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.

 

Exposure of Epstein elete could cost their tax breaks

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

And Jeffrey Epstein was somebody you ought to know.  He was well connected.

He liked young girls and exploited them sexually for his own pleasure and for his friends’ enjoyment.  It was no secret, and he used access to the young women to attract business and personal contacts.

His collection of friends and contacts was his biggest asset.  The more he had, the more he seemed to get. Now, many of these people face negative, public scrutiny for their association with a convicted pedophile.

The Epstein affair has now risen to become a major international scandal.  It has implicated men who enjoyed the luxury and sex that Epstein provided.  Some either gave him or received inside economic and political information that could make them money or increase their standing.  He subsidized or stole from others.

He readily joined the elite world populated by the rich and famous.  People associated with others like themselves form social circles, some of which overlap.  Taken together these circles form the elite, with its members enjoying the company of one another, luxury, access to income and, for some, sex.

In recent years, much attention has been focused on the gap between the wealthiest and everybody else.  The rich, benefitting from tax breaks and their network of contacts have grown even more wealthy.  They own so much of the economy that they fuel the growth in the consumer and stock markets.

Claims by Presidents Biden and Trump that the economy is thriving are based on the stunning performance of a relatively few people while the vast majority struggle with affordability.  Billionaires like Trump fail to understand the problems of average wage earners, because the lives of average people are so far from their own experience.

The circles around Epstein might have gone unnoticed, except for his illegal use and trade in young women.   He may have thought himself immunized from punishment because of his elite status.   He was formally charged in 2005 with child prostitution, though he got off lightly.

Even after his arrest and conviction, he was allowed to serve his short sentence mainly in his own business office and that may have convinced his elite that he had achieved a special, elevated status making him worth continuing to cultivate.  People of wealth and intelligence could have chosen to research his case and walk away.  Few did.

Some who took part in Epstein-sponsored sex opened themselves to his blackmail or control.   Others could claim, possibly correctly, that they had done nothing illegal or that they were ignorant of some aspects of his life.  They might gain financially from information or contacts he provided without being aware of how he gained his insights.   The elite fed on its myths.

While he may have been a savvy investor, his great influence probably came from gaining the confidence of people who paid him handsomely for his advice.   He had complete control of one billionaire’s financial affairs, from which he derived hundreds of millions.  He was caught stealing from the man and had to repay a substantial sum.  But he barely lost a step.

By the time he faced new sex trafficking charges in 2019, members of his elite no longer wanted to be closely associated with him and risk of being implicated in his unseemly affairs.  While many probably were not involved in illegal actions, his famous “friends” nonetheless argued that they hardly knew Epstein.

As the Epstein investigation papers were pulled into the public, they showed that the claims of arms-length contact were false.  The problem for some of the most prominent was less their association with Epstein than their lies about it, including falsely suggesting only limited contact with him.   Their coverups became their main problem, not Epstein himself.

There was an historic precedent showing that such lying extracts a high price.  President Richard Nixon’s downfall resulted more from his lies about Watergate than from the actual break-in and related campaign activity.  Much damaging information might never have emerged if he had told the truth promptly; he might even have survived in office.  His lesson was not learned.

For example, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick lied when he said he had not met Epstein after 2005.  While there’s no evidence that Lutnick did anything illegal, he knowingly misinformed investigators about a later visit to Epstein’s private island.

The wealth gap may survive until average people force politicians to reduce favoritism in government tax and other policies.  The character of the economic and social elite has been revealed by the Epstein affair, and this revelation may ultimately contribute more to bringing reform than attacks by progressives, no matter how well-intentioned. 

With increasing popular concern about Epstein’s billionaire friend in the White House, the timing couldn’t be better.

  

Presidential racism, Impeachment and the Clinton's retreat

 

Gordon L. Weil

Racism

President Trump is responsible for posts from the White House on his Truth Social. 

He has lowered communications on his site to the level of the street.  The presidency has been stripped of the respect it needs and deserves.

A racist post from the White House about former President Obama and his wife Michelle was uploaded to Truth Social.  Trump has refused any responsibility for it and would not apologize to the Obamas and the American public.

He allowed his in-house propagandist to excuse the post, then supported her obvious lie.  He insults our intelligence.

Both the post and his reaction are evidence that Trump is a racist. 

No rational person, much less a national leader, would allow such a post and refuse to apologize for it.  That raises the question of whether Trump can be considered a rational person.  

BTW, scientific theory, based on DNA, suggests that we may all descend from an African female, known as “mitochondrial eve.”    

Impeachment vote

Impeaching federal officials requires a majority of the House of Representatives.  If the Democrats take control of the House after this November’s elections, they might impeach Trump for a third time.  That goes a long way to explaining his efforts to maintain GOP House control.

If he were impeached, the Senate would almost certainly be unable to muster the two-thirds needed to convict him.  That would not deter Democrats who could seek to embarrass him, while forcing him to focus attention on his trial rather than on new initiatives.

For a person so clearly concerned about how others see him, a third impeachment would assure him a negative verdict in presidential history.  That could appeal to frustrated Democrats.

The outcome would also further devalue impeachment, which is fast becoming nothing more than a symbolic vote of no confidence in the president.   While impeachment may become part of the political woodwork, it will end up changing little.  With almost no possibility of the conviction of any president, perhaps politicizing impeachment is its best use.

Court delays

The Supreme Court has moved quickly to issue procedural orders allowing Trump to pursue many of his disputed actions until it renders final decisions.  The president gets months of leeway to act before there’s any risk that the Court will halt some of his policies.  Meanwhile, the district courts keep issuing adverse decisions for later Supreme Court review.

Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify raising tariffs has already been rejected in two courts’ detailed rulings. During a hearing, Supreme Court justices questioned his use of the law. 

But the Court has not issued its decision, allowing the tariffs to apply.   While there’s a broad expectation that the Court will rule against the president, its delay defies explanation.  It is undoubtedly giving Trump more time to prepare fallback measures if he loses.

The Court’s excuse might be that it has so many major cases that its decision-making must obviously slow down.   If so, that makes the case for enlarging the Court.

Years ago, the Court made 200 decisions a year.  Now, it barely reaches 70 rulings.  With more justices it could dole out the work to more hands.  It should then be possible to work somewhat faster.

Enlargement does not require court packing.  Instead, as I have previously proposed, Congress could create temporary slots.  Justices would be added to the usual nine and could move from a temporary seat to a permanent place as older justices left the Court.  This would be a temporary solution that could be made permanent after its effect was tested.

Temporary slots have been used for the Supreme Court and courts of appeal.  Right now, they are being used for federal district courts.

Clintons decide to testify

Bill and Hilary Clinton declined to testify before the House committee looking at the Epstein revelations.  As a result, the Republican-dominated committee geared up to find them in contempt of Congress.

Congress has no prosecutorial powers, so its contempt finding would go to the Justice Department for action.   Congress might score political points, believing that the Justice Department would not proceed to prosecution.

But with Trump allies controlling Congress and Trump himself directing the Justice Department, the Clintons could envisage being formally charged with contempt, leading to a trial.  So, they decided to head for cover by withdrawing their refusal to testify. 

Their decision reflected the political reality of dealing with a system dominated by your political opponent.  Trump is dedicated to partisanship, retribution and the destruction of his presidential predecessors.  His loyal, if unprincipled, appointees cater to his wishes.

In the end, as many others in the Epstein files may be finding, it may be better to accept a short-term hit to your political reputation than to face conviction of guilt by association – or worse. 

 

GOP needs ‘the art of the deal’ to tame chaos

 

Gordon L. Weil

A reliable political mantra of candidates is that they can “work across the aisle,” suggesting that they are ready to compromise.

This claim is meant to attract support from voters who dislike the pervasive, political divide and want a government that gets things done, taking on tasks on a widely shared national agenda.  The candidates give them what they want to hear.

Then, nothing happens.  This week, Congress adopted budget bills with wide support.  Compromise?  They reflected what President Trump wanted and, for the most part, what the Democrats had to accept.  The Dems would otherwise look stingy, when one of the chief reelection selling points for incumbents is how much federal money they bring home.

As soon as the bills were signed, Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins touted the higher-than-average payout she got for the state.  The GOP was generous to Maine, because Collins faces a tough reelection this year in a seat the GOP must hold.   Collins wanted Mainers to believe the funding resulted from her Senate power, whatever the political reality.

Collins chairs the Appropriations Committee, which should give her major influence over federal spending.  But, these days, spending reflects Trump’s priorities.  The art of the congressional deal is to guarantee that enough senators have their priorities met to ensure the 60 votes required to end debate and vote.

The result may be less about policy compromises than on these payments and meeting personal priorities.  But senators could not pass spending by the Department of Homeland Security, where critically needed compromise could not be reached.  The ICE killing of a couple of American citizens had raised policy clashes to public attention, making compromise elusive.

With their dominance of all branches of government, Republicans have an unusual approach to the idea of compromise.  To many of them, compromise means getting the Democrats to accept their positions, without amendment.  The small payoff to the Democrats for falling in line is protection from being attacked for their unwillingness to compromise.

This approach departs from historical practice.  Of course, the majority always gets to call the shots.  But, mindful of its potential to be in a later minority, it may give way to some of the opposition’s demands.  That’s what has passed for bipartisan legislation. 

This kind of bipartisanship had the built-in advantage of slowing political change.  A more deliberate pace can reduce errors and promote more careful consideration.  That’s gone, now.

The GOP hard line has engendered a similar attitude among the Democrats.  While they continue to seek ways to extract a few crumbs from the Republican table, they have significantly become unwilling to compromise. Instead of offering alternatives, their prime policy seems to be “we aren’t Trump.”

Though no compromise seems possible, that may not really be the case.  Deals that promote positive outcomes are unlikely between the parties, but inside each party it may still be possible.  Both parties are divided, so compromise may begin at home.

Trump’s MAGA forces have taken over the Republican Party.  Instead of developing policies from the ground up, they are imposed from the White House down.  The neo-GOP has pushed aside traditional, conservative Republicans, who now have little influence on policy, but are expected to go along with the new look or risk losing their seats.

But the GOP is now running into problems.  Some Republicans like North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis and Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon won’t run again.  They are loyal conservatives, but have become restive under MAGA rule.  Even a strong loyalist like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene finally turned against MAGA control and left the House.

The GOP likely needs to reduce internal conflict, bring back some traditional Republicans and find ways of compromising.   In turn, that could make the party more open to dealing with the Democrats.  An authentic Republican revival could be the key to bipartisan compromise.

The Democrats also are split.  Progressives demand strong government action on social issues, the environment and health insurance.  Moderates focus on bread-and-butter issues and concede that Trump has endorsed some policies that reflect the popular will.

The Democrats might stop wrangling with one another and find a unifying platform, responding to broad public concerns.  They need a charismatic spokesperson to present a common agenda.  This may disappoint progressives, but it may be what the times require.

A modest change in the style within both parties may be seen by the public as a response to the desire for compromise that could produce practical, less partisan, results. 

That asks a lot from Trump, but as he faces increased opposition, he might have to accept compromise within the GOP and even with Democrats.   That could produce more widely supported and lasting change to replace unnerving chaos with “the art of the deal.”

Dollar's demise could threaten world economy

 

Gordon L. Weil

Everything has a price.

Today that price is set in dollars.  To produce more dollars, you can change their value by simply printing more of them.  Or, to boost borrowing by individuals, businesses or the government, you can cut interest rates, which has the same effect as printing more money.  That’s what President Trump wants to do.

This sounds like a boring economics lecture is coming.  But stay awake, because these basic facts have a direct and major effect on everybody.   Not just banks and billionaires, but everybody.  Even entire countries.

When people stopped bartering, trading one good for another, gold evolved into the standard by which prices are set.   Major currencies could be exchanged for gold, so anyone would accept the paper money.  This was the so-called gold standard.  But the amount of gold could not keep up with the need for money, especially to finance World War I.  The printing presses ran.

The US end up with most of the gold, and the dollar quickly was widely accepted by other countries as being as good as gold.  It was so reliably consistent that little was cashed in for American gold.  The amount of dollars would thus exceed the amount of gold backing it and resting in vaults.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended the gold standard for individuals, preventing them from trading their dollars for gold coins.  But other countries could still convert their dollars into gold.   This new system was known as the gold exchange standard.

In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon ended access to gold, even for other countries.  The dollar alone would serve as the international standard of value.  Gold has no fixed relationship with the dollar and has become a commodity.  Its value has soared as people seek to hold it as their ultimate financial protection.

Nixon wanted to promote prosperity by pumping more money into the economy.  He also induced the Federal Reserve, which controls the supply of money, to lower interest rates. 

While the economy benefited in the short term, Nixon’s extreme actions brought record high inflation.  Ultimately, after Nixon was gone, the Federal Reserve had to boost interest rates to halt inflation.   That drastically cooled the economy, but the dollar became reliably stable.

This history reveals how a limited gold supply was replaced by a well-managed U.S. dollar as the world standard, used as a commonly accepted value of goods and services.  Average Americans, dealing with their personal debt, may miss the degree to which the world depends on the dollar and the Federal Reserve to maintain its reliability.

President Trump now seeks to repeat Nixon’s mistake.  He, too, wants to pump more money into the economy, believing it will promote growth and personal incomes, reduce federal interest costs, and enhance his reputation.  He demands that the Federal Reserve sharply cut interest rates, allowing more money to flow into the economy.  He doesn’t worry about inflation.

Not only is a stable dollar, protected from inflation, important to Americans, but other nations rely on the Federal Reserve to protect the value of their own currencies by holding the dollar steady.  If Trump’s policy succeeds, weakening the U.S. dollar will export unwanted inflation to a strongly integrated world economy.

Trump mistakenly claims that the Fed chair determines interest rates.  Change the chair and you change the policy.  But rate decisions are made by a 12-member body, including the seven Fed board members and five presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks.

His plan appears to be to create his own Fed board majority, just as he has done at the Supreme Court.  Three members are sure to be his nominees.  He needs one more.

To gain control, he is trying to fire Lisa Cook, a current member.  Her case is now before the Supreme Court.  He has also begun a spurious investigation of Jerome Powell, the current chair. He may try to influence Fed bank president appointments, though he does not make them.

If his policy succeeds, the dollar will begin to lose its role as the world’s standard.  It might be replaced by the Euro or China’s Yuan or by nothing.  Beyond opening the way for worldwide inflation, his efforts would likely result in the loss of much American economic power.

His appointment of Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair assumes that the nominee agrees with the president and will cut rates.  But both Warsh and the Court may give higher priority to maintaining the dollar than to supporting Trump.  Meanwhile, Warsh’s Senate confirmation may depend on the Trump administration ending its Powell investigation.

The danger to the American economy, other nations and U.S. power from a purely political interest rate policy set by a Trump-dominated Fed is great.  The damage might be beyond repair.

 

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?