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.

“Woke” may be here to stay, but Trump tries to roll back history

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump opposes “woke.” 

The dictionary says that “woke” is a word coined by African Americans to make themselves and others aware of social injustice and the need to deal with it.  Trump disagrees with that goal.

Diversity, equality and inclusion – DEI - recognizes that institutions have discriminated against women and non-whites.  He believes DEI now reserves job slots for them as unjustified compensation.

People who see themselves as displaced by DEI question the entire effort, claiming it rewards identity and not merit.  Rather than assuring that DEI should provide equal opportunity without setting aside preferential slots, they argue that DEI simply must go.  Trump agrees and leads the movement to stamp it out.  

But the notion of “woke” does not stop there for him.    It is obviously his view that the term “woke” is the same as “politically correct.”  That term embodies liberal positions that are justified and politically popular, but are not accepted by those whose vested interests may be affected.

For almost a century, in their responses to the Great Depression and the Second World War, the United States and Europe turned toward policies using the government to provide social and financial support to minorities and less fortunate people.  Environmental concerns and international cooperation to reduce conflict became parts of this evolution.

At its core Trump’s concept of “Make America Great Again” focuses on a return to values and practices that existed a century ago.  They are inaccurately labeled as “socialism,” because of the increased role of government. 

The practices and standards adopted in democracies, even including the opening of political participation to women and minorities, are thought to be the “woke” work of elites seeking control and are targeted for removal.

An automatic assumption is that leadership positions occupied by women or Blacks were attained by DEI and not by merit.  Upon taking office, Trump fired the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black, and the heads of the Navy and Coast Guard, both women.  The new military chief, a white man, seems to have been selected based on his nickname, “Raising Kaine.”

When it comes to race and the nation’s struggles for equality, Trump minimizes slavery and the historic political and economic bias against Black people.  Elemental truths of American history are minimized or erased if they might provide a basis for policies to ensure equal opportunity.  Racial supremacists have emerged in fervent support of Trump’s effort.

As a result, the war on “woke” extends to changing exhibits at national parks and museums to minimize mentions of slavery and racism.  It penalizes academic institutions for offering places to members of groups who had previously been denied access.   It suppresses voting by members of minority groups who are denied representation.

But it goes much further.   Policies that are aimed at environmental improvement, especially air quality, are rejected.  The use of polluting coal for power generation and heating was being phased out until Trump’s undertook to keep it in business.  

Mileage standards for cars are weakened, and support for renewable energy is eliminated. Wind power is opposed by presidential whim.

Quitting the Paris agreement on environmental goals, the U.S. has isolated itself from the body of world opinion trying to reduce global warming.  Trump calls climate change a “hoax.”   Just as he has tried to rewrite American history, he attempts, by this unsubstantiated claim, to repeal scientific findings and the real experience of billions of people.

His war on the conventional wisdom of the world goes even further.  Disillusioned by the shortcomings of the United Nations, he prefers to weaken its ability to resolve conflicts.  Instead of trying to make it work, he lauds his own attempts to force peace settlements by using American political and military power.

His attitude toward the U.N. reflects his disdain for international cooperation.  He has made clear that the U.S., the essential pillar of the Western alliance, is uncomfortable with its commitment to NATO.  Though from a different starting point, he is becoming the ally of Russia’s Putin in promoting its decline.

He goes even further in aligning himself with Putin by opposing the EU.   Though formed with U.S. support to make new European wars impossible, Trump ignores that history and is only able to see European unification in trade terms, as a plot against the U.S.  Neither Trump nor Putin wants a strong rival in Europe, so, in essence, the EU becomes “woke.”

Rejecting history may appeal to MAGA supporters who believe they have lost influence and power.  But Trump’s efforts to repeal progress are likely to fail, because change is inevitable, even if he dislikes it.  As shown by the growing political opposition to his ending healthcare subsidies, most people are becoming accustomed to being “woke.”

Is Trump becoming desperate? Outllook for 2026

Gordon L. Weil

Running under the surface of all politics these days is next year’s battle for congressional control.  It will amount to a report card on President Trump, and it could set the terms for his administration’s final years and the 2028 presidential elections.

Trump knows that.   This week he made a televised address that sounded like a campaign speech.  He asked voters to withhold their judgment on his promises until they see the results next year.  Meanwhile, without the required congressional approval, he may make transition payments to taxpayers, beginning with a bonus to military personnel.

That he is desperate to turn around his falling poll ratings was evident from his false claims and extravagant promises.   For example, no reduction in drug prices could exceed 100 percent, but he promised more – “even 600 percent.”  His speech contained none of the bipartisan appeal of a traditional presidential address; it was pure Trump campaigning.

Can he hold onto the congressional control that gives him the ability to do almost anything he wants?   The 2026 elections hold the answer.

The Republican majority now hold a narrow and fluctuating majority in the House and a 53-47 majority in the Senate.  

The party of an incumbent president usually loses seats in midterm elections.   Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, only Bill Clinton and the second George Bush picked up seats.  Unlike Trump, they both enjoyed high popularity at the time. 

The Democrats should flip the House.   Trump believes GOP gerrymandering can produce new Republican seats to offset Democratic gains.  The Democrats have reacted by trying to redistrict in states they control.

Even if he is right, a GOP House majority might no longer give him unlimited power.   MAGA loyalists dislike his changing positions on releasing the Epstein files, and his foreign moves.  The obviously limited role allowed House GOP women is also beginning to cause problems.  MAGA members have begun to defy Speaker Mike Johnson, on whom he relies.  

The Senate is not subject to redistricting.  The GOP may now feel safe, but history shows that, like the House, Senate midterm races are influenced by the president’s popularity.  

The election results yield several possible scenarios.

The third term scenario.  Republicans retain control of both houses and act as if Trumpism would roll on in 2028.  Fearful of his ability to defeat them in primaries, GOP members continue to allow him broad powers.

The lame duck scenario.  No matter which party controls one or both houses, Trump’s influence fades.  Members look forward to no longer having him at the top of the ticket, and being forced to run on their own records.

The Democrats would try to create issues for 2028, as they have with healthcare assistance.     If they control the House, they would have an enhanced forum to make their case.

Stalemate scenario.  If the Democrats win the House, they will be able to block at least some of the president’s proposals.  If Trump holds fast to his treatment of the Democrats as “the enemy,” the government could be deadlocked.   The 2028 presidential campaign becomes the sole focus.

If the Democrats win the Senate, it could mean political war.  They could block Trump’s nominees to the courts and executive agencies.  While his veto would limit their chances to dictate their own policies, his power would be substantially reduced.  His eyes on the Prize, he would concentrate on foreign affairs, where congressional power is limited.

Compromise scenario.  If the Democrats were to control either or both houses, Trump could decide to try to make deals with them, in line with political tradition.   His concern with his legacy is greater than his commitment to GOP conservatism.  He wants to be seen positively and hailed for great achievements, so compromise could yield more for him than conflict.

That could explain his surprisingly friendly encounter with Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected New York city mayor.  He was friendly to Mamdani, making many MAGA backers nervous.    Just as an aging President Biden faded from the scene, Trump could compensate for his aging by being less combative.

The Democrats’ burden would then face the choice of either cooperating, which the polls say people want, or seeking partisan redlines as a way of striking a clear contrast with Trump and undermining 2028 Trumpism. 

The media focus is now on gerrymandering and the contest to redraw House maps, but the real 2026 contest may be about whether Trump has retained enough popularity to carry on.   Or is the electorate returning to more traditional GOP conservatism and regaining some confidence in the Democrats?  

Mere opposition to Trump is not enough as the Democratic platform.  While they may not achieve total unity, the Democrats need better leadership and to offer practical alternatives with bipartisan appeal if they want to stage a comeback next year.  

  

Ukraine, Europe oppose US plan aiding Russia

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s view is that Ukraine has lost the war with Russia and ought to surrender or lose U.S. support, making its ultimate defeat even worse.

Ukraine’s view is that, while it will negotiate for peace, it will never give up.

In his desire for a rapid end to hostilities, even if it only yields a tenuous ceasefire, Trump is obviously unaware of both international law and Europe’s history with Russia aggression.  A ceasefire is a starting point in negotiations, but Trump has little interest in the details of the deal.  For him, a ceasefire is peace.

A basic definition in international law applies to the U.S. proposals.  There are certain rules that have been generally accepted by almost all countries, often in treaties, that are the real body of international law.  Beyond that, the term is often thrown around carelessly.

Part of the generally agreed rules are the four conditions that define a nation-state. 

1.  It must have sovereignty, able to defend itself and make decisions for itself.

2.  It must have territory, defined by borders accepted by other nation-states.

3.  It must have a population that shares in values, whether ethnic or civic or both.

4.  It must have a government, capable of making decisions for the nation-state.

Trump, who rewrites American constitutional understandings and the world’s trade rules, believes he can strip a nation of characteristics that will result in its disappearance as a state.  Ukraine, which meets these international standards, is threatened. 

On this point Europe (except for Hungary) splits with the U.S.  Many countries there, having lost their nationhood to Nazi Germany in World War II and believing its outcome ruled such threats illegal for good, have opposed Trump’s proposals for a Russia-Ukraine agreement.

Trump’s original 28-point proposal included several points that would undermine Ukraine’s status as a nation-state.  Ukraine would voluntarily turn over to Russia some national territory still under its control, cede the territory seized by Russia, refrain from seeking NATO membership, cap the size of its armed forces, and hold national elections within 100 days.

These proposals would remove sovereign powers from Ukraine.  Because Russia would make no parallel commitments, it could readily overpower Ukraine to make it a satellite.  While the U.S. might pledge to defend Ukraine, its waffling on its NATO mutual defense commitment could worry Kyiv.  Russia would gain the buffer it wants with NATO and could expand its influence.

Trump also implied that, in addition to staying out of NATO, Ukraine’s joining the EU could be questioned.  He also proposed that Russia be invited back into the G-7 group.  The Europeans responded that these are matters for NATO, the EU and G-7, not for an agreement between Ukraine and Russia (or Trump and Putin).

No peace agreement will return Crimea and other Russian occupied parts of the country to Ukraine control.  But Ukraine looks to international law for an answer, likely unknown to Trump.  It’s about recognition.

Together with other countries, Ukraine could recognize the de facto control (control in-fact) by Russia of occupied territory, but refuse to recognize de jure control (control by right) of it.  In that way, it could avoid taking constitutional action required to cede territory, while accepting current reality and keeping the door open for a later resolution.

As U.S.-Ukraine negotiations were under way, Sweden announced that it would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and other territory.   The statement made clear that Trump could not sweep away Ukraine’s status as a nation-state, because other countries would not go along.

Trump reportedly thought that Ukraine was slowly losing territory to Russia.  He also believed that the Zelinskyy government was weakened by corruption.   Both developments would force the Ukraine president to give way to Russian demands.  He missed the degree of Ukraine’s commitment to its status as a nation-state.

A member of the Ukraine parliamentary opposition dismissed this belief.  “His problems don’t impact our ability to conduct the talks, even if the American side may mistakenly think so.”  A German observer commented that, if Zelenskyy accepted the Russo-American proposal, “he would not be president anymore when he comes home.”

A Ukraine official in the negotiations offered a veiled analogy to Trump’s hard push for a deal and for the Nobel Peace Prize: “We were not sitting in the Netflix headquarters writing scripts that will be Oscar-nominated.”  Trump mistakenly sought acclaim like he received for his multi-point Gaza plan.

Putin wants to turn Ukraine into a satellite, relenting only if the price becomes too high or the U.S. gets tough. Trump wants an end to armed conflict regardless of what would follow and ignoring Ukraine’s future as a nation-state.

If Trump succeeds, Putin would have won his war.   And Trump would have reshaped the law of nations.

Democrats need uniy, not purity

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats sense their chance to retake control of the federal government and put a lid on MAGA.  But they run the risk of getting in their own way.

They see their wins in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City as signs the voters are turning away from President Trump and toward them.  Pundits pile onto this snap judgment, possibly engaging in wishful thinking. 

There’s still a long way until November 2026, and we know nothing about intervening events.  Also, notwithstanding its recent victories, the Democratic Party struggles to find its identity and a leader.

Perhaps the Dems biggest problem is that it is engaged in a family feud about what it needs to win next year.   Of course, they agree or hope that opposing Trump might be enough to return them to power.   But, beyond that, the Dems are split on their identity.

Moderates seek a revival of traditional Democratic social welfare policies that could respond to the economic worries of middle- and lower-income people.  They want the restoration and even the expansion of health and food support programs.  Government stimulus spending is possible.  At the same time, they would downplay attention to controversial social issues.

This approach would restore more than it would innovate.  At best, it could extend New Deal-style policies, but it might not amount to real change.  It could represent an attempt to link working people with rising minorities under an activist government.  It would undoubtedly unravel Trump policies.

Progressive Democrats, while not opposing the moderates’ policies, assert that they do not go far enough to meet the popular demand for change.  It is not enough to reanimate the Affordable Care Act or pour government dollars into promoting economic activity.  They see the government being widely regarded as a failure, pursuing policies that do not promote progress.

They would go well beyond the ACA to universal health care, though they avoid government -run socialized medicine as in the U.K.  Federal housing and food assistance would move toward eliminating poverty.  They want to restore environmental regulation. And they favor measures to allow equal opportunity for all people in society who face discrimination.

The moderates worry that progressive policies have limited appeal to the electorate, and progressives complain that moderates ignore increasing demands for major change.  Each sees the other as either being too narrow or too unrealistic to regain the support of a winning, popular majority.

This kind of split in the Democratic Party is nothing new.  It’s almost business as usual.

After World War II, moderate President Harry Truman battled progressives led by Henry Wallace.   They differed on policy toward the Soviet Union with Truman taking a hard line and Wallace believing that partnership was possible.  Truman prevailed.

In 1980, moderate Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter defeated liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy for the nomination.  Twelve years later, moderate Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton overcame the drive of progressive California Gov. Jerry Brown.  In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama, seen as a liberal, had to defeat Hilary Cinton, perhaps seen as more moderate.

The split did not prevent Democrats on either side from winning elections when they achieved enough party unity to defeat divided or dispirited GOP opposition.   That’s what the Dems hope for in the 2028 presidential election.   They work to send strong, advance signals by winning next year’s congressional contests.

Each side now believes that Trump will sink himself, and they offer the better alternative.  But there is a better model in their party’s history than seeking to prevail over other Dems.  It was the coalition put together by Franklin D. Roosevelt in winning his first two terms as president.

Roosevelt faced Democratic divisions far deeper than the party does today.  The most obvious divide existed between Dixie Democrats, southerners who supported segregation, and northern Black constituencies, which demanded greater access.  Political tradition and expediency kept them in the same party.

FDR needed the support of all congressional Democrats to deal with the Depression and its economic dislocation.  He identified the issues shared by all their constituents, no matter their views on race.  Improving economic conditions for everybody unified the Dems.   Beyond the necessary core programs, their divide survived.

Today’s Democrats could try to create a unifying platform focusing on their common understanding of broad national priorities.  In a huge nation, it is futile to believe that, beyond their shared core interests, all Dems are likely to see party policy the same way. 

If winning is what matters most, the Democrats need to turn their core agreements into their national platform and not require total unity.  Compromise is essential, and it’s needed now, as is a unifying national leader.

Otherwise, the Dems might end up echoing statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration: “I would rather be right than be president.”  Despite numerous tries, he never was president.