Trump threatens total war against Iran

 

Trump threatens total war against Iran

Risks a major conflict

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. threat to bomb Iran’s electric power plants is an expression of “total war” – a conflict waged against civilian populations.

Total war includes operations going beyond military targets and aimed at harming or killing civilians who are not combatants. Its goal is to turn people against their own government, making them into allies, however unwilling.  They are expected to force their leaders to surrender, bringing people relief from their danger and suffering. 

History up to today is full of examples of the resort to total war.

In 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine.  Russia obviously wanted to turn Ukraine into its satellite, based on Putin’s belief that Ukrainians are really Russians.  He expected an easy victory with the population welcoming Russian control.

Total war can produce an opposite result from what was intended.  Instead of promptly surrendering, Ukrainians revealed a fierce commitment to their country’s political and cultural independence from Russia.  They would pay for their new-found patriotism by having their homes and power plants destroyed. 

Restrained by its American and European backers, Ukraine cannot respond in kind.  But its popular support produces strong resistance, imposing a high cost on Russia.   Russia’s total war strategy may be beyond what it can afford, and it looks likely to fail.

The 2024 Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians was clearly intended to reveal the price Israel would be forced to pay for its Palestine policy.   Innocent civilians were killed, and Hamas took hostages, a move out of the Middle Ages.   If it had more than sheer terrorism as a goal, it might have expected fearful Israelis to pressure their government to alter its policy.

Instead, the country unified by attempting to eliminate Hamas.  No room was left for negotiations.  But Israel, too, resorted to total war.  Without offering evidence, it alleged that civilian institutions, including hospitals, were Hamas bases.  Its attacks were aimed at turning civilians against Hamas, which exercised absolute administrative and military control.

Ultimately, Israel shifted to the all-out destruction of Gaza.  Its actions went far beyond punishing Gaza and extended to an assault on innocent Palestinians there, presumably because they had accepted Hamas domination.  Total punishment was the product of total war.

Last week, Israel extended its total war strategy to Lebanon.  By evacuating hundreds of thousands from the south and bombing Beirut, it seemed to be trying to get the Lebanese to turn against Hezbollah and expel it.   To achieve this objective, it invaded a country with which it is not at war.

In the Iran war, both the U.S. and Israel have said they want regime change.  Based on previous anti-government demonstrations, they seem to believe that they can create the conditions for a successful uprising by attacking civilian life.    UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk reports that aerial attacks increasingly focus on areas in Iran that are densely populated. 

Iran has closed the essential oil supply route at the Straits of Hormuz.  To retaliate, Trump would engage in total war.  The principal victims of an American attack on electric supply would be civilians and institutions like schools and hospitals that depend on reliable power.   Iran would retaliate against civilian installations in Middle East countries aligned with the U.S.

Total war is not traditionally a part of American policy.  In World War II, the U.S. would not engage in British-style area bombing at night, clearly designed to demoralize and harm civilians, but instead used precision daylight bombing of military targets.

Contrary to this American policy, the U.S. would now resort to total war. Even more worrisome, with Israel, it would extend this war over a wide area with the risk that its scope could not be fully limited.   This is how regional conflicts can become major wars.

Trump once criticized Ukraine President Zelenskyy, claiming that he had started the war with Russia, because he refused to turn over land Putin demanded.  He said, “Listen, when you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war, right?”

Attacking Iran, Trump said, "What we did in Venezuela, I think, is … the perfect scenario."  Iran could be a quick victory, producing a government acceptable to the U.S.  Then, he discovered his belief in a short war and easy victory was overly optimistic.

Instead of returning to negotiations, Trump escalates the war.  His frustration has led him to the brink of total war and to the possible unpopular and dangerous deployment of American ground troops.

As the war deepens, so do economic problems in the U.S. and elsewhere, and political concerns grow among his own backers.  He needlessly alienates European allies by criticizing their insufficient support, when they might have helped give him cover in backing off the war.

Whatever the embarrassment, Trump needs to quickly find a way out.  Total war must be off the table.

Trump’s mythical mandate for war

 

Trump’s mythical mandate for war

‘Unprecedented’ victory?

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump justifies his broad assertion of authority to wage war against Iran or abolish entire agencies of government by his election victory claim that “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

He sees his supposedly crushing victory as authorization by the American people of his exercise of extraordinary powers.  Or he knows that his win was not particularly unusual, but believes that he can spin the result by boldly asserting a false claim.   Then, it’s carpe diem – seize the day – and make the most of your opportunity without much thought for the future.

That explains the Iran war.  He thought he could win quickly and did not worry about the long-running economic crisis that his war could create

Karoline Leavitt, his highly promotional press secretary, touted that, “the American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate.”

That he could live off his self-proclaimed mandate came from the acquiescence of intimidated congressional Republicans.  “We have taken back control of the Senate. Wow, that’s great,” he proclaimed post-election.

In short, his presidential actions, ignoring historic constitutional practices, are justified by the “unprecedented,” “powerful” and “overwhelming” mandate he received.  

Something is “unprecedented,” when there is no previous example of it.  Implied in his claim was that his victory was by the largest margin ever and that he swept his party into unusually taking control of both houses of Congress.    

What are the facts about the mandate that is the basis of his power?

● Margin of victory.  In 2024, Trump’s popular vote margin was the smallest since 1968.  In the 13 elections over the 52 years beginning with the 1972 contest, no margin of victory in the popular vote had been as narrow as his in 2024.

● Congressional coattails.  A presidential winner being accompanied by the congressional victory of his own party has happened six times since the 1980 election of President Carter, including Trump’s own 2016 election.  Only one of the six retained his party’s congressional majority in the following mid-terms: Carter in 1982.   So, the Senate win was virtually routine.

● The Trump world interprets his 2024 election as an act of the “American people”.   His win did not produce an “overwhelming” or “unprecedented” result, and it was hardly the voice of the American people?  Here’s the data.

            Citizen population aged 18 and older      236 million

            Registered voters                                     174 million     73.6% of total 18+ population

            Voters                                                        154 million    63.7% of registered voters

            Voted for Trump                                          77 million     49.8% of voters

Among all citizens 18 and over, Trump received 32.6% support.

● Number of votes.   Trump did not achieve the greatest number of popular votes for president; Joe Biden did in 2020. 

● Electoral vote.  Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama (twice) had bigger electoral vote margins.

The claim that Trump won unprecedented, overwhelming support from the American people is false.  He clearly won the election, but he has used his appraisal of the result as authority for the virtually unlimited use of presidential powers, as he understands them. 

Further, the voters who supported him count as the American people; everybody else is not.  He says he “hates” those who did not support him and misuses his power to go after them.

His four-year mandate misrepresents the political will of a plurality of voters, expressed through an election on a single day.   Their political act, misrepresented by him, can only be reversed or confirmed through political action.

One alternative would be impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.   Trump fears impeachment for a third time, which indeed would be unprecedented. 

He strives to retain control of the House, though his methods involve unusual mid-census redistricting and an ongoing effort to reduce the electorate by false claims of fraud.   He must win in the House to prevent impeachment.  This may be a tough challenge given his unpopularity in the polls.   

If impeached, he is unlikely to be convicted in the Senate.  That would require the votes of 67 senators, and that could only result from a huge landslide defeat for the Republicans.  GOP senators would be unlikely to break ranks.   It’s inconceivable that there would be enough Democrats and Independents next year to produce the majority needed to convict.

Still, the alternative could come at the ballot box in November.  The congressional elections emerge more as a referendum on Trump than as a routine collection of partisan, local contests.  The Democrats could take control of the House (likely) and perhaps also the Senate (increasingly possible).

Seats can flip if voters want to impose limits on Trump’s powers and to shift Washington’s focus to affordability issues.  Or they could confirm that they want more authoritarian rule.  Either way, Trump might then learn the true extent of his mandate. 

Drone revolution: great powers waning

Drone revolution: great powers waning

Europe resists U.S.

 

Gordon L. Weil

Domination of world affairs by the great powers is waning.

A great power might be defined as a country that can influence other countries, wherever they are located, but cannot be dominated by any other nation.  Great Britain was once such a power as was the Soviet Union.  More than a century ago, the U.S. succeeded Britain and more recently so has China, occupying the USSR’s slot.

Conventional wisdom says the world will be subject to the dictates of the United States and China.   Russia, once thought to be a member of the great power elite, has weakened and become dependent on China.

The U.S. and China have the two largest economies and armed forces.  They have vast territories, and many nations may depend on their protection.   It looks like they will be rivals for ultimate control and will engage in competition, if not outright conflict, for years to come.  But do they now meet the definition of a great power? 

President Trump translates America First into both pre-eminent domination and the expectation of ready acceptance by Europe, Latin America and others.  But countries resist and are aided by technology that empowers smaller states to evade or deny great power domination.

The drone revolution has changed the nature of war and the role of great powers.  Medium-state brains in the lab beat great power boots on the ground.

Ukraine may be the leader in undermining the notion of great power status.  At first, Washington believed that Russia, which it saw as a great power, could easily overrun its weak neighbor.  Last year, Trump, thinking in great power terms, said that Russia had all the cards, while Ukraine had none. 

Ukraine lost an estimated 99 percent of U.S. support last year.  It developed its own attack drones, that have effectively blunted Russian advances.    A Ukrainian drone costs about $50,000 or less as opposed to a comparable U.S. Patriot missile costing $2 million.  Some drones are reused.

Last August, Ukraine offered to assist the U.S. with its drones, but was dismissed as a client state, seeking attention.   Last week, the U.S. asked for Ukraine’s help with drones.  So much for not having any cards; the great power needed the smaller nation.

Trump has also alienated allies.  He wants Europe’s military to help in his war against Iran, though he had not consulted them in advance.  While they help to the extent it serves their interests, they have declined some of his demands.

Greenland rankles with them.  When Trump raised the possibility of a military takeover there, Europe resisted.  It has been revealed that Denmark, France and Germany sent troops there to blow up its airfields to block a U.S. invasion.

Europe supposedly avoids a deeper break with the U.S. because of American troops there and its nuclear umbrella.  But does Europe really depend on American protection and, if so, from what country?   Russia is the historic NATO threat, but it cannot even defeat Ukraine.  Its ace card is nuclear arms, but France and the U.K. have them as well.  That can affect U.S. power.

Trump called the Europeans “cowards” for not backing his war, but they have found the courage to resist him.  America’s influence as a great power declines.

Ukraine also indirectly reduced China’s clout.  Its major goal is to take Taiwan.  To achieve this goal, it would have to invade the island, more difficult than Russia attempted with neighboring Ukraine.  Having potential access to Ukraine’s drones may allow Taiwan to force a change in China’s calculations and, at the same time, make it less dependent on the U.S. for protection. 

Middle powers have an increased ability to affect world affairs.   Technology levels the field.  AI is increasingly available, adding to the ability to tamper with foreign government software.  The size of ground forces may matter less than the ability to deliver hits through remote technology.  Last week, drones flew unchecked over the residences of key cabinet secretaries. 

More nations can develop their own nuclear weapons.  The EU has announced an aggressive effort to promote regional energy resources, renewables and nuclear.  These moves reduce the power of the world’s giants.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned that if a country is not at the table, it is on the menu.  When Trump attacked Iran, expecting Europe to play a supporting role, that’s what happened.  Though it had no influence on his strategy, Europe must pay the higher price of oil and deploy its air forces to support the U.S.

In his second term, Trump has lost other nations’ trust, which depends on reliability and cooperation.   They now seek increased self-reliance, and are forming new inter-regional relationships to escape U.S. influence.

Whatever the beliefs about a coming bipolar world, many countries, especially the middle powers, want to ensure it won’t happen. 

This means war! U.S. starts Middle East conflict

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s the classic dictionary definition of war.  “War is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units.”

The U.S. and Israel, its ally, attacked Iran, a nation state, and Iran counterattacked. This met the definition of war, and the conflict quickly spread to other countries in the Middle East.

The war is probably not “legal” under the Constitution or international law.  So what?  Its legality may be a matter of debate, U.S. politics or international law – none of it enforceable.  But it is taking place, legal or not.  To harp on its illegality is impractical self-righteousness.

The U.S. was not attacked, so President Trump launched a preemptive war.  Get them before they get you.  To merit war, the threat must have been imminent, despite Trump having recently claimed that the U.S. had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear capability. 

Israel may have forced Trump to act by its own intention to strike militarily, which could bring Iranian attacks on U.S. forces, but the president has a hard case to make that Iran directly threatened the U.S.

For good reason, the U.S. and Europe, to say nothing of Israel, have worried about Iran’s nuclear development.  If Iran’s intentions were not aggressive, it surely let its threatening rhetoric get beyond what was acceptable.  If war came, Iran seems to have strategized that it could create chaos throughout the region.  It would not prevail, but it could keep the U.S. from winning.

Iran bothers Trump.  Contrast it with North Korea, Russia’s troops-on-the-ground ally in the Ukraine war.  It is openly aggressive and, like Iran, has medium-range missiles.  But Trump was willing to travel to meet with its leader and even to say he loved America’s avowed enemy.  He has launched no preemptive war there.  In Asia, there is no oil and no Israel, but there is China.

Trump apparently believed that he could bomb Iran into submission quickly.  Israel would eliminate the Supreme Leader, just as the U.S. had toppled the Venezuelan president, making it possible to gain Iran’s submission.  As a result of his assumption, he did not pay sufficient attention to Iran’s ability to launch a missile response and extend the war.

He admitted that he was “surprised” by Iran’s response.  His statement was a direct admission of the failure of American intelligence or of his having ignored the CIA, consistent with his past low regard for its reliability regarding Russia.

The war quickly involved about a dozen countries, led to the deaths of American service personnel and the possibility of more, caused the closure of an essential waterway for oil exports to Japan and left many Americans and others under fire across the Middle East.  The price of oil immediately increased and financial markets, his favorite indicator, suffered losses.

In a nation preoccupied by affordability, Trump undertook a war sure to drive up prices.  Perhaps he recognized that he could not win the pocketbook argument, but it might be explained away by a war that people could be made to believe was necessary.  And Epstein could be forgotten.

In preparing to launch the war, the U.S. had repositioned major naval assets in the area.  This stripped the South China Sea of forces impeding Chinese control and endangered Taiwan.  The Venezuela blockade was almost forgotten.

It looks like what may have been impulsive and poorly planned actions had been undertaken without adequate consideration of their broader implications.  Solo policy making, without the benefit of congressional input, the views of experienced, long-time allies, reliable intelligence and defined goals, results in high human cost and a possibly prolonged impact.

For about a century, the United States has been the leading world power.  World War II made it both the principal instrument of victory and the potential guarantor of world peace.  Cognizant of its great power, but changing its role, Trump chose to deploy its armed forces in the hope of quick military results, preferable to difficult, long and complex negotiations.

As a candidate, Trump promised to keep the country out of war.  Many voters saw armed conflict as a waste of American lives for pointless results, and they supported him.  His America First had the merit of leaving foreign wars to others, while focusing on domestic economic growth.  Then, he abandoned this key promise.

He turned the Department of Defense into the Department of War.  While deterrence kept America out of war and influenced other nations to negotiate, having vast U.S. military power under his exclusive command was too tempting.  The models of Putin and Netanyahu, unchecked in their ambitions, were appealing.

The prize of victory that he thought he could gain quickly was better than the Nobel Peace Prize that he might never gain.

Trump plays games with Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s State of the Union Address took on many characteristics of the schoolkid’s game of checkers.

In that game, if your piece reaches the other side of the board, the piece is “kinged.”   Trump wants himself or his policies to be kinged.  Each of his proposals or actions is a piece that could go all the way to become a king. 

While he extols the success of some of his policies, none has moved even halfway across the board, because they all lack majority approval.  His claims for historic success don’t match the record. 

“Our nation is back: bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before,” he asserted.  But the Wall Street Journal reported: “Polls find that Americans are unhappy with Trump’s handling of the economy.”  It noted that “last month, voters gave the president low marks when asked if he cares about ‘people like you’….” 

The Address was the latest version of the Trump campaign speech.  According to him, everything positive was his doing; everything negative was the Democrats’ fault.  Many voters may want less partisanship, but compromise was not part of Trump’s message, any more than concern for average people.  Trump’s a salesman, who seeks to convince people of his product’s merits.

He made his case was by selling America First nationalism as patriotism.  The U.S. Men’s Ice Hockey Team, the Olympic champions, allowed themselves to be put on display.  Republican legislators chanted, “USA, USA!”

But an American victory on Olympic ice only momentarily overshadowed ICE killings of Americans.  Trump has controlled illegal immigration, but at the cost of his policy being severely degraded by the crude abuses of individual rights by hastily trained ICE agents.  He has had to retreat, hoping to calm public ire.

Still, he tried to embarrass the Democrats.   “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens. Not illegal aliens,” he said.  Many Democrats remained seated.  The Constitution assures equal treatment to all, not only citizens.  And Americans in Minneapolis weren’t protected.

While polls are not as accurate as often claimed, they can identify trends.  On average, polls show about 60 percent of people are dissatisfied with Trump.  Given the history of the president’s party usually losing House seats in mid-term elections, that could well mean that next year’s Address will find him introduced by a Democratic House Speaker.

Seated before him were four Supreme Court justices, just after the Court had rejected his use of tariffs.  In his ruling, the Chief Justice was thought to have signaled that the courts are set to be less compliant to Trump than Congress.  

But Trump loves tariffs.  Though they are not working, he suggests that they can produce enough income to replace the income tax.   This is pure fantasy.  What is real is that they are fueling some inflation.

On all other issues, voters rate Trump negatively.  His tax reform has increased the deficit but not helped average people.  He seems to believe that tariff revenues will solve spending problems, but he overpromises.  Meanwhile, people have a tough time making ends meet.  A soaring stock market may work for the wealthy, but not for most voters.

The Democratic policy is based on the hope that Trump will defeat himself.   The party lacks a coherent alternative and a single, charismatic spokesperson.  Presidential candidate posturing and the phony rivalry between progressives and moderates who can work together for a common goal are both blocking a positive policy.

The party’s response to Trump’s Address showed that a unifying and forceful alternative is possible.  It came from newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger.  Coming after the lengthiest State of the Union Address ever, it may have only been viewed by Democratic loyalists.  Her theme was affordability.  It is worth watching.

As usual, Trump confidently asserted verifiable untruths, often misstating the country’s economic conditions as he found them and as they stand today.  “In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does: he lied,” Spanberger said.  Trump’s problem is that people are increasingly aware of the gap between his claims and the truth.

There’s a long way to go between the State of the Union Address and November’s congressional elections.  Now it’s clear he faces increasingly skeptical federal courts and risks the end of GOP control of Congress.

Trump cannot afford to lose GOP support, because the Democrats and non-aligned voters say they strongly oppose him.  Republicans cheered his words and appear to remain loyal, but defections by only a relative few could swing the elections.

He may become a lame duck after the elections.   It could begin even sooner if some congressional Republicans increasingly see their abject loyalty to him as a political disadvantage. 

 

Trump overreaches, replacing leadership with threats

 

Gordon L. Weil

It all boils down to “common good” versus “liberty” – the community interest against individual interests.

In his farewell New York Times column, David Brooks suggested that the growth of individual freedom has become an end in itself, undermining the sense of a national community.

President Trump did not invent this development, but he took advantage of it and nourished it. He could hate his political opponents, making compromise impossible. 

Last week, at the Munich Security Conference, the same thinking was starkly applied to the world community.

The U.S. favors nationalism for itself and advocates it for others.  It promotes the same selfish concept of compromise abroad as at home:  we will treat you decently if you agree to follow our demands, which are admittedly made in our own best interests.

After World War II, the U.S., as the world’s greatest power, became the center of the political system based on agreed rules.  The so-called “rules-based order” was meant to place agreed limits on the behavior of nations in their relations with one another.  From an American viewpoint, it could serve to keep the U.S. out of other people’s wars.

The U.S. backed international organizations that were meant to enforce the rules and create conditions favorable to them.  The prime example was the United Nations, created under American auspices.  It also supported the European Union that could bind France and Germany into a relationship making it impossible for them again to war against one another.

On the domestic level, the Democrats and Republicans might differ, but they could find compromises that met the public’s interest in stable and reliable government.  Both parties respected the understandings that had grown up around the constitutional system.

On the international level, the rules-based system expanded and cooperation grew.  American security was served both by its help to others and their dependence on it for the maintenance of the system.

Nationalism was regarded as a threat to peace and should be replaced by joint action.  This concept faced serious challenges as nations and individuals began to enjoy the benefits of the rules-based order and prosperity.  It was something like the person who stops taking their medication because they think themselves cured, only to relapse.

The UN quickly faltered as the Soviet Union rejected its influence.  The EU had proclaimed supranationalism as its goal, with nations conceding powers to a central agency.   But nationalism began to grow again, keeping Europe half-finished.  In the extreme case of Hungary, the challenge is boldly asserted.

Trump’s America First policy means that U.S. power, used to enforce the rules-based order, would be deployed to seek American advantage wherever it could be obtained even by force or the threat of force.  The U.S. would pay only lip-service to UN reform and scorn the EU in the hope that their national interests would return its members to American subservience.

A year ago, Vice President JD Vance had taken an aggressive and threatening tone in addressing the Munich conference.  His approach did not work.  This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent the same message but sugar-coated it with meaningless and faintly racist assurances of common outlook.  His approach did not work.

Trump had overreached, replacing leadership with menace.  He became an overt fellow traveler of Russian President Putin, Europe’s obvious adversary.  He threatened the independence of Canada, America’s neighbor and closest ally.  He attacked the EU.  He freely invaded Venezuela and bombed Iran.

But the ultimate issue that told the world that Trump’s America could not be trusted was his demand to be given or to take Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  That country has been a committed American ally and was willing to accept a major U.S. role in Greenland.  But Trump’s cold aggression gave Europe a permanent chill.   Rubio could not warm it up.

The results may not be his desired world of small nations leaving its future to the US, China and Russia.  Europe has been given the incentive to find common ground on building a common defense under a common policy and in building a more efficient and less bureaucratic EU.

Similarly, on the national level, Trump has also overreached.  He has lost his popularity on all major issues but most notably on immigration, his hallmark.  He mistakenly believed that opposition to excessive immigration meant that most Americans wanted to expel immigrants who would undermine white political domination.  His approach did not work.

At home, Trump could turn to seeking practical solutions instead of pursing his personal agenda.  If he doesn’t, after 2028, they could begin taking his name off buildings.

Cooperation and compromise have become dirty words for authoritarians, nationalists and the MAGA movement.  They fail to understand that nations and individuals can freely decide on acting together to pursue common interests.

The best Ameriann president -- wealthy, famous

 

Gordon L.Weil

One president changed everything.

Among the wealthiest people in the country, he had come to the presidency after having achieved a national reputation and gained broad name recognition.  He owned profitable economic entities and even said he did not want to keep his presidential salary.

He was elected with a clear majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote.  He was his own political party.   He was so popular that many supporters asked him to serve a third term as president.  He was widely honored, and many public places carried his name.

He believed in a strong presidency.  His Supreme Court appointees would back his views on the powers of the presidency.  He respected the powers of the Congress, but he sought to draw clear lines between the executive and legislative branches, defining the checks and balances between the two.

He understood that his presidency gave him the opportunity to overhaul the federal government from what he regarded as institutional weakness that had left it unable to deal with issues of the day.  He believed he had been given a special responsibility for this task, setting the government  on a new course.

He asserted his exclusive right to control foreign policy and there would be no doubt about his full authority as commander in chief.  He also sought to ensure that the states would not prevent the federal government from carrying out what he saw as its broad responsibilities.  He issued executive orders and vetoes.

Though not an elegant writer, he used the media to convey his views widely.  He wanted to communicate directly with the people without being filtered by others.

Though some might see this as a description of Donald Trump, it applies to another president. His name was George Washington.

The description above might fit Trump, but there’s one big difference.  Washington’s approach to governing was centered on his commitment to creating and leading institutions that served public needs and hopes.  Trump’s agenda is purely personal, and his approach reflects his will to impose his own beliefs and values on the country.

This week the U.S. celebrates his birthday.  The holiday remains officially “Washington’s Birthday,” though commerce has turned it into Presidents Day.  Each year on the occasion, I write about the person whom I consider to be the greatest American president. 

Washington’s most comprehensive statement on the federal government came in his Farewell Address, issued when he announced he would not seek a third term.  In effect, his statement was his political will to his country.   Viewed today, some of it is outdated, while public policy must now address some situations that he did not contemplate.

Much of the Address is devoted to an attack on the emerging political parties.  While he invited debate and wanted to learn from it, he argued that political parties would exist for their own purposes, sacrificing the national interest.  In modern terms, he opposed both parties and partisanship.

On parties, he wrote: “They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government….” 

On partisanship, he noted: “It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.” 

Though he favored a strong president, he insisted on the separation of powers.  He warned those entrusted with governing “to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

Not only did he discuss the federal government, but he confronted a practical political issue.  He declared, “there must be Revenue—that to have Revenue there must be taxes—that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant.”  In his view, government must gain public acceptance of taxes to meet public needs, not merely cut them.

Often seen as only a two-dimensional historic figure, he was a man of great political skill and foresight.  King George III, his adversary, was reported to have said that he could be “the greatest man in the world” for declining a third term.

His Address showed his foresight and was directed to other citizens, people he regarded as his equals.  He would soon return to their ranks.  He wrote that he had tried to avoid making mistakes, but he was modestly aware of “the inferiority of my qualifications.”  This self-awareness is missed today.

 

Trump's truths face the facts

Gordon L. Weil

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.”

This quote is attributed to many people and liberally advanced as an obvious truth.  But it is not; it is not a fact.

President Trump asserts that he is entitled to his own facts.  He can make a verifiably false assertion as fact, while a contrary, evidenced-based statement is “fake news.” 

Many people in the U.S. and elsewhere defer to him, because he is the powerful president of the most powerful country.  Opposition to his version of truth is overcome by intimidation and the accompanying appeasement.  Trump gains an aura of invincibility when others must accept his version of the truth.

The Washington Post fact checker found 30,573 times when Trump advanced his untruth as a truth during his first term.  He seems not to have slowed down.  In fact, his opinion-as-fact has been working even better than it did the first time around.

Trump backers have taken over the Republican Party.  Politicians in office before Trump arrived are given the choice between aligning themselves with his policies, facing defeat by one his backers in a party primary or retiring.  Loyal Trump backers can expect to keep their seats and hope for appointment by him to higher office.

In his first administration, Trump named competent people to top positions.  But he found they were not sufficiently loyal, relying on their own expertise and experience.   When they refused to follow orders that contradicted practice and sound policy, he fired them.  There was much turnover in that term.

For his second term, he sought loyalty above competence.  It is obvious that he did not want any more frequent turnover.  He has found people whose ambition led them to abandon their own past versions of the truth in favor of his.  The most obvious examples are Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

At the same time, he found cheerleaders, grateful for high office and pleased to support whatever his version of the truth might be, even embellishing it.  Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noam would blatantly lie about the killings of American citizens to justify the actions of personnel of her agency enforcing Trump’s immigration sweeps.

Attorney General Pam Bondi obediently seeks dubious prosecutions of Trump’s opponents and critics, mostly pursuing Democrats. 

Dealing with other countries, Trump could easily exploit America’s superior military and economic power.  Many nations depend on the U.S. for their defense or their export market and appease the president.  They fall in line behind his actions based on his version of the facts, though he often abruptly shifts course.

He has claimed that Greenland’s waters are being patrolled by Russian and Chinese vessels, though there is no evidence of their presence.  He asserts that only U.S. ownership of the island would offer adequate Arctic protection, although over 10,000 American troops had been withdrawn from Greenland without his sending any replacements.

Trump’s peace policy also included invading Venezuela, bombing Iran and sinking boats on the high seas.  He imposed arbitrary and excessive tariffs on world trade for political, not economic, purposes.  Because he went largely unopposed, he deemed his actions acceptable and appropriate.

Finally, he began to face pushback.  Bystander videos of the Minneapolis shootings of immigration enforcement opponents showed that Noam had manufactured false charges about them.  Resistance grew to the killing of people who posed no lethal threat.  He then promised to “de-escalate a little bit.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forcefully declared his country’s dissent from Trump trade and invasion policies.  Carney’s Davos speech galvanized world opinion.  Trump warned the Prime Minister that Canada is a U.S. dependent.  Then he phoned Carney to hold a civil discussion of mutual concerns.

Still, his sycophants’ lying remained unrelenting.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promptly bragged that Carney had backed off his Davos positions.  He attempted to transform Trump’s call into a political win, not expecting a Carney response. But the Prime Minister immediately confirmed that he had stood his ground with Trump.  Bessent had lied.

Trump’s popularity with American voters, to say nothing of foreign leaders, is declining.  While polls are not entirely accurate and they do not forecast future sentiment, they indicate a trend away from Trump.  Republicans remain strongly loyal, yet some are beginning to put daylight between themselves and the president.

His high opinion of himself may lead Trump to create his own truth.  Much of his political power depends on other people’s willingness to accept his truth.  In Minneapolis, irrefutable evidence overcame self-serving falsehood.   In Davos, his potential retaliation became less menacing than his existing international behavior.

Trump’s truth is failing.  Evidence and nerve are beginning to emerge. What are the consequences for him and the U.S. if his mystique melts?

The Rape of Greenland

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides three words associated with the verb “to rape” – violate, assault, force.

President Trump has launched an assault on Denmark’s Greenland, intending to violate Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s autonomy, using force if necessary.  While his proposal may lack the sexual connotation of rape, it is the political equivalent. 

Denmark and Greenland are not submitting to Trump’s unwanted advances, and their friends are coming to their aid.

There are eight Arctic nations:  U.S., Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.  The first seven have joined others in NATO, mainly to defend against the eighth.  The NATO 7 are rightly concerned about Russia’s expected attempt to control the Arctic Sea, seeking military domination and economic exploitation of the area.

Trump sees Greenland, Denmark’s sparsely populated semi-autonomous territory, as a target for Russia and perhaps even China.  He imagines, without evidence, that their vessels are now circling an almost defenseless island.  He focuses exclusively on the threat to the U.S, ignoring the other six NATO allies.

The irony is that Greenland has become accessible to Russia because the Arctic ice is melting as global warming increases.  Trump claims that global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is a “hoax.” 

The NATO 7 agree that the region’s defense must be sharply increased.   While the Russian economy, far smaller than California’s, is obviously strapped by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, his ambition seems limitless.  Over time, Russia is likely to exploit its Arctic location to threaten NATO members.

The situation calls for joint planning and action by NATO.  The alliance needs a coordinated strategy for protecting their territories from the north and to then quickly create necessary military installations.   These facilities should provide for both on-site defense and leverage to put pressure on Russia.

But NATO has been slow to act, perhaps reflecting the weakness of its new Secretary-General. It has recently begun moving, obviously in reaction to Trump’s claims.  He believes that the alliance is meaningless and heavily depends on the U.S.   That means he can go it alone without regard to his alliance partners.

The U.S. has had military facilities in Greenland since World War II.  Though its operations are at a single location, it formerly had bases across the island and retains the right to bring them back to life.  Denmark would approve under the terms of a 1951 agreement, and the U.S. would control the defense of Greenland.

Given the American desire to diversify the sources of so-called “rare earths” and other minerals away from China, Greenland offers attractive alternatives.  Greenlanders say they would welcome U.S. investment to develop its increasingly valuable resources.

But that’s not enough for Trump.  He demands that the U.S. must become the sovereign owner of Greenland, even if it must be wrenched away from Denmark and opposed by Greenland, which prefers its relationship with Denmark, giving it the right to move toward independence.

In a New York Times interview, Trump was asked about his demand for ownership when the U.S. already had all he wanted.  Why?  “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he said. 

“Psychologically important to you or to the United States?” he was asked.

“Psychologically important for me.  Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far, I’ve been right about everything,” he replied.

Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio vigorously pursue the acquisition of Greenland, because it is “psychologically important” to President Trump.  He counts on a loyal Republican Congress backing him, because he has “been right about everything.”

After a high-level meeting in Washington last week, the Greenlandic Foreign Minister addressed the media in her own language.  She highlighted the existence of her non-American culture.  That matters.

As an American territory, Greenland would lose its autonomy and be subject to a federal executive agency.  Its culture could be ignored and its majority non-white population might encounter discrimination.  The fate of the Greenlanders seems not to matter to Trump, though it is of prime importance.

There may be a reason beyond national security that whets Trump’s appetite for Greenland.  Though it is smaller than it appears on most maps, its acquisition would be the largest addition to American territory ever.  It would be larger than the Louisiana Purchase.

In the Nineteenth Century, the U.S. pursued its “Manifest Destiny” to obtain what became the continental 48 states.  To “Make America Great Again,” Trump could renew that policy, just as he seeks to revive the Monroe Doctrine.  He may hope to burnish his legacy by adding Greenland.

But his hope may be in vain.  How many people remember President James Monroe or James K. Polk, the president who fulfilled Manifest Destiny?

Misguided attack on Powell puts dollar in danger

 

Gordon L. Weil

Trump administration agencies often fall in line with the president’s wishes, even without a specific request from him.   He can then claim that he was unaware of their moves.   This is happening now.

Trump doesn’t like Fed chair Jerome Powell.  The president wants low interest rates and believes that, as chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Powell can lower interest rates.   He can’t.  Besides, the Fed leader believes that rates deal with economic conditions and not politics. Trump wants Powell out as soon as possible.

Facing the November congressional elections, Trump seeks a booming economy, which he believes would result from lower interest rates.  The sooner, the better.  The problem for him is that the Fed has not found sound economic reasons to slash rates.  Lower rates could cause inflation, which would harm average people.

In his arsenal of tools to dislodge Powell, Trump might consider legal action.  But Powell has given him no grounds to go to court and, even if he does, Trump would not necessarily get the lower rates he seeks.

The U.S. Attorney in D.C., a former Trump supporter on Fox, has used a grand jury to issue subpoenas that could lead to a Powell indictment.  The simple opening of a judicial proceeding could give Trump a pretext to try to remove him from the Fed Board “for cause.”

The issue hardly passes the straight-face test.  Powell is being investigated for testifying falsely before Congress about the renewal of the Fed’s headquarters.  Like many other capital projects, it has been subject to cost overruns.   The U.S. Attorney charged that the Fed failed to provide her office with full information when requested.

Powell had testified that the buildings had not been “seriously” renewed for many years.  A GOP committee member pointed to some work done decades ago to charge him with lying.  Beyond that, the Republicans focused on some ornate elements of the original plan, which Powell explained had been dropped as shown on the revised plans sent to Congress.

Despite Powell’s detailed written submissions, the investigation seems to be focused on the deleted improvements.  The U.S. Attorney says it’s her job to make sure that taxpayers’ money is carefully spent.

If the case is pursued, it would extend past the end in May of Powell’s term as chair.  A grand jury might not indict him, given the trivial charges and absence of evidence.   The purpose of the investigation may be less about punishing him than harassment, possibly inducing him to quit.  But he can remain a Fed governor, after his term as chair ends.

Trump and his Justice Department are obviously wrong on Powell.

First, there’s no substance to the charge. The Fed has made building plans available as they are modified, so the U.S. Attorney’s charge about not getting all the documents may assume the existence of unseen documents and be a fishing expedition.  If she has what she wants and Powell did not lie, the investigation should go away.  Harassment accomplished.

Second, no taxpayer money is involved.  The Fed is not funded with tax dollars, but makes money through market operations to support its monetary policy decisions.  Its funding comes from banks across the country.  When the Fed earns more than its costs, it makes payments to the Treasury.  Its only effect for the taxpayers is a net benefit.

Third, Powell as Fed chair does not make interest rates decisions.  They are made by a 12-member committee composed of the seven Fed Board governors and five heads of regional Federal Reserve banks, who are not presidential appointees.  When the committee sets rates, each member votes independently.   Powell seeks broad agreement, but he does not dictate.

Fourth, the impact of rate decisions is mostly limited to the near-term.  The rates, charged by the Fed for funds borrowed by banks, can adjust the money supply several times a year.  The Fed does not set mortgage or credit card rates.  Trump also believes lowering short-term rates will reduce interest on the high federal debt, which is mostly long-term.  Fed actions have little effect.

Beyond putting pressure on Powell to quit, Trump has also tried to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor who disagrees with him on rates.  A Trump ally has charged her with cheating on a personal mortgage application.  The mere allegation should not support dismissal “for cause.”   She has taken her case to the Supreme Court and remains on the Board.

The U.S. dollar is regarded as the standard of the world, thanks largely to the Fed maintaining its value based on its independent view of economic conditions, just as Congress intended.  A strong dollar protects the American economy, boosts U.S. economic power and ensures international stability. 

But the dollar is now seriously threatened by Trump’s misguided bid for Fed control.

Pushback on Trump's power

Gordon L. Weil

When President Trump was asked about any limits on his powers in world affairs, he replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

His view that he makes his own rules also applies to his authority in domestic affairs.  He has ignored the Constitution and laws.  His first year in office has shown his remarkable ability to do almost whatever he wanted without anybody being able to limit his moves.

In international affairs, American military and economic power discourage other nations from opposing him.  Most countries have accepted his unilateral actions, but he faced unexpected opposition.  China and Canada pushed back on his tariff policy, concluding that appeasement would not work.  Opposing his claim to Greenland, Europe has strongly backed Denmark.

In domestic affairs, Trump intimidated House and Senate GOP majorities by threatening to support primary challengers to disloyal Republicans.  His strategy worked, allowing him to get his way politically.  The thin red line held.  The Democrats could do nothing more than flail.  When he overrode Congress, the Supreme Court usually approved.

Signs are now emerging that his absolute power is limited.

His standing in public opinion polls has slipped.  A majority of the public is dissatisfied in all policy areas and in his overall performance.   Buoyed by good 2025 election results, the Democrats have begun to hope those sentiments would bring 2026 election victories, gaining them a congressional check on his actions.

Recently, his virtually total hold on congressional Republicans has begun to weaken.   House GOP representatives openly charge they are ignored.  A few Republicans have decided not to seek reelection. 

One probable reason for these signs of diminished loyalty is despair over Congress having lost most of its powers.  It is often bypassed or taken for granted.  And, some of his most loyal backers worry openly that he is abandoning basic MAGA isolationist commitments by sending American forces into conflicts involving Iran, Syria, Yemen and Venezuela.

MAGA loyalty verges on being a political cult, where anything Trump decides is deemed to be necessary and appropriate.  But its is now being challenged by some of its most loyal followers.   They align increasingly with traditional, conservative Republicans, who are not Trump backers.

The Democrats gained from resisting cuts to the Affordable Care Act, even though the result was a government shutdown.  Millions of Americans were placed in jeopardy by the GOP policy and are suffering from the end of the subsidies.  They are forced to pay budget-breaking premiums or lose coverage altogether.   

Some Republicans sought to adopt a short extension, allowing time for dealing with ACA reform, but the House was kept out of session, making any negotiations impossible.  Some members faced constituent anger.   They found that Trump & Co. put this government cost-cutting ahead of real human needs. 

This month, the dam broke.  Overcoming the obstinacy from GOP legislative leaders who followed Trump’s wishes, eleven House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to extend the ACA subsidies.  The political reality of voter discontent pushed them to break ranks.  This was a major split with the president.

Previously, Congress had passed two bills unanimously.  One would bring a fresh water conduit to a part of Colorado. The other aided the Miccosukee Indian tribe in Florida and enhanced the environment.  Trump vetoed both bills.

He demands that the Democratic governor of Colorado pardon an MAGA-oriented election clerk convicted by a jury of tampering with voting machines, but the governor refuses.  Thus, the veto.   The tribe opposes the nearby Alligator Alcatraz for immigrants, which he favors.  Thus, the veto. 

It takes two-thirds of the House to override a veto and, in both cases, some Republicans lined up with Democrats.  But the result fell short of the required number as most GOP House members flipped their position to support the president.  Still, the defections showed that Trump’s absolute control is slipping.

The third event came after the Venezuela incursion.  The Senate voted that taking further Trump action there could be subject to a congressional override.  Though the resolution won’t become law and would not be used if it passed, five GOP senators were willing to break with a furious president. 

Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of the five, and Trump said she should never again be elected to office.   Does he want her to face a MAGA primary challenger?  Does he want his loyalists to sit out the election?   Either way, he could be helping the Democrats pick up the seat. 

All this pushback happened in the one week of the new year.  For the first time in his second term, he was seriously and repeatedly challenged by his own party members.  He was not forced to change any policy, but he has now faced open GOP congressional concern with his being left to rule, checked only by his own “morality.”  

Trump seeks 'sphere of influence'

 

Gordon L. Weil

Make America Great Again assumes that the country had a golden past.

President Trump wants to recover it.  

The world’s major powers once dominated regions and other countries that fell within their so-called “sphere of influence.”   In those areas, the major power, its influence usually determined by the size of its economy and its military, called the shots.  That was their golden age.

Now, Trump seems to accept the world being divided among three great powers, each with its sphere of influence.  China, Russia and the U.S. would dominate.  The American sphere would encompass the entire Western Hemisphere, from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Greenland and from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

The U.S. area would be run under the newly created “Donroe Doctrine.”   President James Monroe warned of the use of American power to prevent further European colonization of Latin America.  Trump would extend his doctrine to allow U.S. power to be deployed throughout the hemisphere in the pursuit of economic and military advantage.

By understanding this policy, Trump’s moves on Venezuela, Greenland and Canada are explained.  The policy is unconstrained to the point that he can aspire to have his northern neighbors be absorbed by the U.S.  His minions imply that the country has the power to take what it wants.

In the case of Venezuela, America soldiers were deployed into the country, seized people and transported them to an American courtroom.  In the wake of this incursion, Trump made clear his intention to control Venezuela policy, and particularly its oil industry.

In fact, it worked so well that President Trump believes he has the “option” of using military force to seize Greenland, a sparsely populated Danish territory, and make it part of the U.S.  That might violate the law, but that wouldn’t matter. 

Who would enforce the law and either stop Trump or punish him and the U.S.?  Neither Venezuela nor Denmark has the power to block him.  What about the UN or Congress?

The UN Security Council met urgently to discuss the Venezuela situation, but no vote was taken on the American action.   If there had been a vote, the UN Charter might have provided a way to deny the U.S. its Council vote and hence, its veto.

It took no action because China and Russia, whose representatives spoke harshly about the U.S., don’t want an open conflict that could flare into real war.  Other Council members are either intimidated by the U.S. or dependent on it or both.

Trump used his status as commander-in-chief of the military to move into Venezuela.  He considers his military command gives him virtually unlimited authority to act.  With Congress having ceded many of its powers to the president, it does not employ the power of the purse.  It does not claim its right to declare war.  Impeachment alone would not deter him.  

The Supreme Court has usually endorsed his expansive view of the presidency.  It would normally leave a judgment up to Congress.  And some issues, like the kidnapping of the self-anointed president and his wife and their special status might fall outside of the scope of the case.

Trump’s asserts national security concerns, but he lacks evidence.   In Venezuela, he repeatedly has shown that his prime interest is oil.  In Greenland, he wants access for military bases and to minerals.

Trump’s actions are consistent with traditional American policy.  While people may find notions of democracy and neutrality in the country’s founding documents, the U.S. has long practiced “gunboat diplomacy” – the pursuit by force of American foreign policy objectives relating to smaller nations, especially in this hemisphere.

His sphere of influence policy encounters opposition in Europe, but countries there still decline to make the economic sacrifices needed to build their own defense, and he pays little attention to them.  To him, the EU is a threat to the U.S.

If there are downsides, they could come from the long-term consequences of his actions.  Trump looks for short-term results that would ensure he gets the credit.  Whatever his successes, animosity and even enmity has grown in neighboring countries in the hemisphere.  They could turn toward America’s rivals.

More desirable but less likely would be the recovery of Congress and the restoration of institutional checks on the president.  The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibilities, putting the institution itself in jeopardy.   Its integrity is threatened by members pushing partisanship ahead of preserving Congress. 

The UN’s leading members have given up on it.  The UN Charter is a treaty under international law, but is routinely ignored.  It might still be made to work instead allowing it to recede further as an irrelevant anachronism.

But everybody keeps their heads down.   That leaves Trump, violating laws and treaties, to remake the world as he wishes.