight back to blaming other countries for not supporting the US effort. This would include NATO, for instance. But he never mentions that NATO was not notified about the US plans. Trump also forgets, or maybe he doesn’t understand, that NATO is a defensive pact created to help another member state if it’s attacked. It’s not set-up to support a member who unilaterally decides to start a war.

And in addition to the war, and the horrific loss of our military members and thousands of civilian lives throughout the Middle East, Trump’s “Season of Darkness ” continues. We’re still dealing with immigration issues, the racist attempt to strike down Birthright Citizenship, the attempts to swing the election toward the Republican side through gerrymandering, and an update to this post’s topic, Trump adding his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as one of Trump’s acts of adding his name to anything he can tag it on.

I decided to bring up this last topic, right now, for two reasons. First, as we’ll cover, this action has other implications. Second, the Center has been in the news lately. It was announced that the facility will be closed for an extended time for renovations. Further, given the Center’s recent political turmoil, some performers have pulled out of the schedule. And finally, Bill Maher, the comedian who hosts Real Time with Bill Maher, will receive the annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. It’s an award presented by the Center. But there was some controversy surrounding Maher’s selection. If you’re a fan of the show, you’ll know that he regularly mocks Donald Trump. But the left is also so targeted.

The Administration initially used the “fake news” moniker to refute Maher’s selection. But the issues were worked out, and Maher will receive the Prize.

So, given these developments, I thought it would be a good time to explore the Center’s current status as well as related developments.

Background Information

The President had actually joked about renaming the Center for some time. This idea has also been percolating in different Republican circles. But the board actually made the change in December 2025.

This decision has triggered legal responses, including, can the board, by itself, authorize a name change?

According to U.S. code,

“After December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” (1)

So, would Congress have to authorize this name change?

The Kennedy family has also pushed back on the board’s decision. The Kennedy Center was and is meant to be a memorial to John F. Kennedy, not to Donald Trump.

And following his typical pattern, Trump has attacked the Center for, among other issues, hosting what he refers to inappropriate programming. In May of 2025, at a dinner for the board of trustees, Trump made a series of remarks that read and sound more like a stream of consciousness than a speech.

The previous leadership wasted millions and millions of dollars and handed us a budget deficit of $26 million. Can you believe that? In addition, the programming was out of control with rampant political propaganda, DEI, and inappropriate shows. We had some very inappropriate shows, to put it—I think, to put it very nicely.

They had dance parties for, quote, “queer and trans youth.” And I guess that’s all right for certain people. Quote—and I’m just quoting; I’m not saying it—”queer and trans youth.” That wasn’t working out too well.

They had a Marxist, antipolice performance. And they had a lesbian-only Shakespeare, which is different. Who thinks of these ideas, really…? It’s different. And it’s different. (2)

Venues like the Kennedy Center traditionally experiment with a range of performances. And for a national center, the goal is to serve the broad fabric of your citizenry, including individuals who may not fit within your construct. But this concept of openness, free from bigotry and underlying racism, has apparently gone by the wayside. Given the Administration’s critical approach toward anyone or any practice it considers outside of the American norm…actually…let’s make that Trump’s norm, the criticism should not surprise anyone.

So, Who Cares?

To some, renaming a building is a trivial event, given the other issues swirling in Trump’s orbit. We’re in the middle of a controversial war, the Administration is trying to end birthright citizenship and Affordable Care Act policy subsidies have been eliminated, resulting in over a million policyholders dropping their insurance. In light of this human carnage, does it matter if the Kennedy Center has a new name?

I would argue yes for the same reasons that we care about these other issues. We’re witnessing an assault on our culture and our history. And it’s not from an external force. It’s from within. It’s from the Administration and its legion of Senators, Representatives, political appointees and business leaders.

The Smithsonian, for instance, portrayed our history, the good and bad of it, but Trump effaced this. If you recall, there was “too much” emphasis on how bad slavery was. Well, guess what? It was and remains a heinous blot against humanity.

The CDC, which moved to advance the medical sciences to the benefit of Americans and the broader international community, has been perverted. It’s now a puppet organization where decisions seem to be based on hearsay and “feelings,” not research.

Where Americans used to celebrate diversity, it’s now a word to be feared. And America used to help those faced by natural and human-made disasters, but we now turn our back on the world and, in some cases, on our fellow Americans. It’s as though Trump and his Administration are striving to make it not an American culture but the culture of Trump. And the attempted renaming of the Kennedy Center fits in this pattern.

One of my first loves was history, and I realize our history is peppered with a number of evils. But we strive as individuals, and hopefully as a people, to move forward. We try to learn the lessons of the past as we carve our future. But with Trump, there’s a move to destroy these lessons and to rewrite the past to change our future path. It’s a path that I despise in many ways. It’s regression and not progression.

To me, at least, the name change is synonymous with these actions.

This latest move, one in an expanding series, also reminds me of a line from the movie The Monuments Men. The book, later made into a movie, explores how a small cadre of individuals rescued and helped return thousands upon thousands of works of art stolen by the Nazis in World War II. And there’s a dialogue exchange, at one point in the movie, that’s pertinent to our present discussion: “Hitler wants everything. He really wanted it all.”

And I’m not calling Trump Hitler, but I believe Trump also wants it all. For example, with the help and apparent approval of Congressional Republicans, Trump is placing his name everywhere. New proposed battleships will be part of the Trump class of ships. We see his banners on buildings in Washington, including the Justice Department. The building housing the agency that’s supposed to be above partisan politics is now splattered by Trump’s mud. And Trump now wants his signature on US currency, another controversial action. According to the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent,

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance, and fiscal strength and stability,” Bessent said in a statement. “There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial.” (3)

.And so, the Trump Administration band plays on. It’s shameful.

Finally, as stated at the top of the post, the name change has been challenged in court cases. One of the central questions is, can the Trump Administration legally change the building’s name?

The Administration said the Center’s board unanimously approved the change. However, the board is not independent of the White House, as its members were appointed by Trump. Further, even if the board approved the change, it appears it doesn’t have the authority to do so.

One of the lawsuits has been filed by Representative. Joyce Beatty of Ohio. She stated,

Donald Trump’s attempt to rename the Kennedy Center after himself is not just an act of ego. It is an attempt to subvert our Constitution and the rule of law. Congress established the Kennedy Center by law, and only Congress can change its name. (4)

And, so, the lawsuits continue to wind their way through the courts. Given the Center’s governing statutes, and the rulings of judges in recent lower court cases, I think the name change will be overturned. Trump can, of course, and most likely will appeal the decision. But we can hope that they’ll follow the original legal directive for the Center. More importantly, they’ll honor that the Center is a memorial for President Kennedy. Not President Trump.

Postscript

Even though we didn’t talk about the White House and Trump’s tearing down the East Wing to make room for his ballroom, his actions follow the pattern of the other examples we covered. He essentially bullied and battered his way to get what he wants, as if, in this case, the White House is his private domain.

But on March 31, 2026, Judge Richard J. Leon issued a preliminary injunction to halt construction. And while I assume the Administration will be able to appeal this decision, it portends, for Trump, the possible path the court may take in respect to the Kennedy Center. Judge Leon’s opening paragraph of his ruling is instructive.

The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner! President Trump…claims that Congress has given him authority in existing statutes to construct his East Wing ballroom project and to do it with private funds. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States…claims the President has no such authority under existing statutes and that a preliminary injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. I have concluded…no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have. As such, I must therefore GRANT the National Trust’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion. (5)

While there are differences between the White House and the Kennedy Center’s scenarios, there is, at least, one key similarity—they’ve have been launched without Congressional input and/or approval. As noted in other posts, the Administration has apparently forgotten our government has three co-equal branches. Not just one. Not just his. Not just Trump.

And while the National Capital Planning Commission, which includes a Trump appointed chair and other members, approved the project’s planning phases, the judge’s injunction still holds.

Notes:

**** A Tale of Two Cities. Charles Dickens. From PROJECT GUTENBERG. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/98/98-h/98-h.htm

(1) “Renaming the Kennedy Center for Donald and Melania Trump would violate the law that created it,” by Andrea Mitchell and Syedah Asghar, NBC News. July 28, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/renaming-kennedy-center-donald-melania-trump-violate-law-created-rcna221505

(2) “Remarks at a Dinner for the Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,” The American Presidency Project. May 19, 2025. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-dinner-for-the-board-trustees-the-john-f-kennedy-center-for-the-performing-arts

(3) “All the Things Trump Has Put His Name and Face on as President,” by Connor Greene, Time. March 28, 2026. https://time.com/article/2026/03/27/trump-name-face-signature-currency-government-buildings-programs/

(4) “Suit asks court to force Trump administration to use ‘The Kennedy Center’ name,” by Anastasia Tsioulcas, NPR. Updated March 27, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5762241/kennedy-center-name-lawsuit-trump#:~:text=In%20a%20statement%20emailed%20to,Democrats%20could%20oppose%20these%20efforts.%22

(5) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al. Civil Case No. 25-4316 (RJL). https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2025cv04316/287645/60/0.pdf?ts=1775058865

This is the fulll video for last week’s podcast. We hope you enjoy it!

“Most folks don’t realize that your vote is about the best thing you got in the world because it is the best thing you can use to change the world and make it better.”

Woody Guthrie, in an essay to Alan Lomax, ca. November, 1940

The podcast explores some of the protest and topical songs and their writers/singers from the 1960s through to the present day. This is Part 1 of a 2-part podcast. In Part 1, Liz, Bob and I lay out the landscape of the songs and singers. Part II is a more give and take conversation.

Pete Seeger famously used the phrase “Woody’s Children” to describe the generation of political folk singers in the 1960s who were directly inspired by the music, activism, and legacy of Woody Guthrie. And this title can be extended to the present day to those who ae protesting against many of the same issues we’re faced some 60+ years ago. While the Vietnam War ended in the 1970s, we’re still fighting against racism, government abuses, civil rights and poverty. So, while the world has been made over in many ways, much has also remained the same. And it’s ultimately up to us to keep the music and the activism alive.

Opening photo: © MMM 1972

The 1 minute or so video piece that follows is an introduction to the topic. Some of the names of the singers and groups may be familiar to you as protest/topical singers while others may surprise you.

Text/Transcript

I started writing an update to the earlier posts about the war with Iran. But I was told about a comment the President made during a meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister. I immediately thought, even he can’t be that oblivious in this type of situation. Well, I was wrong, so I decided to cover this and related Trumpisms.

In the Beginning

As you probably heard, Trump vacillates between wanting help to secure the Gulf of Hormuz to calling out NATO and other allies for not helping. In mid-March, Japan’s Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, visited Washington. One of the topics of discussion was the US request concerning the Gulf.

And during a press conference with reporters in the White House, Trump was asked why the US didn’t inform its allies about the upcoming attack against Iran. Trump answered,

“We wanted surprise,” he said, with Ms. Takaichi seated next to him. “Who knows better about surprise than Japan, OK? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor, OK? Right?”

There was scattered laughter in the crowd of officials and journalists. Ms. Takaichi widened her eyes and looked in the direction of the Japanese reporter who asked the question. She did not speak, sitting with her arms crossed.

Many Japanese scholars, politicians and commentators were aghast. Some criticized Mr. Trump, saying he should not have revived a painful World War II chapter so casually. Others directed their anger at Ms. Takaichi, saying she should have spoken up. Still others said they were concerned that it might harm relations between Japan and the United States. ( 1)

Unbelievable.

Pearl Harbor was a horrible situation. And yet, Trump made an off the cuff remark to Japan’s Prime Minister about the Pearl Harbor attack. I guess he forgot that over two-thousand Americans died, including crew members of the USS Arizona, now a war grave and memorial. The attack also launched the US into World War II.

Pearl Harbor also precipitated the issuing of Executive Order 9066 by the Roosevelt Administration. The order authorized the removal of over 100,000 individuals of Japanese descent, which included many Japanese-American citizens, from the West Coast of the US to internment camps. It was a forced evacuation in which many lost everything when incarcerated in these settlements. (2)

A Pattern of Behavior

The incident also reveals and reminded me about one of the unpleasant sides of the Trump Administration. On occasion, the President has denigrated and/or failed to honor those who fell in battle.

For example, during a 2018 service in France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, Trump didn’t visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial. It was raining. And even though the White House later commented that safety concerns forced Trump to cancel the visit, other world leaders were not so hindered. (3) On other occasions, it’s alleged he called those who fell in battle “suckers,” and we all remember his disgraceful treatment of Senator McCain, who is widely considered a war hero, but to Trump, he was a “loser.” McCain was a POW during Vietnam. (4)

So, Trump’s comment about Pearl Harbor shouldn’t come as a surprise.

I know there will be a number of apologists, including Republican politicians, who will say Trump didn’t mean anything by the Pearl Harbor remark. It was just a joke, and Trump was just being Trump.

But, if this is their excuse, it’s pretty damning. In an attempt to excuse Trump, they’re trying to remove their own complicity in his actions—that is, they tell themselves, and us, what can I do or say? Trump was just being himself. So, there’s no analysis and, when appropriate, no condemnation. It also gives Trump, in some ways, a blank check to say whatever he wants to say with few, if any, consequences.

If you think that too much has been made of the comment or it was simply a remark made in passing, then think about this:

Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if either President Obama or Biden made the same remark?

Empathy and Gravitas

A number of questionable statements have also been made by the Trump Administration during the war with Iran. These run the gamut from the ever-shifting reasons given for starting the war to the nature of the war itself. For the latter, it has been called both a war and an “excursion.”

But I think one of Trump’s more questionable remarks came when he was asked when the war would end. Trump’s reply was, “When I feel it in my bones.” (5)

At a time when the lives of US troops are put in danger and when civilian casualties are on the rise, this statement highlights the lack of planning on the Administration’s part. What does it actually mean? Is there a timeline based on intelligence information, or does the world have to wait until your “bones” tell you it’s over? What’s particularly galling is that a President with no military experience and what appears to be a lack of any knowledge concerning such matters, will be making his proclamations based on, apparently, his instinct. Why not just use a Magic 8 Ball to tell you what to do? ****

And finally, in the same general time-frame, Trump talked about the attack on Kharg Island, Iran’s oil export center. During his presentation, he remarked, “We may hit it a few more times just for fun.” (6) Fun?

This statement follows Trump’s line of thinking that we just covered in this post. At a time when you’re sending the US military into harm’s way, you call this fun? It’s a disregard for the value of life and a lack of empathy for a situation that demands, at the very least, a sense of gravitas.

I know I’ve used the word gravitas in other posts, but its absence, on the part of an Administration that just took us to war, is remarkable.

But what is the actual definition of gravitas?

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, gravitas is

seriousness and importance of manner, causing feelings of respect and trust in others:

He’s an effective enough politician but somehow he lacks the statesmanlike gravitas of a world leader. (7)

The example of a politician in Cambridge’s definition is the publisher’s choice of words. But in this case, and our use of the term, it kind of fits and is pretty prescient.

Video Games & Memes

Going down the same path, the Administration has developed a video game construct, including internet memes, to portray the war. (8) This ties in with the Kharg Island remark. It also fits the new military “ethos” promoted by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense. War is fun. We get to blow up buildings, trucks and other targets, just like a video game. And if we’re lucky, there might even be a ship or two.

But what’s the reality of this situation? Someone’s kid who’s serving in the military may be injured or possibly die. Civilians have been and are still being killed throughout the Middle East. This is the reality of war. Something Trump doesn’t seem to grasp.

And indeed, this isn’t the first time that a war has been likened to a video game. I remember during Operation Desert Storm, for instance, that a video showing guided weapons striking targets was presented like a game. And in an earlier war, cartoons were used to support the war effort. But the video sequences produced by the Trump Administration go well beyond other such displays.

A New York Times article sums this up succinctly:

Still, there were once boundaries. Official voices at least made gestures toward the gravity of asking soldiers to kill and die. A Bugs Bunny cartoon was a Bugs Bunny cartoon, not an organ of the highest office in the land. F.D.R. was not issuing newsreels splicing combat footage with “Three Stooges” clips.

But on the White House social feed, a somber video of the president receiving the bodies of American war dead now exists on equal footing with Mortal Kombat references. (9)

It truly is a shameful act.

And once again, gravitas?

No?

Then how about empathy?

Notes:

**** The Magic 8 ball is a toy that has been around for years. You ask it a question, and your answer appears on the bottom of the ball through a small window. You can actually still buy one from ebay, and I assume from other vendors as well.

1. “In Japan, Trump’s Pearl Harbor Joke Elicits Scorn and Dismay,” by Javier C. Hernández and Hisako Ueno, The New York Times. March 20, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/world/asia/japan-trump-pearl-harbor.html

2. Executive Order 9066: Resulting in Japanese-American Incarceration (1942).

Milestone Documents. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-9066

3. “Trump’s rain check on honoring Americans killed in WWI prompts backlash,” by Bill Hutchinson, ABC News. November 11, 2018. https://abcnews.com/US/trumps-rain-check-honoring-americans-killed-wwi-prompts/story?id=59119504#:~:text=But%20even%20as%20he%20spoke,(@realDonaldTrump)%20November%2011%2C%202018

(4) “Assessing Trump’s Denial That He’s Called Veterans ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’,” by Linda Qiu, The New Yok Times. June 10, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/10/us/biden-trump-election#assessing-trumps-denial-that-hes-called-veterans-losers-and-suckers

(5) “Trump says war with Iran will end when ‘I feel it in my bones,’ by Ryan Mancini, The Hill. – March 12, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5783165-trump-says-war-with-iran-will-end-when-i-feel-it-in-my-bones/#:~:text=by%20Ryan%20Mancini%20%2D%2003/13,to%20five%20weeks%E2%80%9D%20or%20longer.

(6) “Trump says US may hit Iran’s Kharg Island again ‘just for fun’,” by Al Jazeera Staff, AP and Reuters, Al Jazeera. March 15, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/15/trump-says-us-may-hit-irans-kharg-island-again-just-for-fun#:~:text=list%201%20of%204Trump,attack%20any%20populated%20area%E2%80%9D%20there

7. Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gravitas

8. “‘Just shocking’: White House enlists SpongeBob to sell war at home,” by Guy Chazan, Financial Review. March 20, 2026. https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/just-shocking-white-house-enlists-spongebob-to-sell-war-at-home-20260319-p5qqsy

9. “The Trump Administration Goes to War, by Any Memes Necessary,” by James Poniewozik, The New York Times. March 11,2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/arts/television/iran-war-trump-memes-social-media-videos.html

Text/Transcript

This is an update about the war in Iran. We first covered the war, which has also been called an “excursion” by the President, in an earlier podcast. (1) For organizational purposes, the information will be covered by topic.

1. Before we begin with the current day, I want to backtrack to the June 2025 attack by the US and Israel against Iran’s nuclear assets. This is also one of the 365 points the Administration has highlighted in its 365 WINS IN 365 DAYS: President Trump’s Return Marks New Era of Success, Prosperity report.****

According to the President, the attacks obliterated the targets. Yet, one of the reasons given for the current war is to destroy Iran’s capability to create a nuclear weapon--a justification used for the 2025 attack.

I bring this up for a reason: How many times can the same target be physically obliterated? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines obliterate as: to remove from existence, destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance. (2) So, if we started a war to destroy assets that were obliterated, it appears they weren’t actually destroyed. Which leads us to: Was Trump lying then? Was he telling what he believed was the truth but, was wrong? Did he make a mistake?

And for the war, we’re still hearing the word obliterate a lot. Either Trump has to stop conveying military information, which he probably won’t, or a Pentagon spokesperson should follow up with an assessment. I wouldn’t leave this to a White House press conference, as the information passed from here seems to simply mirror Trump’s statements.

The same scenario applies to Secretary Hegseth. Some of his language appears to be hyperbolic, and he injects his personal opinions, including an ongoing attack against the press. It’s inappropriate, particularly at a time of war, to use one’s bully pulpit for this purpose rather than to present, to the American people, a concise report of the ongoing situation.

In one example, according to Hegseth,

Or more fake news from CNN, “reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war’s impact on the Strait of Hormuz” – patently ridiculous, of course. For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

This is always what they do, hold the strait hostage. CNN doesn’t think we thought of that. It’s a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.

Another example of a fake headline that I saw yesterday, “war widening.” Here’s a real headline for you, for an actual patriotic press: how about, ‘Iran shrinking, going underground’? (3)

It’s an “unserious report?” Yet, it appears to be accurate. If the Administration had thought of Iran’s holding the Strait of Hormuz ”hostage,” why didn’t it assemble a coalition of other nations to defend the strait and to prepare to escort tankers before hostilities began? So yes, per CNN’s report, it does appear that the Administration had underestimated Iran’s capabilities.

Trump has also recently requested such support from US allies. But at least as of this writing, the response has been underwhelming.

“This is not our war, we have not started it,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters Monday.

That appeared to sum up the mood among U.S. allies, with leaders from Berlin to London expressing reservations about Trump’s demands and indicating they had no immediate plans to provide military support to reopen the crucial waterway. (4)

And as part of this response, we have to recall that Trump had denigrated the British troops that had fought alongside and bled in Afghanistan in support of the United States. The same scenario plays out for Denmark and other NATO members. And throw into the mix how Trump has threatened to use military force to secure Greenland. Some would say there shouldn’t be any surprise that the response has been tepid up until this point.

2. The use of the term “actual patriotic press,” from the same briefing, is onerous. The press has a particular responsibility in a democratic society. It’s not supposed to be the lapdog of the standing government. The goal is to report the news objectively—as events occur, and not how the Trump Administration wants them to be reported.

As the 4th Estate, the press is supposed to watch over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The “patriotic press,” as described by Hegseth, sounds like one that would be responsible to the government and not the people. This has all the trappings of an autocratic government. He might want this. I don’t.

The situation was exacerbated when Brendan Carr, the FCC Chair, whom we wrote about in a prior post, threatened the licenses of local television stations for what he deemed to be fake news, a well-worn moniker of the Trump Administration. The FCC is charged with television and radio station license renewals, and it’s an obvious attempt to influence how a station portrays the war. (5) And while Carr’s power in this regard is actually limited, it does create a chilling effect, which is the possibility of self-censorship to avoid potential government intervention.

But it should be noted that this isn’t the first time there has been friction between the press and the government in such media coverage. It’s an age-old issue.

For example, there were conflicts between the government and reporters covering Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This included a move, at the time, by the government to restrict access to certain imaging data by remote sensing satellites, which would subsequently be converted to photos for use by news organizations. (6)

But this full-court press by major government officials, including the President and the Secretary of Defense, is unique. We’ve heard about the “fake news” claimed by the Trump Administration for years. It has been universally parroted by government officials. And from Trump’s first term, we’ve also heard about “alternative facts” to describe certain events. Basically, if the truth doesn’t meet your needs, we’ll make up alternative facts, essentially lies.

3. In the same briefing, Hegseth stated that no quarter will be shown for our enemies. This, however, is a violation of international law.

A top Democratic lawmaker with a military background has reacted strongly to US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for “no quarter” for US enemies during a Friday press briefing at the Pentagon, calling such an order – if followed by troops – a potential violation of international law.

The US senator Mark Kelly, of Arizona, posted on Friday on X that “‘No quarter’ isn’t some wanna be tough guy line – it means something. An order to give no quarter would mean to take no prisoners and kill them instead.”

Kelly added: “That would violate the law of armed conflict. It would be an illegal order. It would also put American service members at greater risk. Pete Hegseth should know better than to throw around terms like this.” (7)

In the same briefing….a lot to unwrap for this one presentation….Secretary Hegseth stated that President Trump controls the flow of the war. Trump is in charge.

There’s a problem with this statement. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, it doesn’t mean he’s fully in charge. Both Hegseth and the President have apparently forgotten the Constitution and the role of Congress.

But as covered in the earlier podcast, the cowardice demonstrated by most of the Republican members of Congress has led us to this juncture. They refused to support the War Powers Resolution, which would have limited Trump’s possible actions.

4. The Administration’s lack of planning is becoming more apparent.

First, other than working with Israel, it entered this engagement without assembling a coalition of other nations. You shouldn’t engage in a war with a country as well-armed as Iran without assembling allies you can draw upon. The issue of protecting the Strait of Hormuz is a case in point.

Second, it appears the Administration is surprised that Iran is fighting back, despite Trump’s warnings to the contrary. What did you think the government and military would do? Iran has been in a combat mode since the time of the 1979 revolution. It fought a bloody war with Iraq and has employed and supported terrorist activities throughout and beyond the region. And while the latter are criminal and hateful acts, they nevertheless have served as a training ground for its military. They’ve also become expert in drone warfare, as demonstrated by Russia’s reliance on these weapons as part of its assault on Ukraine.

Third, the lessons we should have learned from the war with Iraq seem to have been ignored. The attack against Iraq, with a coalition force, was hard-fought and included troops on the ground. It was a long, drawn-out process. But how did the Trump Administration use any knowledge gained from that war in the fight with Iran? Or maybe the question should be, has the Administration tapped this knowledge when preparing for the Iran war?

Fourth, the Administration has pointed out how the US and Israeli air forces have destroyed many of Iran’s military assets. While this is true, historically, air power generally cannot win a war without ground support.

Fifth, and what may be the most critical point, if the US claims victory, what does this mean in the long term? While it may destroy Iran’s capabilities to wage war in the region, particularly against Israel, what else has it accomplished? What are the next series of moves? Since the Administration has not clearly defined its goals, is it, as the saying goes, a “catch-as-catch-can” situation? Risking lives on such a proposition is incompetence in the extreme.

5. US President Donald Trump said the United States is “way ahead of schedule” in its war with Iran, responding to a reporter’s questions about when the war will end. Trump also claimed Iran had been “decimated.” (8)

There are some issues with Trump’s claim. How is it way ahead of schedule? Since we’re still unclear as to the war’s ultimate goals, how can we gauge if it’s really ahead of schedule? Trump also indicated that Iran has been “decimated.’ While not as all-encompassing as the word obliterate, it still implies massive destruction. Yet, Iran is still engaging in combat on different fronts.

The President has also called for the people of Iran to rise up against their government during the recent protests in the country. As discussed in a prior podcast, the Iranian government is a murderous regime that has killed thousands of its own people. It’s murder on a grand scale.

Yet, what support has Trump offered to the Iranian people if they turn against the government, as he has suggested? Without the support of ground troops, these individuals stand to be slaughtered. Trying to stoke the fire of a revolt, without providing concrete support, is potentially sending these people to their deaths—Trump should understand and care about this.

On the flip side, if the war frees the people of Iran and helps abate international terrorism, it would be a great achievement. But how do you help the country move forward? We have yet to hear from the Trump Administration--if you start a war, you should damn well have an end plan in mind. You should also know this before you send our military, or anyone, into harm’s way.

Too many have already died.

Postscript

As we sort through all the information and the human cost, we should remember that the Trump Administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also called the Iran nuclear deal, drafted under President Obama’s auspices. The JCPOA was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and it was a multi-national operation.

Even though many experts agreed it had limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Trump thought there should have been more safeguards. These included the elimination of sunset dates for certain provisions and curtailing missile development.

But at the very least, if retained, could the JCPOA have provided a foundation for further development? And while it’s true that other events, such as the conflict between Iran and Israel, and Iran’s terrorism campaign against external entities and its own people, could have derailed the agreement, Trump’s action cut off some options and a possible diplomatic rapprochement.

Could a war have been avoided?

Notes:

**** You can download the full report from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/01/365-wins-in-365-days-president-trumps-return-marks-new-era-of-success-prosperity/,

(1) “Trump calls Iran war a ‘short-term excursion’ and Georgia’s special election: Morning Rundown,” by Marissa Martinez, NBC News. March 10, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-calls-iran-war-short-term-excursion-georgias-special-election-mo-rcna262658

(2) Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obliterate. Also see, for the White House’s claim that the Iran assets were fully destroyed: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News, The White House. June 25, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/

(3) Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing, U.S. Department of War. March 13, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/

(4) “’Not our war’: U.S. allies balk at Trump’s Strait of Hormuz demands,” by Alexander Smith, NBC News. March 16, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/us-allies-respond-trump-strait-of-hormuz-demands-nato-iran-war-rcna263650

(5) “FCC chair threatens TV networks amid Iran war coverage — but his warning rings hollow,” by Brian Stelter, CNN, March 15, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/14/media/fcc-brendan-carr-trump-iran-war-abc-nbc-cbs

(6) The New Communications Technologies; fifth edition. Michael Mirabito and Barbara Morgenstern. Focal Press, 2004.

(7) “Democratic lawmaker condemns Hegseth’s call for ‘no quarter’ for US enemies,” by Edward Helmore, The Guardian. March 14, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/14/democratic-lawmaker-condemns-hegseth-no-quarter#:~:text=Critics%20of%20Hegseth%20say%20the,crime%20in%20international%20armed%20conflicts. Also, please see: “Rule 46. Orders or Threats that No Quarter Will Be Given.” International Humanitarian Law Databases. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule46

(8) “Trump claims US ‘way ahead of schedule’ in Iran war,” Aljazeera; News Feed. March 14, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/14/trump-claims-us-way-ahead-of-schedule-in-iran

Summary

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by in 1945 following the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One mission was to urge fellow scientists to help shape national and international policy. A second mission was to help the public understand what the bombings meant for humanity.

These scientists anticipated that the atomic bomb would be

“only the first of many dangerous presents from the Pandora’s Box of modern science….”

The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them.

One of the most familiar and iconic symbols of the Bulletin is its Doomsday Clock. The focus is on 12 midnight. This is the hour when the world, all of us, will be the closest to self-destruction through the use of our own technologies.

Every year, depending on the state of the world, we may move closer to or further from midnight. And in 2026, we’re closer to midnight than we’ve ever been: 85 seconds. The continued nuclear threat and climate change, for example, have moved the minute hand forward.

Why this Topic?

We’re covering the Doomsday Clock for two reasons. The first is the Clock, and its implications are affected by the Trump Administration. The second reason is that the Administration’s assaults on a free press are antithetical to a democracy, and thus, affect the clock.

Silence a free press; you silence opposition. It’s kind of Orwellian.

In many ways, we’re moving toward our own Doomsday Clock, but one that may spell the death of our democracy and the birth of an authoritarian government. The oft described existential threat to democracy that we’ve heard about time and time again, during the last few election cycles, may actually be upon us.

Notes:

(1). About us.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/about-us/

(2) ” 85 Seconds to Midnight,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/

(3) “Trump Calls the News Media the ‘Enemy of the American People’,” by Michael M. Grynbaum, The New York Times. Feb. 17, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/trump-calls-the-news-media-the-enemy-of-the-people.html

(4) “C.I.A. Concludes That Saudi Crown Prince Ordered Khashoggi Killed,” by Julian E. Barnes, The New York Times. Nov. 16, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/cia-saudi-crown-prince-khashoggi.html

(5) “Trump Berates One Reporter and Tells Another,‘ Quiet Piggy’,” by Michael M. Grynbaum, The New York Times. Nov. 18, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/business/media/trump-reporter-khashoggi-saudis.html

(6) You can find a summary of Nightfall on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov_novelette_and_novel)

Introduction

A number of decisions by the Trump Administration define its proclivity for military action. These decisions give context to the attack on Iran. They’re almost a path to the present conflict.

And a part of this path is what can be called the chicken-hawk factor. The term describes an individual, as covered in earlier posts, who has avoided military service but who promotes a martial or pro-fighting stance. It’s a show of bravado to the world. And there’s an assertion that the President is a chicken-hawk.

In Trump’s case, he allegedly had and used heel spurs as the reason for getting a medical exemption to avoid military service during Vietnam. (1) In total, he received 5 deferments, including those for education.

Representative Pat Ryan, a New York Democrat, is one of the politicians who has leveled this charge. According to Ryan,

“I served two combat tours in Iraq. I’ve seen what happens when a lying, chicken-hawk President beats the war drums. I ran for Congress and serve on the Armed Services Committee because I refuse to let the country I love repeat those mistakes,” Ryan said in a post on X Saturday.

“It’s why we passed the War Powers Act (after Vietnam) in the first place. So that before the President sends our troops into harm’s way, he has to make his case TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,” he added. (2)

One chicken-hawk assumption is that the decision to engage in hostilities may come more quickly than for someone with combat experience. It may also be repeated more often.

And while a number of presidents never served in combat, the idea of combat and war appears to engage President Trump more than most of his predecessors. It’s the bravado effect that sends our military into harm’s way without due process, and in the case of Iran, without an end plan and goal in mind.

The Path Taken

1. Trump ordered an aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. The attack was made to destroy what the Administration claimed was Iran’s capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Notification was only given to select Congressional members shortly before the attack took place. There was no Congressional authorization.

2. In an executive order, Trump authorized the use of the word “War” rather than “Defense” in department and personnel titles, on a secondary basis. So, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, could also be the Secretary of War in charge of the Department of War. An official name change would require Congressional authorization. (3)

But why the change to titles that haven’t been used for some 80 years? According to the White House, to reflect a new age of readiness, peace through strength and an offensive rather than a defensive posture. (4) Another act of bravado.

3. In a September 30, 2025, meeting with US general and flag officers, Hegseth promoted a new warrior “ethos” that mirrored Trump’s reasons for adopting the “war” moniker. And on March 2, 2026, during a Pentagon briefing with General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hegseth put a face on this warrior ethos and one of the forces that has propelled us down the path to our present situation:

Peace through strength, the warrior ethos, lethality, unity of purpose, those are not slogans. They’re the beating heart of what it means to wear the uniform, that uniform. You think clearly under fire, you act decisively in chaos, you uphold the constitution and you uphold our country without hesitation. We are not defenders anymore. We are warriors, trained to kill the enemy and break their will. History is watching. Be the force you swore an oath to be focused, disciplined, lethal, and unbreakable. (5)

4. The Trump Administration launched attacks on boats that were supposedly carrying drugs from Venezuela for eventual distribution. Rather than catching and holding the boats for inspection, they were destroyed with the loss of their crews. In one case, there was a double tap, where a boat that was hit was hit again, despite survivors in the water. This type of action is a violation of international law. But this is apparently part of the Administration’s new stance that promotes the use of force.

5. Trump subsequently ordered an attack against Venezuela. The country’s President and his wife were captured as part of the operation.

The Administration then made an agreement with the new government. This included turning over the control of its oil industry to the United States. While the Venezuelan people are supposed to receive part of the oil—the oil from their own country--so too would the United States. It’s almost a bounty we received for the military action.

And again, Congress was not notified about the operation.

6. The President threatened to take over Greenland by force, if necessary, for its strategic location and mineral assets. Greenland is historically and legally tied to Denmark, a NATO member, just like the United States. It would be the first time one NATO country attacked another. Further, Denmark has been a US ally for over 200 years, and its soldiers fought and died alongside US troops in combat in support of US missions. This was a disgusting show of force that alarmed Denmark and the other NATO nations.

The Administration tried to walk back the use of force statements. It indicated it really wanted to buy the island. Regardless, the threat of using force, a bully-boy act on Trump’s part, seemingly fits in the whole bravado framework.

7. Trump has attempted to extend the military presence within the United States itself. In his campaign to deport undocumented aliens, Trump has, with limited success, used the National Guard in these domestic actions. We’ve extensively covered this in prior podcasts, and one of the key issues pertinent to our current discussion is that the use of such force is far beyond the pale of any other modern-era president.

This could also be viewed as an attempt to extend the power of the presidency, and in tandem with the greatly expanded ICE agent contingent, it resulted in the brutalization of some individuals and the deaths of US citizens. There is scant regard paid to legal and ethical implications. It’s the “might over right” approach and philosophy.

8. Three Democratic Senators introduced a War Powers Resolution, the WPR, for Iran on March 4, 2026. The goal was to block Trump’s ability to wage war without Congressional authorization. It was blocked, though, by the Republicans and one Democratic Senator. As for the House,

it voted on March 5, 2026. It went the same way as the Senate. The resolution was defeated by 7 votes. (6)

The WPR was created during the Nixon Administration in an attempt to limit a president’s power to engage in hostilities by, in part, circumventing Congress. There are other legal hooks and requirements about the WPR, including that a president must report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces if war has not been declared. Further, the power to declare war rests with Congress, per the Constitution. But it doesn’t mean presidents haven’t engaged in military activities, short of declaring war. (7)

There are other relevant issues as part of this process. For the WPR, Congress must actually pass it to limit a president’s military interventions. And in the case of Trump, the Republicans control the Senate and House. The Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House can also block a vote on the WPR, for a time. But there are mechanisms that, if successful, can force the vote.

Finally, to pass a bipartisan WPR, Congress must have the courage and fortitude to go down this road in the face of opposition by a president. And with Trump, it’s pretty evident he felt secure in launching the attack against Iran, given that attempts to pass a WPR for past actions, such as attacking Venezuela, were voted down. He could, evidently, rely on his party and the lack of courage, on the part of many members of Congress, to stop an unconstitutional conflict. A Brennan Center for Justice article presents an excellent analysis of this situation. (8)

9. Trump had ripped up a 2015 international agreement with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the JCPOA. The JCPOA was designed to relax financial sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for, in part, nuclear program development concessions. Trump indicated the agreement was defective, and it included sunset dates that could open a door for Iran’s rapid development and potential deployment of a nuclear weapon. Trump’s assertions were subsequently disputed by experts and the European countries that continued to follow the agreement, along with Iran. (9)

Also, please note that the Trump Administration has a history of changing directives and related actions created under the Obama and Biden Administrations. The JCPOA was a part of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy developments and achievements. This may have factored in Trump’s decision. (10)

10. Before we proceed to the podcast’s final section, I want to note that despite my questions about the Administration’s attack and motives, it’s abundantly clear that the Iranian government has been a destabilizing force in the region and has brutalized and murdered its people for years. And unfortunately, people have suffered both under the Shah before the 1979 revolution, and then to a greater degree, under the current theocracy. But if the US and Israeli attacks result in regime change, will it be one more conducive to freedom for its people or could it be even more brutal as it attempts to hold on to power?

Given our past experience in such situations, the answer is unknown. And as we’ll shortly cover, the Administration has provided us with little information as to how it would proceed to encourage the former type of government and why it chose to start hostilities now. Else, without these answers, why have we sent our forces into harm’s way, and at a cost of human suffering and lives lost? And I fear, particularly given the current circumstances, we may discover that it may have been easier to start this war than to manage and live through its aftermath.

The Why?

Now that we’ve travelled down the Trump Administration’s path to war, the question remains: why now?

This is probably the most difficult question to answer given the number of times the Administration has changed its posturing. There have also been contradictions among Administration personnel, including Trump and Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State.

Some of the reasons, that we’ve heard, include,

--Stopping Iran’s long range ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. The Administration claimed the country was close to developing both. However, there isn’t any data to support these contentions.

--During Trump’s second term, the Administration attempted to renegotiate a new agreement with Iran, albeit one with more restrictions than 2015’s JCPOA. And the failure to create an agreement is one of the reasons the Administration has used for launching the US attack. Yet, there have been claims that progress had been made, and this shortly before the initial attack.

--To support Israel’s projected actions. Trump denied this and stated Isreal didn’t force his hand. (11)

--This contradicted a statement by Rubio who indicated if Israel attacked, which we thought they were planning to do, then Iran would attack US assets. So, the US attack was a pre-emptive strike.

--To support regime change. Trump has stated that this is the time for the people of Iran to rise up and seize the government.

--To destroy Iran’s capability to arm terrorist groups.

--Trump: I had a feeling they would attack first.

The problem created by this indecision extends far beyond the confusion it creates. It points to a problem with the Administration’s strategy: other than bombing and assaulting Iran, what do you do when the bombing ends? Do you send in ground troops? Do you push for regime change? If so, who will lead it? One possible option is the Shah’s son. But how much support does he have in Iran, and do people want to live under a new, reconstituted monarchy?

Another potential course of action is what Trump said. He would help. Of course.

Speaking as U.S. military operations against Iran continue to dominate the administration’s foreign policy agenda, Trump indicated the United States intends to play a significant role in shaping Iran’s postwar political landscape.

Asked how much influence he expects to have over Iran’s future leadership, Trump replied: “I’m going to have a big impact, or they’re not going to have any settlement, because we’re not going to have to go do this again.”

“We’ll work with the people and the regime to make sure that somebody gets there that can nicely build Iran but without nuclear weapons,” Trump said. (12)

This sounds like the plan to rebuild Iraq after the 2003 war with the United States and its allies. Unfortunately, that ended in a disaster. And unless you have a clear vision and a clear path forward as to how you’re going to rebuild a country, you could end up being an occupying force.

And finally, how does Congress factor in all of this? We’re still a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government. But as stated, members of Congress have to stand up to claim their rightful role in our government.

Epilogue

To end, I want to briefly cover three final and defining points. The first is Secretary Hegseth’s March 4, 2026 Pentagon briefing with General Caine. It reveals, I think, an Administration issue, besides the chicken-hawk sensibility: everything always comes back to Trump. It always has to be about Trump.

This happened during the briefing. Rather than proceeding with the information about the US soldiers who died in Kuwait, Hegseth went on to other matters, including praise for Trump in tandem with attacks on the news media. Some examples, all direct quotes from Marsh 4, follow. And please note, the text in bold is my emphasis.

--Under the direct command of President Trump, the War Department unleashed this operation early Saturday morning, just four days ago…

--They are terrorists after all and they need to target civilians, because they can’t fight toe-to-toe. But we will find them, and we will kill them. This is what the fake news misses. We’ve taken control of Iran’s airspace and waterways without boots on the ground. We control their fate. But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news.

--I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad – but try for once to report the reality. The terms of this war will be set by us at every step.

--President Trump took bold action, putting America first, the kind of bold action that the American people elected him to execute. (13)

A similar line of thought played out, later in the day, when the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, had a verbal exchange with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. As reported in The Hill,

The press does only want to make the president look bad. That’s an objective fact. Especially you and especially CNN. (14)

The second is that the President started the hostilities from Mar-a-Lago rather than the White House. While some may say the location isn’t important, I would disagree. For an action with such implications, shouldn’t the President be in the White House’s Situation Room? You’re starting a war, and people are going to die. The situation demands, at the very least, gravitas.

And finally, General Cain’s announcement about the fallen--this is something Hegseth should have said.

First, it’s with profound sadness and gratitude that I share the names of four of our six fallen heroes, all from the 103rd Sustainment Command US Army Reserves out of Des Moines, Iowa; Capt. Cody Khork; Sgt. 1st Class Noah Tietjens; Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor; and Sgt. Declan Coady. To the families of our fallen, we grieve with you today and we look forward to welcoming your family members home at Dover in the coming days. (15)

A simple and honorable statement that should have started the briefing.

Notes:

(1) “Did a Queens Podiatrist Help Donald Trump Avoid Vietnam?,” by Steve Eder, The New York Times. Dec. 26, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/politics/trump-vietnam-draft-exemption.html. Also see: “Donald Trump’s Draft Deferments: Four for College, One for Bad Feet, ‘ by Steve Eder and Dave Philipps, The New York Times. Aug. 1, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html

(2) “Democrat mocks Mullin for remarks on ‘smell’ and ‘taste’ of war: ‘Call of Duty doesn’t count’,” by Tara Suter, The Hill. March 3, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5765144-ryan-mullin-iran-debate/

(3) Congressional Budget Office, Re: The Costs of Using the Name “Department of War.” January 14, 2026. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-01/61942-DoD-Name-Change.pdf

(4) “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restores the United States Department of War,” The White House. September 5, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-restores-the-united-states-department-of-war/

(5) “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing,” US Department of War. March 2, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418959/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/

(6) “Five Democrats Kill War Powers Resolution to Rein in Trump on Iran,” by Malcolm Ferguson, The New Republic. March 5, 2026. https://newrepublic.com/post/207425/every-democrat-killed-war-powers-resolution-trump-iran

(7) “War Powers Resolution: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate,” by Michael Greene. Congress.gov. June 24, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47603. Also, please see “Declare War Clause,” by Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck, National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753 for information about the Declare War Clause.

(8) “Trump’s Iran Strikes Are Unconstitutional,” by Katherine Yon Ebright, Brennan Center for Justice. March 2, 2026. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trumps-iran-strikes-are-unconstitutional#:~:text=By%20acting%20unilaterally%2C%20Trump%20has%20usurped%20Congress’s,strikes%20on%20Iranian%20nuclear%20facilities%20last%20June

(9) “Belfer Center Experts on U.S. Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal,” Press release from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. May 8, 2018. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/belfer-center-experts-us-withdrawal-iran-nuclear-deal#:~:text=Trump’s%20decision%20to%20unilaterally%20pull,into%20effect%20in%20January%202016.

(10) “Trump Abandons Iran Nuclear Deal He Long Scorned,” by Mark Landler, The New York Times, May 8, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

(11) “Trump denies that Israel forced US’s hand in launching strikes against Iran,” by Robert Tait and Chris Stein, The Guardian. March 3, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/03/trump-israel-iran-war

(12) “Trump says he’ll help pick Iran’s leader, predicts regime change in Cuba,” by Dasha Burns, Politico. March 5, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/trump-unleashed-president-bullish-on-iran-eyeing-regime-change-in-cuba-and-impatient-with-ukraine-00814292

(13) “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing--Transcipt,” US Department of War, March 4, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4421037/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/

(14) “Leavitt, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins spar over coverage of US deaths in Iran,” by Dominick Mastrangelo, The Hill. March 4, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5767376-karoline-leavitt-cnn-kaitlan-collins-iran-deaths/

(15) “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine Hold a Press Briefing--Transcipt,” US Department of War, March 4, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4421037/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/

“And now for something completely different”…a short clip

© 2026 MMM

Full Text:

Introduction

When exploring climate change, we’re moving further in the realm where science is either ignored or condemned—everyone becomes an expert and all opinions have equal weight. In this universe, A no longer equals A. It can also equal D, or Z for that matter, if someone deems it so.

This situation is further exacerbated by the Administration’s assault on science and knowledge in other disciplines, such as medicine. Trump’s appointee, Robert Kennedy Jr, is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under his leadership, research programs have been cut, negatively affecting science developments. Further, his committee appointments have impacted the CDC’s efficacy. Its recommendations have become so controversial, the American Medical Association is issuing its own, as is the case for vaccinations for children. (1) States have also created regional coalitions with the same goal in mind.

And Herein Lies the Problem

When individuals make science program decisions based on ideology or personal biases, rather than science, progress may be stifled with an attendant human cost. In medicine, measles is on the rise in the US, and certain vaccines, which had protected newborns and children, are no longer recommended by the CDC. For climate change, the progression of destructive weather events may be accelerated.

And what the Trump Administration has forgotten is the immutable law of science.

Science doesn’t care if you say that climate change is a hoax or that babies don’t have to be inoculated against diseases. You can say it, but then you may be condemning hundreds, thousands or millions to “reap the whirlwind” of your creation. People may get sick, suffer and/or die.

The impact is also intergenerational. Children not inoculated today may not feel its full effect for years. And for climate change, Trump has cut programs and gutted alternative energy systems, which will negatively affect our planet for multiple generations. Unlike some other decisions, it’s not waiting four years until a new administration is in office to reverse these policies. The damage is already done and may not be fully reversible.

Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA

The EPA was created by President Richard Nixon, a Republican. Yes, the same President responsible for Watergate and who resigned, started an agency to protect the environment.

Nixon declared that its mission would center on:

--The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.

--The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it; the gathering of information on pollution; and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.

--Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means, in arresting pollution of the environment.

--Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment. (2)

The EPA has been both praised and condemned since its launching. On a positive note, the EPA has been credited with improving the country’s overall air and water quality. It has also contributed to cleaning up polluted waterways and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one of the engines driving climate change. Further, its endangerment finding,

…issued in 2009…determined that six greenhouse gases could be categorized as dangerous to human health under the Clean Air Act. It has underpinned the EPA’s authority to limit planet-warming pollution from the oil and gas industry, power plants and vehicles since the Obama administration and is considered the federal government’s most powerful tool to tackle climate pollution and the country’s contribution to the global crisis. (3)

On the flip side, some have argued that its regulations are too restrictive and have become overly expensive for compliance purposes. And the Trump Administration has latched on to these two complaints in its campaign to reverse many of the EPA’s past policies. For example, in a recent rule change, the EPA is eliminating GHS or Greenhouse gas emission standards. (4) It’s also gutting other regulations that have had a positive impact in combating climate change, such as eliminating incentives for the EV or electric vehicle industry and for other green technologies, such as wind power and solar-based systems.

Finally, if you follow the Administration’s social media and news releases, you’ll notice that Trump has disdain for Presidents Obama and Biden. In the case of climate change, this means rolling back protective environmental measures passed during their Administrations.

For example, in the EPA news release, “President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History,” Presidents Obama and Biden are mentioned 6 and 10 times respectively, all in a negative light. In another publication, discussed in a later section, President Biden is mentioned 9 times in, once again, a negative connotation. Ultimately, when examining the Administration’s climate change regulations, or lack thereof, you should also take this animosity into account. (5)

365 WINS IN 365 DAYS: President Trump’s Return Marks New Era of Success, Prosperity

This is the title of a document the White House released on January 20, 2026, to highlight Trump’s achievements in his first year of office. The “365 Wins” are divided into different categories, which we’ll be covering in later posts, but for now, we’re going to focus on what the Administration perceives are its greatest hits in “UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE — AND COMMON SENSE.” (6)

When you read through the document, you realize there’s misinformation and lies. And at times, what the Administration claims are accomplishments are, in reality, actions that are promoting climate change and its effects. Several examples follow.

1. Re-opened hundreds of millions of acres to oil, gas, and coal production.

This opens up protected lands for drilling and coal excavation. Alaska has been called America’s last frontier, which includes vast swaths of untouched land. The Administration wants to carve these lands for oil, gas and coal production. The claim is that this will help reverse the Biden Administration’s restrictions and will enable America to achieve energy independence. In reality, the US became the world’s largest oil and natural gas producer during President Biden’s term. (7)

2. Reinvigorated America’s Beautiful Clean Coal industry, investing hundreds of millions to boost coal production while rolling back decades of overregulation.

One of Trump’s initiatives over his two terms has been to promote coal production. He calls it “beautiful, clean coal.” As part of this campaign, he relaxed EPA regulations to keep older plants operational. This “Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal,” as proclaimed by the industry, also ordered the Defense Department to secure, when possible, its energy from coal-fueled power plants.

Such plants, though, even when using Trump’s “clean” coal, have a greater deleterious effect on the environment in contrast to other energy sources. New power plants fueled by natural gas, for example, generate less CO2 than their coal counterparts. And while these plants have their own environmental issues, coal plants lead the pack.

Coal jobs in the US have also declined dramatically from 200,000 workers in 1980 to 43,582 jobs in 2022. At the same time, the growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector dramatically increased. (8) Politics plays a role in the numbers, but the trendline clearly shows that, over time, as coal-related jobs decline, the opposite is true for renewable energy positions.

Finally, I’m currently living in a state with a long history of coal production, and I have great respect for those who worked, and who may still work, in the mines, at coal breakers, and in related industries. But coal plants are aging, and were it not for Trump’s intervention, the industry would decline even a more precipitous rate. So, what happens, over time, to those employed by the industry? To miners? To personnel who operate the plants? Could the monies spent to extend this lifeline be better used to retrain and to support people when and if they shift to other industries?

3. Withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as dozens of globalist climate organizations.

Trump repeated the action he took during his first term. While far from perfect, the Paris Climate Agreement is, at least, a step in the right direction toward trying to get a handle on climate change and its effects. And because they’re international accords, Trump calls them globalist—a term used to disparage international agreements.

As of this writing, the US joins Yemen, Libya and Iran as outliers for the treaty.

4. Scrapped Biden-era rules and regulations on greenhouse gases.

By removing these restrictions, the US will contribute to the acceleration of climate change. Trump’s attitude, which has wide support among Republican politicians, is that climate change, and the attendant regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and other contributing factors, are scams.

Yet, according to a 2024 NASA article, the

vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. (9)

This statement is supported by numerous studies conducted by climate scientists across the globe. Generally, having a 97 percent consensus on your side is something you would view as being positive—you’d be pretty sure you’re on the right track. But in this case, it’s damning. There’s a good chance we’ll continue to experience the environmental damage and implications raised by climate change, possibly at an accelerated rate--record heat, destructive forest fires, melting glaciers and other phenomena.

It also doesn’t take a scientist to track that the 10 hottest summers on record took place from 2014 to 2024. And if you don’t like tracking data, just step outside.

2024 is also notable for another reason.

Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases released from fossil fuel combustion continue to rise. In 2024, the concentration of carbon dioxide hit amounts unseen in at least two million years, according to the report.

Concentrations of two other important greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, reached levels unseen in at least 800,000 years. Homo sapiens, or modern humans, emerged around 300,000 years ago, so our species has never before experienced an atmosphere so laden with planet-warming greenhouse gases. (10)

So, we have scientific studies, and we’re witnessing the effects of climate change in real time—for example, the huge winter blizzard that hit the east coast in late February 2026. Yet, the Trump Administration claims it’s all a fabrication, which brings us back to the top of the post.

Given the evidence, we can confidently say that humans are causing climate change. And based on observations, weather records and other data, their impact is growing with every passing year. And what is the US currently doing to help stem this tide—nothing. The Trump Administration is actually exacerbating the situation through what it claims are its achievements outlined in 365 WINS IN 365 DAYS.

It all comes back to a simple equation: A equals A. But in Trump’s universe, A equals what he wants it to be, to the detriment of every living American and generations yet to be born. And by extrapolation, this impact will be global in its scope.

I would like to see this dubious achievement mentioned in 365 WINS IN 365 DAYS.

NOTES:

(1) “AMA launching its own vaccine safety, effectiveness review system,” by Joseph Choi, The Hill. February 10, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/5731984-ama-rebukes-federal- vaccine/#:~:text=In%20its%20announcement%20the%20AMA,dropped%20earlier%20in%20the%20month.

(2) “The Guardian: Origins of the EPA,” EPA Historical Publication-1, Spring 1992. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/guardian-origins-epa.html

(3) “Trump delivers a deadly blow to EPA’s ability to regulate climate pollution,” by Ella Nilsen, CNN. February 12, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-repeals-epa-endangerment-finding

(4) “EPA ADMINISTRATOR ZELDIN: We finally demolished the Democrat climate insanity,” by Lee Zeldin, Fox News. February 16, 2026. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/epa-administrator-zeldin-we-finally-demolished-democrat-climate-insanity

(5) “President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History,” by the EPA Press Office, EPA. February 12, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/president-trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-single-largest-deregulatory-action-us

(6) 365 WINS IN 365 DAYS: President Trump’s Return Marks New Era of Success, Prosperity, The White House. January 20, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/01/365-wins-in-365-days-president-trumps-return-marks-new-era-of-success-prosperity/

(7) “Biden’s oil boom. How fossil fuels thrived despite the White House’s climate policies,” by Prinz Magtulis, Nichola Groom, Jarrett Renshaw and Moira Warburton, Reuters. March 28, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/OIL/lgpdngrgkpo/

(8) “ The Rise and Decline of Coal Mining Jobs, 1970-2022,” by Eugene M. Trisko, ACOEL. February 8, 2024. https://acoel.org/the-rise-and-decline-of-coal-mining-jobs-1970-2022/

(9) “Do scientists agree on climate change?,” NASA, March 18, 2024. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ Please note: the article is an excellent source for related data.

(10) “Earth’s 10 Hottest Years on Record Are the Last 10,” by Delger Erdenesanaa, The New York Times. March 18, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/climate/global-temperatures-wmo-report.html

For anyone who doubts President Trump’s authoritarian leanings, look no further than the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, headquarters and its new banner with President Trump’s image. It’s a declaration of political control over what should be an independent department.

While similar banners have been hung from other government buildings, the one created for the DOJ is particularly concerning. Since Watergate, efforts have been made to shield the DOJ from White House interference and pressure campaigns. The Trump Administration, however, has no such compunctions to follow this path. (1)

According to The New York Times,

The signage is a strikingly prominent indication of how Mr. Trump has eroded the separation that has long existed between the Justice Department and the White House to protect the department from political influence.

That careful distance has been dissolving since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second term. He has installed allies at the top ranks of the department to oversee a retribution campaign and investigate perceived political enemies. Hundreds of agency lawyers have since been fired, and thousands more have resigned. (2)

This latest move underscores how much Trump has gutted the department’s independence and its integrity. And this action, among others, has a number of implications for the DOJ and ultimately, for us all.

1. President Trump has weaponized the DOJ against his opponents. These include special counsel Jack Smith and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Smith painstakingly investigated allegations that Trump removed government documents, including top secret information, to Mar-a-Lago after his first term. James successfully prosecuted Trump and his company for fraud.

2. One way to destroy a department, like the DOJ, is to sow doubt in the public’s mind about its competency and integrity. Trump’s manipulations and the department’s handling of the Epstein files fall into this pattern.

In the case of Epstein, the Epstein Files Transparency Act mandated the release of the files by December 19, 2025. But this deadline wasn’t met and the data were released in subsequent weeks.

However, the DOJ’s processing of the information has been criticized. Redactions weren’t appropriately handled in a number of cases—identifiable photos and victims’ names were made public. In other instances, the redactions appeared to be too heavy-handed, to the point where the victims claimed that the DOJ was shielding certain men. (3)

3. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, has, at times, followed a partisan track. In one example, Republicans filed suit to stop California’s plan to redraw its congressional districts after Proposition 50 was passed in November 2025. Proposition 50 cleared a path for the state to redraw its map to balance the seats gained by the Republicans in Texas. As presented by Governor Newsom, it’s essentially “good” gerrymandering vs. “bad” gerrymandering. It’s also a temporary measure to blunt the Texas plan.

And, unlike the case in Texas, the DOJ stepped in to stop California’s new map. According to AG Pam Bondi,

California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process…” Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand. (4)

Apparently, a “brazen power grab” in one state is a righteous action in another state. California voters also had a chance to stop Proposition 50 in its tracks on Election Day. Texas voters were not afforded the same opportunity for their state’s changes.

4. The Trump Administration’s actions have created a “brain drain” at the DOJ. Lawyers with years of experience have been replaced by Trump loyalists. Further, his actions, as in the case of Eric Adams, New York City’s former mayor, led to a series of resignations when the DOJ interfered in the corruption charges leveled against Adams. Ordered to drop the case, Manhattan’s US attorney opted, instead, to resign. The case was then moved to Washington with a similar result—more resignations. (5)

5. Unfurling the banner at the DOJ’s headquarters is a blatant statement of who controls the Department. It’s one thing to hang such a banner on a random government building, and quite another to do so at the DOJ. The DOJ is supposed to be free of influence, given its investigatory mandate and adherence to the rule of law--not of one man.

Democracy

We’ve witnessed Trump placing his name on a building, such as the Kennedy Center, and on a proposed class of battleship--whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself for self-promotion and aggrandizement. But the use of the banner on the DOJ goes beyond the ken. It’s the mark of an individual with authoritarian aspirations.

And history is full of such examples. Banners and images of a country’s leader abound in authoritarian regimes and dictatorships, including North Korea, China and Iran. Such symbols also played prominent roles in Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.

And now, Trump is making the same play in the United States. It’s a visual portrait or representation of the cult of personality. It’s Orwell’s “Big Brother” looking down and watching. For the DOJ, it’s not a reminder of the rule of law. Rather, it’s an object lesson as to who controls the law. Or who at least thinks he controls the law.

It should alarm anyone who values institutional independence. And if Republican politicians silently go into the night without protest, as they have on so many other occasions, they’re equally culpable with Trump.

Further, if any other president in any other age hung such a banner, the public outcry would have been deafening, with criticism from both sides of the aisle. So, where is the public outrage today? There has been criticism, but not, I think, at the level this act demands. This means it’s up to us to refute Trump’s action and to ensure our representatives follow suit. It’s also important to continue supporting our judiciary. Time and again, the federal courts, albeit not always the Supreme Court, have stepped forward to protect the Constitution. They’re the bulwark against which many of Trump’s machinations have crashed.

And finally, if more banners appear on more buildings over time, and the DOJ continues down its present path, one can only hope that other such bulwarks, potentially created by Congress, are constructed.

Notes:

(1) “Trump’s New Banner Accidentally Exposes the Truth About the DOJ,” by Edith Olmsted, The New Republic. February 19, 2026. https://newrepublic.com/post/206803/donald-trump-department-justice-banner-face

(2) “New Trump Banner Hung on Justice Department Headquarters,” by Ashley Ahn, The New York Times. February 19, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/19/us/politics/trump-banner-doj.html

(3) “13 controversial redactions from the Epstein files — and what we’re learning about them,” by Aaron Blake, CNN. February 11, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09/politics/redacted-text-jeffrey-epstein-files

(4) “US justice department joins lawsuit to block California’s new electoral map,” by Lauren Gambino, The Guardian, November 12, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/13/california-electoral-map-lawsuit-justice-department#:~:text=Trump%20administration-,US%20justice%20department%20joins%20lawsuit%20to%20block%20California’s%20new%20electoral,of%20Californians%20will%20not%20stand.%E2%80%9D

(5) “Presidents Can’t Use the Justice Department as Their Personal Law Enforcement Agency” by Lauren Miller Karalunas, Brennan Center. February 14, 2025. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-cant-use-justice-department-their-personal-law-enforcement

© 2026 MMM

FULL TEXT - PART 2

This is part 2 of The Haitian Refugee Crisis. The Trump Administration, Racism and the Law. We’ll be covering one of Trump’s actions in 1989 that directly leads to 2026, as well as government and legal issues. We’ll conclude with a wrap up and commentary.

A Direct Line can be Traced from 1989 to the Present Time

The Central Park Five are a group of young “black and Hispanic boys, aged between 14 and 16, [who] would be found guilty and jailed” for allegedly attacking and raping a jogger in New York City’s Central Park in 1989. (6) As the incident unfolded, Donald Trump, who was a real estate developer in New York at the time,

spent a reported $85,000 …on four full-page adverts in New York newspapers titled: “Bring Back The Death Penalty, Bring Back Our Police!”.

He wrote: “I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyse or understand them, I am looking to punish them.”

In an interview with CNN at the time, he said: “Maybe hate is what we need if we’re gonna get something done.” (7)

Trump’s ad and subsequent words helped fuel a wave of hatred against the five. These were his words and actions in 1989, and look at where we’re at today with his Administration.

All five were subsequently exonerated as someone else eventually admitted he committed the assault and rape. His knowledge about details of the attack, which had not been released to the public, confirmed his guilt as did DNA evidence. And yet, Trump has never apologized for his role in helping to paint five innocent men as being guilty and for making a contentious situation even more volatile.

And as a final note, Trump has not changed. In February 2026, he posted a video portraying the Obamas as apes.

According to the New York Times,

The depiction of Mr. and Mrs. Obama as apes perpetuates a racist trope, used historically by slave traders and segregationists to dehumanize Black people and justify lynchings and other atrocities. A spokeswoman for Mr. Obama declined to comment. (8)

You read about such incidents, and you wonder how the Republican Party can continue to support Trump and his works? You typically hear Republican politicians say, it’s just “Trump being Trump.” But if this is their excuse, it’s pretty damning. In an attempt to excuse Trump, they’re trying to remove their own complicity in his actions—that is, what can I do or say? Trump is just being himself. So, there’s no analysis and, when appropriate, no condemnation.

Further, excusing evil is as old as humanity itself. And history’s path is strewn with such markers that have and will continue to define us, or at the very least, what we allow to be tolerated. So. Now would be a good time, I think, to be intolerant.

And on a final note, at least with this incident, there has been some condemnation on both sides of the aisle. Maybe it’s the start of a new Republican sensibility. One can only hope.

Where We Are Today

So, going back to the top of the post, Ana C. Reyes, a United States District Judge, ordered a temporary stay of a Trump Administration order to strip TPS from thousands of Haitian refugees in the United States. According to Noem, Haiti is now safe enough for the migrants to return. This is quite interesting since our own State Department issued a Level 4 advisory about the country:

Do not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited health care. (9)

Not exactly a safe place to return to at this time.

And as for the Venezuelan refugees, who are facing a similar situation, according to President Trump,

American citizens will be very shortly able to go to Venezuela. And they’ll be safe there, Trump told his Cabinet. “It’s under very strong control.” He said the large Venezuelan diaspora would also be able to return home, to visit or stay. (10)

But again, the State Department has issued a Travel 4 Advisory:

The State Department maintains a “Do Not Travel” advisory for the country, its strongest warning, “due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure.” In an alert on Jan. 10, a week after Maduro’s capture, the department urged U.S. citizens and permanent residents in Venezuela to leave immediately. (11)

So, even though the advisories are directed toward American citizens, they both point to unsettled and dangerous living conditions. In fact, many of the reasons why thousands left their countries in the first place are still prevalent today. Yet, the Trump Administration wants to cut off the TPS designation.

The Ruling

Judge Reyes’ 83 page ruling clearly articulates her reasoning and the law’s applicability for denying the Trump Administration’s curtailing of the TPS for the Haitians. It’s a powerful statement for the rule of law and how the Trump Administration, particularly Secretary Noem in this instance, ignored facts and the reality of the current situation in Haiti. It’s an important ruling, which is why an extended quote is used.

In Judge Reyes’ own words,

On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status …program….It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually….

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. 2

So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti.3 Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026….

Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down…Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR)….She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so…. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy….

The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability….

There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side—or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side—or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).

Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that.

By accompanying Order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705. (12)

Wrapping Up

The TPS program provides a legal haven for those who fall under its umbrella. Created by Congress, it protects nationals from select countries who might otherwise suffer, or potentially die, if they had to return to their native lands at this point in time. As covered earlier, it’s designed as a temporary sanctuary with a defined end date.

But when the Trump Administration came into power in 2024, it set into motion the mechanism it had campaigned on--to deport undocumented and documented immigrants and hundreds of thousands protected by the TPS program. And these are primarily people of color.

At first glance, it may have appeared to Administration officials to be a straightforward process. Vilify those with TPS status, as is the case of the Haitians in Springfield. Next, strip their protection and then process and subsequently deport them. It doesn’t matter if they’re returning to countries still torn by civil conflict and potentially inhospitable physical conditions, as determined by our own government’s analyses. We’ll simply ignore these facts or lie about them. The primary focus is to deport people as quickly as possible.

The human damage would be incalculable. Yes, this is a hyperbolic statement. But when hundreds of thousands of individuals, including children, are potentially put in harm’s way, hyperbole is merited.

But fortunately, our legal system kicked in. Judges who abide by and support the rule of law as defined by our Constitution, and not by the whims or political machinations of any President, have blocked the most egregious of the Administration’s actions.

In the case of Judge Reyes, her stay has afforded the Haitian immigrants a safety net, albeit a temporary one. The stay is in effect as the case winds its way through the legal system. But it could potentially be overturned, and the deportations would commence.

If this occurs, it would signal yet another notch in the Trump Administration’s belt to redefine our country—from a Constitutional Republic to one subject to authoritarian rule.

Ultimately, it’s up to us to define our future. One guided by a racist and morally bankrupt Administration, or one, while imperfect, still defined by the rule of law.

NOTES:

(6) “Central Park Five: The true story behind When They See Us,” BBC. June 12, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48609693

(7) Ibid.

(8) “‘I Didn’t Make a Mistake’: Trump Declines to Apologize for Racist Video of Obamas,” by Erica L. Green, Isabella Kwai and Zolan Kanno-Young. The New York Times, February 7, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/06/us/politics/trump-obamas-video-apes-truth-social.html

(9) “Travel Advisory.” US Department of State. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/haiti-travel-advisory.html

(10) “Trump says Venezuela safe for Americans; State Dept. warns against travel, by Matthew Hay Brown, Ana Vanessa Herrero and Lori Aratani, The Washington Post, January 30, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/30/trump-reopens-venezuela-airspace/

(11) “Travel Advisory.” US Department of State. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/venezuela-travel-advisory.html

(12) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRITZ EMMANUEL LESLY MIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-02471 (ACR). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/02/us/haitians-tps-ruling.html

FULL TEXT - PART 1

This is part 1 of a 2-part episode: The Haitian Refugee Crisis. The Trump Administration, Racism and the Law. The full text and podcast are included.

Introduction

Ana C. Reyes, a United States District Judge, ordered a temporary stay of a Trump Administration order to strip Temporary Protection Status, also known as TPS, from thousands of Haitian refugees in the United States. The TPS program was created by Congress to provide a safe and legal haven for nationals from other countries living in the United States who can’t return home because of natural and/or human-made disasters, including military conflicts. And as implied by the name, it’s a temporary safe harbor with an expiration date. But the Trump Administration wants to shred this legal status, to cut short the end dates, and to start mass deportations.

For the Haitians, the TPS was set to expire on February 3, 2026, by an order from Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--the DHS. Through consultations with other government agencies, the Secretary is charged with making TPS designations. Or in the Trump Administration’s case, how to deport hundreds of thousands of Haitians, Venezuelans and other nationals who had previously been afforded protection. This is also part of the Administration’s broader plan to deport as many unprotected foreign nationals from the United States as it can through the offices of ICE and other means.

Prequel

The Haitian group includes those who were attacked by candidates Trump and Vance before the 2024 election. As you may recall, Vance claimed Haitian migrants living in Springfield Ohio, were eating the town’s cats and dogs. This wasn’t true, and the stories were used as political cudgels.

But when you lie, particularly in this type of situation, there’s a human cost. In the case of the Haitian people, they were portrayed as a foreign element that was a plague on the local community. So, a group of refugees who came to Springfield to live and work quietly, away from their country that was being ripped apart by gangs and partisan politics, were unjustly vilified. They are attacking those among us who are the most vulnerable to government overreach and potential abuse.

But it goes well beyond lies and legal issues. It also touches on who we are, or at least who we think we are, as a country.

You may pass legislation to protect your country’s borders. However, when you have standing laws and guidelines to protect those who are legally in the United States, and you attempt to abrogate such laws, you raise an obvious question—why are you doing this?

Is it just for political gain? If so, this wouldn’t be the first time we’re witnessing this in our country. Or does it go beyond the politics? In the case of the Haitians, Venezuelans and other like groups, it appears to be a combination of both.

First, it’s political, as it’s a hot topic for Trump. People are portrayed as the enemy, and this claim is used as a tool to unite his party.

Second, it’s also racist, as this ugly specter raises its head. It strikes at the core of any ethical standard our country may claim it embraces. And under the Trump Administration, racism is apparently a core principle. (1) It’s one of the forces driving many of its policies and, in the context of our current discussion, the attempt to curtail the TPS protections.

But it must also be noted that Trump isn’t working in a vacuum. He would not be able to move his agenda forward without the support of the Republican Party. So, while Trump is the so-called “point of the spear” in many of these matters, Republican politicians are the spear’s shaft. They’re equally complicit and responsible.

The Trump Administration. The Racism Factor

Before we cover Judge Reyes’ stay, it’s helpful to explore some examples of the Administration’s racist inclinations. They helped set the stage for the attempted removal of the TPS protections and also underlie a number of the Administration’s actions.

1. The Trump Administration uses language as a tool to dehumanize undocumented and documented immigrants. These individuals are portrayed as an invasion of gang members who may be coming for you. And while it’s true that certain individuals are criminals and should be deported, the Administration is painting the entire community with the same brush.

It’s fear-mongering at its worst and presenting even innocent people as a threat to the country and the “American way of life.” This has created a hostile environment with the intent of making forced deportations, using troops, and ignoring due process, palatable to your audience, the American people.

2. During a 2023 rally and on other occasions, Trump stated that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” and this language is reminiscent of Hitler’s writings and speeches. (2) Particularly for a president, I can think of other words more appropriate to mirror. It’s contemptible.

3. One of the Administration’s bibles is the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership. While Trump loudly proclaimed he didn’t know anything about the work, one of its chief architects is Russ Vought, Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It is very Eurocentric in its prescription for enhancing American lives, particularly if you fall into a specific American demographic-type…sort of like the Cleaver family from Leave it to Beaver. And if you have never heard of the show, take a few minutes to look it up. You’ll see how it fits in the Mandate for Leadership mantra and its vision of America, which is far different from our current reality.

4. The Administration mandated exhibit changes at the Smithsonian. In one example, there was “too much” emphasis on slavery.

According to Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s advisers, the Smithsonian should “be a place for families and children to celebrate American history and greatness. Instead, the exhibits have clearly been taken over by left-wing activists…” (3) Basically, we should whitewash the evil inherent in slavery and the role it has played in American history, and primarily focus on celebrating the country.

There are many aspects of America that merit celebration. But you also have to present a balanced picture of our history. It’s not all sunshine and butterflies, which is what the Administration would prefer to see presented.

And if you think this is an isolated incident, it isn’t. On January 23, 2026, The Guardian reported that

Philadelphia is taking legal action against the Trump administration following the National Park Service’s decision to dismantle a long-established slavery-related exhibit at Independence National Historical Park, which holds the former residence of George Washington.

5. The histories of military personnel of color were removed, for a time, from a Pentagon database. Harriet Tubman, a woman of color and a leading abolitionist of the Civil War era, was similarly treated. And one of the driving forces behind these incidents is the campaign to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, that is, DEI programs. The Administration initiated this action, and it’s steeped in racism.

In essence, the Administration directed the removal of DEI-related materials across the government. This has primarily affected people of color as well as other marginalized groups.

6. Travel bans have been placed, as in Trump 1, on predominantly Muslim countries. Yet, white Afrikaners from South Africa have received expedited entry and protection in the United States.

7. The Administration’s cuts in USAID will have a devastating effect on the communities that previously received aid. These are, by and large, people of color.

Thousands and thousands have been condemned to horrific deaths from infectious diseases, malnutrition and related causes. Many Trump apologists ignore this aspect of the Administration, despite the potential to be one of its most damning and inhumane actions. (4) And let’s add, on the domestic front, the attempts to cut SNAP funding and, more recently, funding to support children’s services in five Democratic states. Again, these cuts would have primarily affected families of color.

8. In 2017, white supremacists and other hate groups marched in Charlottesville, Virginia. They chanted anti-Jewish tropes and slogans reminiscent of the Nuremberg marches in Nazi Germany. And Trump’s response: there were “very fine people on both sides.” (5)

9. Minneapolis and ICE.

Depredations by some ICE agents are well documented. Individuals targeted for deportation, typically people of color, may be inhumanely treated, and two American citizens have been killed. In both cases and after the fact, the victims were declared to be domestic terrorists by the Administration, and the agents were acting in self-defense.

However, witnesses carrying cell phones were present at the shootings. Their videos, taken from multiple angles, clearly revealed the victims did nothing wrong, in contrast to Trump and Noem’s initial and vitriolic statements.

End of Part 1

This concludes the first part of The Haitian Refugee Crisis. The Trump Administration, Racism and the Law. We’ll pick up the conclusion in Part 2.

NOTES:

(1) ” LDF Sounds Alarm on Trump Administration’s Attempt to Reinvigorate Pseudo-Scientific Racism and Erase Black People from American History,” Legal Defense Fund. March 29, 2025. https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-sounds-alarm-on-trump-administrations-attempt-to-reinvigorate-pseudo-scientific-racism-and-erase-black-people-from-american-history/. Also, please see: “Trump Says Civil Rights Led to White People Being ‘Very Badly Treated’,” by Erica L. Green, The New York Times. January 11, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-interview-white-people-discrimination.html and “Bigoted beliefs, racist ties found among some of President Trump’s appointees,” by Cassie Miller, Southern Poverty Law Center. March 6, 2025. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/bigoted-beliefs-racist-ties-found-among-president-trumps-appointees/

(2) “Trump Defends Comments About Immigrants ‘Poisoning the Blood’ of America,” by Associated Press, VOA. December 19, 2023. https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-defends-comments-about-immigrants-poisoning-the-blood-of-america/7405198.html

(3) “Trump Administration Targets Smithsonian Exhibits in Controversial Review,” by Elijah Spencer, The Hilltop. August 25, 2025. https://thehilltoponline.com/2025/08/25/trump-administration-targets-smithsonian-exhibits-in-controversial-review/. The Guardian article, described in the same section, can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/23/philadelphia-trump-adminstration-lawsuit-slavery-exhibit

(4) “USAID shutdown has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths,” by Karen Feldscher, Harvard School of Public Health. November 20, 2025. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/

(5) “The Charlottesville rally 5 years later: ‘It’s what you’re still trying to forget,’ by Debbie Elliot, NPR. August 12, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1116942725/the-charlottesville-rally-5-years-later-its-what-youre-still-trying-to-forget

Thanks for listening!

INTRO TO PODCAST….< 1minute

We briefly explored the Dreyfus situation in a July 04, 2025 podcast, and it seems appropriate to recall Zola’s words, today, as we continue to face challenges from the Trump Administration.

This is also the first of a two-part look at the Trump Administration’s Minneapolis and related ICE operations.

Part 1 covers particular incidents that have and are taking place in Minneapolis. It also explores the Portland operation in regard to the legal issues that are playing out in Minneapolis.

Part 2 will continue and update the situation.

Introduction

There’s been a surge of ICE agents in Minneapolis. They’ve met resistance from citizens and local and state politicians. Protesters have also gathered, as they have in other cities, during ICE raids, and in particular, after the shooting deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

But before an investigation could be launched, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump characterized Good as a “domestic terrorist,” with Trump adding that she was an agitator who ran over an ICE agent. (1) But if you watch the videos of the scene, these claims are very much in dispute, and the ICE agent wasn’t assaulted.

It’s also revealing that Noem and Trump didn’t even wait a beat before condemning Good. Further, it’s even more revealing that Trump is using this incident and the resultant protests as a possible excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act. We talked about it in the context of Portland last Fall. It might be helpful to cover the information again, given Trump’s threats.

According to the Brennan Center,

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations… It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. (2)

A state government can request the President to send in troops. The President can also proceed without a state’s request to quell, for instance, a rebellion. So, by identifying protests as a rebellion, as Trump is now threatening in Minneapolis, this could open the door for launching the Insurrection Act.

It should also be noted that the Posse Comitatus Act pertains to federal troops. National Guard units, which generally operate under state control through the governor, do not fall under the Act. So, National Guard units can be used in a variety of roles. However, if the National Guard is federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act kicks in. Unless, of course, they’re called up to quell, once again, a rebellion or to fight against an invasion.

Constitutional Issues

We’re dealing with the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. The third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States.

Portland and Trump: as a Defining Example

On September 27, 2025, Trump wrote on Truth Social,

At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. (3)

You’ll note the hyperbolic language use in describing “War ravaged Portland.” Both the governor and Portland’s Mayor assured the Administration that this was not the case. Federal troops were not required. For Trump, though, this was political, which motivated him to move forward with the plans.

The Administration also employed the “rebellion” tag in describing the situation. The court subsequently examined Newsom 1, a California case about Los Angeles, and it presented two definitions as to what constitutes a rebellion.

Number 1. The key aspects of the first definition focus on violence, organization and weapons. It’s a public affair, and the target is not a single law, but the entire government.

Number 2. The second definition is much broader. It includes opposition to an “authority or tradition” and the “Disobedience of a legal command or summons.” (4)

The Administration wanted the second definition to be used. The disobedience of a legal command, for example, covers a multitude of situations, some of which wouldn’t fall under the first one. But Judge Immergut, who rendered the decision in Portland, like the court in Newsom I, adopted the first definition, and it was found that the situation in Portland didn’t meet this standard.

Civil vs Military Power and Second-Guessing

Judge Immergut also made points about the Portland case that are pertinent for Minneapolis. The first sums up who we are as a nation and the danger posed by the Administration’s objective:

…this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation. (5)

And this is the crux of the potential damage from the deployments. National Guard troops are being federalized and sent to cities at a time when local authorities already have the resources to protect federal properties and to maintain order--the mayors and governors are not requesting additional help. But by sending in troops, it can create the appearance that the Administration is taking the first step toward what may be the morphing of a deployment into an occupation under martial law. Our civil government is replaced by a federally authorized military presence. You would think, in a democracy, a president would want to avoid even the appearance of such a development.

The second point focuses on the concept of Executive vs Judicial authority. In one situation, the federal government indicated that a Court may not second guess the President’s determination that conditions in Portland, and now, possibly Minneapolis, warrant a federal military response.

This is a pretty remarkable statement. The Judicial Branch, one of the three supposedly coequal branches of government, is admonished for even thinking it can “second-guess” the President’s decision. But in reality, this is one of the Court’s constitutional mandates. Without such judicial review, an Administration could assume full control over our government’s operation and, if so desired, send troops to fully occupy our cities. Further, the use of the term “may not second guess the President’s determination,” sounds more like a royal decree rather than a recognition that the Administration is working with the third coequal branch of government.

Judges generally give a president some leeway when making decisions. However, when there’s a clear case of the potential misuse of power, for example, the lower courts, at least, generally intervene.

Breaking News in Minnesota

On January 16, 2026, District Judge Katherine Menendez placed limits on the actions of ICE agents in Minnesota. While the judge’s orders didn’t stop ICE’s mission, it did enjoin ICE agents from engaging in certain activities. Per the court’s order, these include

a. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge. [Protesters keep track of ICE activities and have gone to locales where ICE actions are taking place.]

b. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.

c. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.

d. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents... The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop. (6)

This ruling, in many ways, mirrors those in Portland and other cities in that what many have perceived as overreach by the government has been brought back toward center. It also highlights, as it has during the first 5 years of Trump’s two terms, that the lower courts have held the line for constitutional rights and constitutional limits.

However, on January 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Eighth Circuit, granted an administrative stay of the judge’s order pending further consideration. And in an analogous fashion to the numerous Supreme Court Shadow Docket rulings, there’s no analysis for its decision in contrast with Judge Menendez’s comprehensive review. The Eighth Circuit found:

The motion for an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court pending the Court’s consideration of the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal is granted. (7)

A quite remarkable difference, especially given the importance of the case and the potential physical harm for all the involved parties. It’s also antithetical to our democratic system, given the essential rights the court order is designed to protect.

Discussion

The potential Insurrection issue is not going to go away as Trump seeks to militarize additional cities. And this is the same President who stated that, perhaps, the military should use certain United States cities as “training grounds” in preparation for war.

This blatantly political scenario also points to a President who’s more concerned with power and its attendant perceptions rather than the citizens he was elected to serve. It’s contemptible.

It’s also a time for Democratic governors and mayors to continue to intervene to protect their people and cities, since these are the Administration’s targets. But work with colleagues in and outside of your state, and keep judges apprised of developments—not just in certain locales, but across the United States. Further, given the threat to our democracy, Republican politicians, who are not aligned with the Trump Administration’s authoritarian stance, must step up as well.

And finally, peacefully protest as hard as you can and continue to capture video to document situations, but don’t give Trump an excuse to send in the troops. It’s a perfect setup for the Administration:

--claim there’s violence,

--demand that federal properties and agents must be protected,

--and send in federalized National Guard units or launch the Insurrection Act.

If this happens, it elevates the situation to another level.

But even given this, it’s a level we can also meet.

NOTES

(1) “Who was Renee Nicole Good, the woman killed by ICE?,” by Tiffany Wertheimer, BBC. January 13, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jepdjy256o. Also please see: “F.B.I. Agent Who Tried to Investigate ICE Officer in Shooting Resigns,” by Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush, The New York Times. January 23, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/politics/fbi-agent-ice-shooting-renee-good.html Based on the Times report, “An F.B.I. agent who sought to investigate the federal immigration officer who fatally shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis this month has resigned from the bureau, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The agent, Tracee Mergen, left her job as a supervisor in the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office after bureau leadership in Washington pressured her to discontinue a civil rights inquiry into the immigration officer, Jonathan Ross, according to one of the people. Such inquiries are a common investigative step in similar shootings.”

(2) “The Insurrection Act, Explained,” by Joseph Nunn and Elizabeth Goitei, The Brennan Center. April 21, 2022. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

(3) Truth Social. Sep 27, 2025, 10:19AM https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115276694936263266.

(4) Black’s Law Dictionary. (12th ed., 2024).

(5) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.56.1_2.pdf

(6) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. CASE 0:25-cv-04669-KMM-DTS Doc. 85 Filed 01/16/26. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2025cv04669/229758/85/0.pdf

(7) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No: 26-1105. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. (0:25-cv-04669-KMM). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.113629/gov.uscourts.ca8.113629.00805436077.0_2.pdf

.

President Trump met with European leaders in Davos, Switzerland, this week. It was an economic meeting with a broad-based agenda, including climate change and other global issues. Politics run deep, and this is particularly true this year in light of Trump’s potential actions, ranging from the taking of Greenland to attacking and then complimenting NATO. And let’s add a diatribe against Switzerland, and in a subsequent meeting with Swiss President Guy Parmelin, praising the Swiss for making high-quality watches. It sounded like the ultimate non-compliment compliment.

During the summit, Trump gave some ground about Greenland, but the threat of what he might do next dominated the first day. He stated, at one point,

We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said. “You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember. (1)

Not exactly words to soothe one’s soul.

What’s Next

Even though the Greenland situation was somewhat de-escalated, a list of other demands, this time in Europe proper, followed. It started with wanting to place troops in the Rhineland, a region critical to France, Belgium and Germany, to be followed by other requests such as for the Sudetenland. Generally speaking, the Sudetenland is roughly comparable to Czechoslovakia as Greenland is to Denmark, and this Denmark and Greenland linkage has taken on a central role.

While European leaders condemned these new demands, they nevertheless acquiesced. The fear of a potential conflict and economic measures outweighed the threat. And one of history’s lessons, which has been repeated time and again, was forgotten. If you surrender your belief system, who you are in essence, you start a trip down the old rabbit hole, with potentially dire consequences. And if this sounds like a bit of a hyperbole, did you ever think that in your lifetime military troops could be stationed in our cities without a declared national, regional or local emergency?

Concerns were also expressed about the United States’ European commitments, given its focus on the Western Hemisphere rather than European matters. But the US could afford to be politically aloof, given that its two coasts are protected by oceans. Not so in Europe, where the close-proximity of countries rendered many borders porous.

Confused? So are the Rest of Us

I’m not trying to be tricky, but to make a point.

We’re not talking about these past few months but some of the territories Hitler demanded before the start of World War II, almost 90 years ago.

Hitler pressed his demands, and European leaders opted for appeasement. One of the iconic photos of the 20th Century is Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s waving, upon his return to England, the Munich Agreement. After prior land grabs, Hitler met with Chamberlain and signed the Agreement, with France and Italy, stating that after the annexation of the Sudetenland, Germany would not pose other such demands. Czechoslovakia, for its part, was essentially told, sorry…you’re on your own. This is the same Agreement that caused Chamberlain to say in a subsequent reading of the document to a crowd of Londoners,

This photograph D 2239 (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=D+2239) comes from the collections of the Imperial WarMuseums (https://www.iwm.org.uk).

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. (2)

Unfortunately, Chamberlain’s fervent hope for peace would be shattered when Germany took over the whole of Czechoslovakia and eventually attacked Poland.

Winston Churchill, for his part, didn’t support the Agreement and accurately predicted Czechoslovakia’s fate. Churchill stated,

And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time. (3)

There’s that concept of freedom, again in the face of authoritarianism.

Linkage

The Greenland and US debacle reminds me, in a few ways, of the 1930s.

The Europeans are dealing with Trump, an authoritarian leader of a Constitutional Republic. Kind of ironic… And in our recent reality, there had been attempts at appeasement given the United States’ military and economic power.

However, the Greenland situation, which we covered in prior posts, fortunately stiffened the Europeans’ resolve. Trump tried to force the annexation of Greenland, despite Denmark and Greenland’s clearly stated opposition. But like 1930s Germany, Trump kept up the pressure. He threatened to use military force and subsequently added an option to buy the island. But again, the people of Denmark and Greenland stood fast. He also insulted Denmark, an ally for over 200 years, and whose soldiers died next to United States troops in support of actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was also widespread support from France for Denmark and Greenland, unlike the 1930s betrayal of Czechoslovakia. President Macron was an outspoken critic of Trump’s plan. And the last two words are key points. This was Trump’s grand scheme, not necessarily that of the United States. The President has a bad habit of sidestepping Congress and issuing edicts using the singular “I” as opposed to “we.” This was one of these moments.

At Davos, Trump finally backed down from his ultimatums and threat to issue new tariffs to countries opposed to his Greenland plan. A framework and accord were reached as to the island and military and economic cooperation.

As of this writing, however, the framework is still evolving. One of the main points is that the United States apparently wants sovereignty for its bases much like the British model in Cyprus. But,

Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said on Thursday he was not in favor of giving the United States sovereignty over military bases there. “We are ready to discuss a lot of things,” Mr. Nielsen said, adding, “Sovereignty is a red line.” (4)

Finally, we’ve all heard people talking about what’s right or wrong as a reflection of the gray scale. You know it—nothing is black and white…there are shades of gray to consider. But particularly when you’re dealing with bullying from an authoritarian figure, I believe there are only two answers—yes or no. Yes, appeasement’s our path, so we’ll go along with you. Or it’s no. You’re wrong, and your request is rejected. I appreciated the united front presented by Europe, and one can only wonder what would have happened if such an answer had been given to Germany as it started down its path toward World War II.

And as an American, it pains me to see how Trump has damaged, possibly for years, our international relationships. How dare he threaten Denmark and our NATO allies with the use of military force and tariffs? As stated, Denmark bled with America and immediately supported the United States, as did the whole of NATO, after the 9/11 attacks.

On to Congress and Venezuela

In the recent flurry of Davos activities, Venezuela has, at least temporarily, fallen out of the current news cycle. Yet, in many ways, it’s tied to what the US attempted to do with Greenland. Except in Venezuela’s case, we decided to attack a country and initiate a regime change. We claim that we’re still a Constitutional Republic, but are we?

What Constitution did we follow when we blew up Venezuelan boats, including a double tap? Is this the same Constitution when we invaded a sovereign state to secure its oil reserves? Is this the same Constitution that supports a President who demonstrates, once again, an authoritarian bent? And if you ever doubted this, as Rod Serling said at the opening of a few Twilight Zone episodes, “”Submitted for your approval,” are two examples of this trip down the road to anarchy.

--After his Davos speech, Trump indicated

We had a good speech, we got great reviews. I can’t believe it, we got good reviews on that speech….Usually they say, He’s a horrible dictator-type person, I’m a dictator, Trump continued. But sometimes you need a dictator! But they didn’t say that in this case.… It’s all based on common sense, it’s not conservative or liberal, or anything else. (5)

--In a Truth Social post, on January 11, 2026, Trump created a fake Wikipedia page:

Trump lists himself as the Acting President of Venezuela. (6)

The United States, as we’ve written in prior posts, has a history of regime changes in our hemisphere. So, this recent assault is not unusual. Except it is. Because of the President. People died in the Venezuelan boats, which could have potentially been stopped and searched to determine if illegal drugs were onboard. People also died in Venezuela during the attack. Nicolás Maduro headed a brutal regime, but the attack was made without the notification or approval of Congress. It was done because Trump wished it so. Not the United States, but Trump. For oil.

The other element is the Wikipedia page. It’s contemptible. If it is meant to be funny, it’s not. This isn’t failing to come to a full stop at a traffic sign. It’s killing crews and destroying boats, potentially violating the Geneva Convention and invading a country to secure its riches. Ostensibly, oil monies will go to the Venezuelan people, but it will also flow to the United States, and we’ll control this flow…indefinitely.

As for the Munich Agreement, England and France essentially permitted Hitler to take the lands he wanted. (7) They traded, especially in Czechoslovakia’s case, lands and all they contained, for peace…for themselves. The Czechoslovakian people thought this was a betrayal, which it obviously was.

In an analogous situation, the Republican-controlled Congress trades appeasement to avoid conflict with Trump. With very few exceptions, they refuse to defy the President. In fact, two Republican Senators, as we wrote about in a prior post, were initially going to vote to limit further actions in Venezuela unless they received Congressional approval. But they backed down, and the proposed bill was defeated. Congress has surrendered its defined powers to appease a president.

Conclusion

In the communications field, there’s a term called the signal-to-noise ratio. It’s exactly what it reads as—the ratio between a signal’s strength and the noise that may be on the communications channel. If the noise is too great, information may be blocked and not fully communicated.

This is what the Trump Administration is, to a great extent. It creates so much noise that important information may not reach those who it should. It takes an effort to cut through to secure the communication. And in the case of Greenland, Europe has done that. But at what cost?

Ukraine is paying the price. Even though negotiations are still progressing, we’re told, where do we actually stand? I knew the United States has slashed its support, but is this loss been fully addressed by NATO and the European Union?

In the United States, the noise has temporarily knocked Venezuela off the mainstage. The recent focus has been so centered on Greenland, where do we stand in a country we illegally attacked and assumed ownership of its oil?

And finally, one of the ways to defeat noise is to increase your signal’s strength. For the United States, it may come down to Congress having the guts to challenge Trump and to end the seemingly endless appeasements. The other parallel course is the upcoming 2026 midterm election. If the Democrats work judiciously and maintain more of a centrist profile, this could truly provide the necessary jolt to end some of the madness…the unethical and unconstitutional madness…we’ve been living through.

Notes:

(1) “The Most Startling Line From Trump’s Davos Speech,” by Philip Elliot, Time. January 21, 2026. https://time.com/7355488/trump-davos-speech-takeaways-analysis/?itm_source=parsely-api

(2) “75th Anniversary Of The Munich Agreement,” RadioFreeEurope; RadioLiberty. September 26, 2013.

(3) “October 5, 1938. House of Commons.” Speech by Winston Churchill. International Churchill Society. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/the-munich-agreement/

(4) “After Trump’s Ultimatum, Greenland Talks Include Sovereign U.S. Bases, No Drilling for Russia,” by Jim Tankersley, Lara Jakes and Adam Goldman,” The New York Times, January 22, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/world/europe/trump-greenland-deal-framework.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260122&instance_id=169697&nl=breaking-news®i_id=57657450&segment_id=214081&user_id=423e5e0514430d734c860e2b14f2b4d7

(5) “Trump Says “Sometimes You Need a Dictator” After Alarming Davos Speech,” by Malcolm Ferguson, The New Republic. January 21, 2026. https://newrepublic.com/post/205508/trump-sometimes-you-need-dictator-davos-speech

(6) Truth Social. January 11, 2026. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115879509461234235

(7) Czechoslovakia had some of Europe’s biggest arms factories.

The first explores President Trump’s January 17, 2026, Truth Social post about Greenland. It’s a mix of inaccurate statements and the levying of new tariffs.

Organizationally, a section of the Truth Social post is listed, followed by a quick analysis of that section. The Analyses are so-noted.

The second part is an unpacking of the Greenland situation and where the United States and Europe stand in this matter.

Truth Social Post; January 17, 2026

Trump. We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years… Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it.

Analysis. This is inaccurate. Denmark is a NATO member, and Article 5 states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, obligating other members to assist the attacked nation. Ironically, this would include the United States. So, protective measures are already in place to support Denmark and Greenland.

Trump. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently.

Analysis. This is insulting, despicable in this context and reveals an absence of understanding history. We all should remember that Danish troops supported and died alongside US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.

Analysis. Because of Trump’s statements, other European countries have sent military units to Greenland. And the purpose is pretty clear—as a deterrent against the United States and to demonstrate that the Europeans can protect Greenland.

Trump. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries…will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.

Analysis. So, tariffs are again being used by the Administration as a weapon. While they’ll make the goods from these countries more expensive, which may have an impact on the volume of their exports, once they reach the United States, it’s the consumer who will be paying the cost for the tariffs.

Further, as demonstrated by the EU’s recent agreement with several South American countries to develop a Trade Zone, numerous countries are carving alternative trade agreements in light of the United States’ tariffs and related actions. So, in one sense, Trump is actually destabilizing our country’s trade position. European countries have also stated they’re not going to be bullied by such actions.

And finally, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of the Trump-initiated tariffs. Their decision could potentially make this move a moot point or throw us into a Constitutional crisis if the Administration still presses forward with another round of its tariffs.

Trump. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused.

Analysis. So what? Denmark has the right to refuse such an offer, much like the United States could refuse an offer from Canada to buy Maine.

Trump. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important…and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential…if this Land is included in it.

Analysis. First, the Golden Dome is the Administration’s proposed anti-missile defense system. Similarly, President Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983. But the Dome, like SDI in its time, has technical issues, two of which are the development of hypersonic missiles and the potential deployment of nuclear cruise missiles. They could potentially circumvent such a system.

Second, the United States already has Greenland and Denmark’s permission to enhance its current military monitoring operations. A land purchase, or takeover, isn’t necessary.

What Trump doesn’t mention is that the United States also wants to gain access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals and other resources, exclusively. It’s one of the reasons for his current push.

Third, the development of such a system could have a destabilizing impact in the world arena. It could also further degrade space operations as other countries would increase their experiments in space-based military capabilities. And the issue, besides the potential for an accident, is the possibility of increased space junk, which would further endanger the space station as well as similar future constructs and low earth orbit satellites.

Trump. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries…

DONALD J. TRUMP

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Jan 17, 2026, 11:19 AM (1)

Unpacking the Truth Social Piece

President Trump is maintaining international pressure for the United States to acquire Greenland. His latest plan is, as stated, to potentially

punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the U.S. controlling Greenland, a message that came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation sought to lower tensions in the Danish capital. (2)

Take s second or two and think about what Trump is attempting. In the guise of security, a situation for which no other NATO ally has a similar concern, Trump wants to take over Greenland. It is strategically located with a potential wealth of rare earth minerals, and he wants to deny Russia and China’s influence in the region.

Yet, Greenland is intrinsically tied to Denmark, a NATO member, just like the United States. And even though Greenland’s people support independence at some point, they have categorically stated if the choice comes down to selecting either the United States or Denmark, the EU and NATO, the United States is clearly out of the picture.

Trump’s latest push comes as a bipartisan Congressional delegation visited Greenland to tamp down the rhetoric between our countries. And two United States senators have

introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State Department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council. (3)

While this is a positive move in regard to our relationship with Greenland, it’s also remarkable that such a legislative initiative has to even be put forward. It’s beyond comprehension that any United States president would thus endanger our relationship with other NATO members and, in particular, with Denmark and Greenland.

In addition, there have been demonstrations against the United States in Denmark and Greenland. Ultimately, what Trump is pursuing may make another part of the world, which had welcomed Americans, want them…us…to stay away.

Conclusion and Apology

President Trump’s campaign to buy Greenland, and his raising the level of pressure to acquire the country, is reprehensible. Denmark, for one, is an old and respected ally that has supported various United States operations. Both nations also number among NATO’s founding members. So, how could Trump pursue this path? It’s an embarrassment and a slap in the face to the people of Greenland, Denmark and our other allies. It’s bullying at its best; threatening at its worst. And despite Secretary of State Rubio’s statement that Trump intended to try to buy Greenland all along, this isn’t accurate. (4) A military option has been floated as well, as we’ve reached a new low in our international relationships. (5)

And in closing, as an American, I would like to apologize to the people of Greenland and Denmark. The majority of Americans don’t abide by the Trump Administration’s actions. Our countries have been allies for years, and the Administration’s actions are based on ignorance and a lack of understanding of the history between us. Be assured, you’ll continue to receive our support.

Notes:

(1) Truth Social post, Donald Trump. January 17, 2025. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115911344443637897

(2) “Trump considers punishing countries with tariffs if they don’t back U.S. takeover of Greenland,” PBS News, PBS. January 16, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-considers-punishing-countries-with-tariffs-if-they-dont-back-u-s-takeover-of-greenland

(3) Ibid.

(4) “Rubio says Trump wants to buy Greenland while White House dangles military option,” by Mariam Khan, Benjamin Siegel, Allison Pecorin, and Jay O’Brien, ABC News. January 7, 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rubio-trump-buy-greenland-trump-push-military-option/story?id=128994685#:~:text=Interest%20Successfully%20Added-,Rubio%20says%20Trump%20wants%20to%20buy%20Greenland%20while%20White%20House,Greenland%2C%20White%20House%20official%20says

(5) “I don’t see it with Canada,” but “something could happen with Greenland,” by Kaia Hubbard, CBS News. May 4, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-military-force-canada/

Fast forward to January 2026. Five Republican Senators, including Josh Hawley and Todd Young, initially joined with Democrats in supporting a measure that would limit President Trump’s war powers in Venezuela—Trump would have to seek Congressional approval before he took additional actions.

With their Democratic colleagues, the senators would have secured the bill’s passage. But pressure was applied by the Trump Administration, including communications with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He stated that Congress would be notified before any further military action took place. Unfortunately, this is the same Administration, as we wrote in a prior post, that went forward, without Congressional approval or even notification, with the initial assault. Congress was and seemingly remains an afterthought.

For his part,

Mr. Hawley said that assurances from Mr. Rubio in the letter, and in phone calls from both the secretary and Mr. Trump, had convinced him that the resolution was no longer needed. (1)

Two points

First, if you’re a Star Trek fan, you know that Scotty is known for his sayings--”I’m giving her all she’s got!” when Kirk asks for more speed for the Enterprise, and the one that fits in this case: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” When the Trump Administration has a habit of doing what it wants to do, including attacking Venezuelan boats and then the country itself without Congressional notification, why would you trust this latest “promise?” If you do, it’s fool me twice, I think.,

Second, if Rubio gave his assurances that the Administration would comply, then what harm would it have been to approve the bill? It was something the Administration, according to Rubio, was going to support anyway? Unless it wasn’t.

But Hawley and Young backed-out. There was a 50-50 split in the Senate, and VP Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. The bill was defeated.

Implications

By not going through with their votes, Senators Hardy and Hawley saved the Administration from an embarrassing situation. This would have been the defection of two Republican Senators from following Trump’s directive.

But what they’ve done, besides helping to defeat the bill, is further weaken Congress. The Trump Administration has pushed the power of the Executive Office beyond the norm. We’ve all witnessed this. So, when a Republican Senator or Representative does vote contrary to Trump’s wishes, it’s a big deal. But at least for this vote, it’s a wasted effort.

And the upshot is that the Administration is free to pursue its own goals without having to be concerned with any immediate consequences.

When Trump ordered the attacks on the Venezuelan boats, what happened? When Trump destroyed the White House’s East Wing on his own accord, what were the political and legal consequences? National Guard troops are moved to US cities, and ICE agents exceed, at times, their orders, and an innocent woman is killed. What are the consequences for the Administration? What happens to Greenland? What happens to Iran? What happens to Columbia? What happens to Cuba?

And when you give a megalomaniac a free hand to do as he wills, and he does something contemptible, either internationally or domestically, don’t feign surprise or proclaim--just wait until the next vote. This may include, for instance, Trump’s recent statement of possibly invoking the Insurrection Act, in response to the protests against ICE, following the shooting death of Renee Good. The Insurrection Act has become a repeated threat as the Administration seeks to station military troops in US cities. (2)

And let’s call this for what is really is: another step toward authoritarianism.

But there was an opportunity to move Congress, at least a little, back toward being a coequal partner with the Executive Branch, when Haley and Young backed down and voluntarily ceded what should be a purview of Congress. It may also have raised the ante before Trump would actually consider invoking the Act, among other potential actions.

But not this time. Again.

Notes:

(1) “Republicans Block Effort to Check Trump’s Power in Venezuela,” by Robert Jimison and Megan Mineiro, The New York Times. January 14, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/us/politics/trump-venezuela-war-powers-vote.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260114&instance_id=169286&nl=breaking-news®i_id=57657450&segment_id=213669&user_id=423e5e0514430d734c860e2b14f2b4d7

(2) “What Is the Insurrection Act of 1807,” By Christine Hauser and William Lamb, The New York Times. January 15, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/article/insurrection-act.html

And as I wrote in the prior podcast, we’re experimenting with computer-generated voices tied to a text-to-speech system. This is the result. You might also note that the accent in the podcast is English, not my native NYC accent. We’re still experimenting with the optional voices supported by the system, though I do like the one used in this post.

Finally, I chose this post to start as I think it’s still appropriate 1 year into the Trump Administration.

You can find the original text-based post under One For the Road 1776…April 6, 2025.

PLEASE NOTE: A text version of the podcast is included in the Home page listing. The written document is identical to the podcast with a couple of differences.

—The written document has the full footnote listing, if any, and the appropriate designations in the text. Other notes may also be included in the written post.

And we would love it if you shared some of your own Christmas memories!

According to Politico,

More like a press conference than briefing the generals,” said one defense official, who, like others, was granted anonymity due to fears of retribution. “Could have been an email. (1)

Further, Pete Hegseth managed to insult past and current military personnel during his talk. At one point, he stated that

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth said. The approach, he said, made the Pentagon “less capable and less lethal.” Hegseth talked up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength. (2)

Unfortunately, this diatribe fits in with the Trump Administration’s assault on supposed DEI initiatives. As discussed in another post, this included removing information about non-white veterans from a Pentagon database.

In the same speech, Hegseth also managed to insult women who are currently serving in the armed forces, as well as veterans. The implication was women didn’t have to meet the same physical standards as men in various military roles, but this was going to change.

There was an immediate response to his statement. While there was some support, the majority of comments were negative. For example, Elisa Cardnell, president of the Service Women’s Action Network, stated that

the standards have not been lowered for women serving in combat roles…the requirements for serving in the infantry, for example, are the same for men and women, whether it’s carrying a certain amount of equipment or marching a certain distance. (3)

Other comments followed a similar train of thought.

President Trump

The President, for his part, followed the usual pattern of one of his usual speeches, Biden=bad & Trump=good. He likewise insulted numerous military personnel when stating the military had recruited and promoted people essentially through DEI standards, not merit. Trump also indicated he had told Hegseth that the military should use certain U.S. cities as “training grounds” in preparation for war. (4) So, U.S. troops could be used against U.S. citizens.…not exactly a presidential moment.

The President also expressed his concern about the escalation of nuclear tensions, and at one point, used a racial slur when talking about nuclear weapons. He said we shouldn’t be throwing about the word nuclear, and it’s one of the two “N-words” we shouldn’t be using. (5) So, in a “blink of an eye,” Trump managed to say something positive and then, followed it with a racist remark. A racist remark!!??

Unbelievable.

Conclusion

What was this meeting about? Instead of a rah-rah speech set-up or a meeting where certain data had to be relayed in person, it was a mix of misinformation and an attempt at browbeating, with a sprinkling of racism and sexism thrown in the mix.

Military leaders and their troops were insulted, and it was staged like a grand performance for the purpose of showing the world who was in charge. But based on Hegseth and Trump’s performances and the need to stroke one’s ego, no one is really in command at the top of the pyramid.

This event was also presumably arranged by the Department of Defense. Yes, I know—it’s now called the Department of War by the Trump Administration. They can call it whatever they want. It’s still the Department of Defense.

So, the nation’s top military leaders were ordered to assemble in the same location at the same time.

You don’t do this. Or since the meeting was held, this should be rephrased as—you shouldn’t do this. It’s one of the reasons why a U.S. President and Vice President generally don’t fly together. You want to protect the continuity of command if there’s an accident or other event.

Evidently, this common-sense procedure wasn’t followed in the case of the September 30 meeting. You also forced our top leaders to leave their posts just to hear, as one official reported, information that could have been sent by email. I used the word “unbelievable” earlier in this post. But I think it’s the appropriate postscript to this meeting.

Unbelievable.

…

Notes:

**** The movie Cool Hand Luke stars Paul Newman, one member of a stellar cast. The movie takes place in a rural and brutal prison camp; the prisoners work on a chain gang. Luke is one of the prisoners, and he’s a repeat escapee.

Two of the movie’s memorable moments are:

-the now iconic line, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate“

-the reflective sunglasses on a prison guard, the man with no eyes.

Please Note: The opening was created with NightCafe Studio (https://creator.nightcafe.studio/)

(1) ‘Could have been an email’: Officials balk at Hegseth’s generals meeting,’ by Jack Detsch and Leo Shane III, Politico. September 20, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/30/hegseth-meeting-pushback-00588181?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

(2) “Pete Hegseth had a lot to say when he summoned military leaders. Here are some facts and context,” by Julie Watson, Laurie Kellman and Deepth Hajela, AP News. September 30, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/military-combat-women-race-hegseth-d406029d0e0dfd52443ef8d7fcb765cb

(3) “Hegseth wants ‘male standard’ for combat roles. Many female veterans say that’s already the case,” by Adriana Gomez Licon and Thomas Beaumont, AP News. September 30, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-pentagon-defense-combat-women-trump-b423fd49730d9ab97151a2d2a4fdf6a7

(4) “5 Takeaways From Trump’s Address to Generals and Admirals,” by Minho Kim, The New York Times. September 30, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/us/politics/trump-speech-military-takeaways.html

(5) Ibid.

Thanks to YouTube and Netflix

This episode focuses on movies that explore political themes. We picked three movies that we like and want to share with anyone who may tune to this podcast. The movies are: Wag the Dog, 7 Days in May and per the YouTube clip, The Trial of the Chicago 7.

Thanks for listening.

This piece will also complement a soon to be released written post about Kennedy and the problems with his and Trump’s Administrations.