The last word on the law

 

The last word on the law

Courts or legislatures?

Gordon L. Weil

Who should decide if a law is constitutional?  The courts or the people?

This question does not exist only in an academic ivory tower.  As people increasingly see courts as partisan, it is a real issue.   A Maine case last week focused on it.

The American Constitution is silent on the issue, but the U.S. Supreme Court lost little time in asserting its authority.   It declared that it alone could conduct “judicial review” – deciding if laws are constitutional.  The highest state courts have done the same.

This ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, a member of the Federalist Party, which was dying.  By taking broad powers for the Court, he would be empowered to use his long tenure to support the Federalist view as a check on the rising Jeffersonian democracy.   Thus, from the outset, the Court was political.

While court decisions are supposedly objective and nonpartisan, it’s obvious that judges’ opinions often reflect their personal philosophy or the positions of the political parties that put them on the bench.  Pledges of neutrality may assure judicial independence, but not objectivity. 

Because judges have known ideological or political leanings, the courts inevitably take on a legislative role.  When they define what the law is, they may substitute their judgment for the lawmakers’ intent and become lawmakers themselves.

Court views may change over time, as when the Supreme Court reversed its earlier pro-abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, causing the public to see the judiciary as essentially legislative and not reliably objective.  As judicial rulings have become more controversial and apparently partisan, public support for the courts has been declining.

If courts become more like legislatures, should legislative bodies representing the people, not the judges, be responsible for deciding on constitutionality?   Two differing answers have come from two states, Maine and Alaska.

They both focused on  ranked choice voting, which modifies how votes are counted in multi-candidate elections, potentially eliminating a candidate winning simply by being “first past the post.”  In 2016, a Maine referendum launched it for federal offices and for state elections of governor, members of the House and senators. 

But the state Supreme Court ruled that the Maine Constitution requirement for election by a “plurality” prevented using RCV for state elections.  It cited the state’s troubled history involving a disputed election that had almost led to armed conflict as the reason for the requirement for a simple plurality.  The Legislature repealed the referendum result.  In 2018, a second Maine referendum approved RCV for federal offices and state primaries, but not for state elections.   

Two years later, Alaska voters narrowly approved RCV for both federal and state elections.  In 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Constitution, requiring “the greatest number of votes” to be elected, allows for RCV.   It attacked the earlier Maine decision for failing to take good election policy into account.  As in Maine, Alaska voters decided a second time on RCV, retaining it by a margin of 664 votes out of 340,110.

In a ruling last week, the Maine justices unanimously rejected Alaska’s unusually harsh criticism, and explained the detailed vote counting procedures laid out in the Maine Constitution, requirements that are absent in Alaska.

In Alaska, the will of the voters, expressed by a slim majority in a referendum, dictated the Court’s determination of what the State Constitution meant.  The Court concluded that RCV is constitutional, based on its political judgment of the “State’s interests in allowing voters to express more nuanced preferences through their votes….”

In Maine, RCV proponents asked the Court also to follow referendum results and its successful use in the state’s elections for federal offices.  The justices would not agree, finding that the Constitution’s definition of “vote” in state elections means the ballot cast by the voter that must be counted in their municipality, which precludes RCV.

In the U.S., the highest court, federal or state, usually decides on the constitutionality of laws.  In Britain, without a written constitution, the Supreme Court accepts Acts of Parliament as being constitutional.   In the RCV rulings, Maine had retained its traditional judicial review authority, while Alaska deferred to a referendum, a legislative act, leaning toward the British model.

Because American courts, with unelected membership, are increasingly seen as legislative bodies, adopting the British system of allowing the elected legislature to decide on constitutionality might seem to be a realistic alternative.  But there’s no chance of dropping judicial review. 

A hybrid solution could allow court decisions on constitutionality to be overridden by a legislative body, voting by a super majority vote within a fixed period after the court’s ruling.  Marshall’s concept of judicial review is not included in the U.S. Constitution, so this change could be made by law.

Trump is above the law

Trump is above the law

Enforcement is elusive

 

Gordon L. Weil

He broke international law!  He violated the Constitution!

Angered and frustrated by his actions, some of President Trump’s critics and political opponents utter these words.

So what? 

Nothing changes, largely because Trump firmly believes that he is smarter than his opponents and acts within the sweeping immunity the Supreme Court gave him two years ago.  His 2024 election victory makes him an all-powerful president.    

“Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.  It is a fundamental aspect of any civilized society, providing the framework within which individuals and entities operate,” says a widely recognized definition.

Trump has said, “I don’t need international law.”  When asked what he would rely upon, he answered, “my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”  Does international law apply?  “It depends on what your [my] definition of international law is.”  

These days, charges fly that Trump violates international law when he threatens Iran, writing, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”  It is easy to claim that threat violates international law, but where’s the enforcement?  While international courts exist, the U.S. has not accepted them for most matters.

International law is a collection of formal agreements and widely accepted customs that are meant to “regulate behavior” among nations.  The formal agreements, usually in the form of treaties, obligate the countries that have ratified them.  The customs are determined by their long-term use by a great many nations.

The obvious enforcement mechanism is self-interest.  For example, if a nation does not want foreign vessels within 12 miles of its shores, its boats will not venture that close to the shores of other countries.  Behind that rule is the possibility a coastal state will sink foreign vessels within the limit, an undesirable choice because of its potentially disastrous consequences.

That rule may take the form of a treaty, as it has. The U.S. has not ratified that treaty, but most major countries have.  Not the U.S., which, like China, may ignore it.

In the U.S., a government of laws is replaced by the will of a single person.  The form of government becomes elective authoritarian.

His warnings about leaving NATO become credible.  His threat to erase Iran’s civilization is credible.  Quitting an alliance or exercising coercion, both banned by treaties ratified by the U.S., is not lawful, but he believes he can do it.

If he pursues this belief, the international order fails, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.  Allies will not support the U.S.  Ultimately, other countries could undertake economic retaliation and refuse to enter other agreements with the U.S.  He provides an incentive for other countries to use the system for their own relations, eventually isolating the U.S.

Trump believes that the U.S., with the foremost military and largest economy, can dictate its terms to the world.  But new trade agreements being reached among other countries and refusals by historic allies to fully back the U.S. in Iran are signs American power is weakening.

Ratified treaties are part of American law that should not be violated, as are the laws enacted by Congress. Yet Trump has often overridden “the supreme law of the land” without suffering any consequences in the U.S.  He can ignore the law in favor of his own “morality,” because his compliant party controls Congress and like-thinkers sit in the Supreme Court majority.

In the absence of court disapproval and congressional independence, he faces only two formal enforcement tools against unlimited power.

Two-thirds of both houses can suspend the president upon the recommendation of the vice president and a cabinet majority. Two-thirds of the Senate can remove the president from office after impeachment by a House majority.  These are drastic and disruptive procedures, unlikely to be used.  Still, Trump fears a third impeachment, which is possible. 

A congressional majority that will exercise control over presidential actions would reflect a national popular sentiment that Trump’s discretion must be limited.  Yet it is extremely unlikely that enough new senators would be elected to provide the two-thirds needed to overcome a presidential veto. 

But either house could reject presidential proposals, including for spending on military operations.  And an opposition majority could deal with the president, approving presidential initiatives in return for concessions or modifications.  This is governing through compromise, just what voters supposedly prefer and as the Framers of the Constitution intended.

In the final analysis, unchecked presidential power has become likely and easy.  Enforcement of the law to force presidential compliance is complex and difficult.  The problem is not about policy, but about process.  The solution comes in electing presidents willing and wise enough to submit to the constitutional process. 

Trump's last gasp?

Trump’s last gasp?

Helping MAGA survive

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump believes that he is exceptionally qualified to carry out a mandate to reshape America according to his own vision.

Above all, this mandate allows him to exercise personal and virtually absolute control, not only over the federal government, but over a myriad of aspects of national life.  Accomplishing his mandate, he could fulfill his claim to be the GOAT – the greatest of all time.

He runs the risk that original constitutional processes will frustrate his mandate.  The most basic are the elections that choose the president and Congress.  He devotes much attention to undermining elections with false fraud claims and attempts to suppress voting, but he cannot erase them.

As the congressional election year grinds on, threatening at least the GOP House majority, he is compelled to make an extreme effort to achieve his goals.  The elections might produce a Democratic majority that could thwart his hopes.  Or they could produce Republican victory, reaffirming his vision.

He must achieve his MAGA ambitions quickly.  If he faces rejection, and this is his last gasp in November, he must accomplish all he can now.   If the voters approve of his efforts, his two lame duck years will be transformed to give him the third term powers he has coveted.  Either way, between now and November 3, the public can expect his all-out effort to achieve his goals.

While observers focus on the Iran war’s impact on affordability and foreign relations, Trump may see winning the war and destroying as much as possible of Iran’s dangerous regime as being key to an eventual recognition of his greatness in dismantling a potential nuclear threat.  That may be why he presses on.

In misunderstanding NATO, he may be forcing the alliance to update itself.  Europe will be better able to defend itself, becoming more independent of the U.S.  Trump assigns himself credit for inducing the Europeans to play a bigger role; he lauds himself for military budget increases among America’s allies.  He scorns allies for not doing his bidding and now targets NATO.

Trump obviously sees the armed forces as a major tool in exploiting American power to bring change to the world and the use of the threat of war as a believable and acceptable policy.  His easy but limited success in Venezuela has obviously been intoxicating and encourages him to try to duplicate it.   Cuba is a tempting target, and he will press on in seeking others.

In the process, he and Pete Hegseth, his amazing and alarming choice to lead the armed forces, reshapes the military.  Without regard to morale and readiness, they are stripping high command of women and African Americans. Hegseth believes such people are promoted simply because of their sex or race, and will continue to pursue military ethnic cleansing until yearend.

Trump sees federal judges as political, not judicial, officials.  He reflexively attributes his court defeats to liberal judges.  If Congress flips in November, he will not be able to put his backers on the bench.  Thus, it reasonable to expect a rush to get his nominees confirmed before the elections. 

Executive orders, questionable legislating by the executive, will continue to cascade. Trump can be expected to kill as much regulation that remains as possible, especially any surviving elements of environmental or financial protection.  As needed, he will tighten his control of supposedly independent boards.

While U.S. dependence on certain imports could moderate his tariff policy somewhat, he seems determined to press ahead with it.  He uses tariffs in the same way as he deploys military forces, as a demonstration of the America power at his disposal.  In both cases, his preoccupation with power obscures the ability to appreciate unintended consequences.

Trump’s unyielding pursuit of his agenda is bringing two reactions that increasingly call his insistence into question.

Europe, Canada, Australia and others are becoming increasingly critical and more independent of the U.S., which was accustomed to working with allies, even if it had the greatest force.   When Trump says the U.S. can go it alone, he pushes other countries into new relationships and reducing ties with it.  American power decreases, opening opportunities for China. 

The other factor is the gradual erosion of his support among some congressional Republicans.   Trump has taken over many congressional powers with GOP majority backing.   Despite being responsible for their own loss of control, some members slip away from him and others leave Congress.  Democrats expect usual mid-term election gains and maybe more.

Congressional races have become national elections.  Because of Trump’s sweeping and bold actions and the relatively minor influence of Congress, the election unavoidably becomes a decision about him. 

Trump finds himself in a political spotlight of his own creation.  Win or lose, perhaps that’s what matters the most to him. 

America against itself

 

America against itself

Can the experiment work?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The November congressional elections are widely seen as a referendum on President Trump. 

Will a divided country approve his presidency or try to restrain his actions during his last two years in office.   The choice may turn out to be about the kind of government Americans now want.

In his first Inaugural Address, George Washington said that “the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

The age of reason had led to the creation of a republican form of government with power ultimately in the hands of the people.  Breaking with centuries of royal rule, the American system was an “experiment.” 

Ancient thinkers had argued that government by the people would fail.  It could be subverted by a public whose interests and values turned elsewhere, poor leadership, decadence and foreign enemies.

But Americans gradually gained confidence that the experiment could succeed, though two events – the Civil War and the Great Depression – forced restarts in the process.  For almost a century, American history has moved slowly toward making the experiment successful and the model for the world.

In the past 33 years, five presidents have each produced an historic achievement that was evidence of the nation’s continual, if unsteady, progress.

President Bill Clinton led the nation into a period of domestic prosperity and Pax Americana, the maintenance of global peace under its influence, to a post World War II high point. 

President George W. Bush undertook educational reform, expanded Medicare by adding prescription coverage, and made the U.S. the world’s leader in fighting AIDS, a disease that threatened millions.

President Barack Obama symbolized equality and led the creation of a national health insurance program – the Affordable Care Act – that opened medical care to millions who previously could gain only emergency room attention. 

President Donald Trump, faced with a stunning worldwide pandemic, took swift and bold action to encourage the rapid development of Covid vaccines, providing both reassurance and recovery to millions. 

President Joe Biden developed a massive public works program to reverse the downward course of the economy resulting from the Covid pandemic and initiated the largest U.S. effort ever to slow environmental degradation.

None of these presidents was immune from controversy or error, but the system worked to produce progress.

Despite this halting progress, an increasing number of people have come to believe that the government was not working for them.  The representative form of government did not yield an economy in which they could prosper or health care that provided adequate protection.  They see a government responsive to special interests and not to them.

Faith in the American experiment faltered.  Perhaps a strong leader, brushing aside the checks and balances inherent in that experiment, might be better able to produce results.  Donald Trump promised that he could, and a majority of voters accepted those promises.

In the first year of his second term, Trump reversed or drastically reduced virtually all the major accomplishments of recent presidents.  Their aspirations and the normal processes of the America government were replaced by the will of a single person, relying on a single election victory.  The institutions of the federal government yielded to authoritarian innovation.

Democrats, opposing this change, seek to recover their role, presumably believing that they can restore confidence in the American system, because Trump is an aberration, benefitting from frustration that their party can overcome. 

Liberals are convinced their analysis is correct, and the country will come to its senses and return to constitutional traditions.  They fail to understand that MAGA believers are similarly convinced that their view is correct, have written off the experiment and prefer authoritarian rule.

Neither side shows confidence that they represent a strong majority of the people.  The Democrats are split between moderates who believe the country can be put back on track and progressives who want to move the track.  Failure to reconcile this major difference could undermine their chances of regaining power.

The Republican Party is dead, replaced by MAGA partisans, Republicans in name only, who reject the party’s traditional positions on the environment, the economy and public spending.  This GOP tinkers with voter access, trying to cling to office. 

It would be reasonable to conclude that “it must get worse, before it gets better.”  At that point, the people would decide if the experiment can be pursued or if the country reverts to authoritarianism, the historic default.  The alternative to both is chaos.

By imposing his values, cancelling programs, closing agencies, and taking the nation to war, Trump makes his case for ending the experiment.   He may force voters to make their choice on the ballot in November.

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.