The Trump DIaries
This new administration of the U.S. Government is changing lots of things, and fast. I have begun a series of commentaries, from the perspective of an academic and a scientist, but also from the perspective of a person who prioritizes human well-being over economy.
America Loves Hepatitis B
Trump Diaries #81, 6 December 2025
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) just voted to reduce Hepatitis B vaccine recommendations from obligatory at birth to flexible based on the mother's testing status. To be clear at the outset, this change was not based on science, or even any scrap of intelligence. Rather, the ACIP as it existed before Trump’s second reign was all dismissed, and the committee was reconstituted with people hand-picked by RFK Jr. And you know that there was no science or clinical experience in there, just a willingness to join Kennedy’s mad campaign against vaccination.
So let’s talk about hepatitis B and how it is transmitted. Hep B is caused by infections with hepatitis B virus, and is a disease that affects the liver. It causes both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) illness. Chronic infections can go on to cause cirrhosis, liver failure, or liver cancer. Critically, although many adults recover completely, people infected as infants are much more likely to develop chronic infections with those very serious consequences.
Hep B is spread via contact with and transfer of body fluids from infected people. Blood-to-blood contact is the most efficient route: sharing needles and syringes, needle-related injuries in hospitals, and sharing hygiene products such as razors or toothbrushes. Hep B is also spread via sexual contact, including unprotected sex or simply contact with fluids from the vagina or with semen.
Trump, with all his medical wisdom, recently said,
Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There’s no reason to give a baby that’s almost just born hepatitis B. So I would say wait till the baby is 12 years old and formed and take hepatitis B.
He’s talking about vaccines for Hep B, not Hep B itself, of course. Life in the U.S. would be so much better if the president could learn not to talk about things out of 100% ignorance.
Donald seems not to know that Hep B is also transmitted perinatally. That is, an infected mother can pass Hep B infections on to her newborn child during the birthing process. Perinatal infections, however, are very much preventable with vaccination at birth, as well as immune globulin treatments. Donald could have asked any one of hundreds of experts at CDC, or could have read a briefing, but preferred just to run his mouth off.
Indeed, Hep B in general is very preventable with vaccination, which has proven quite effective. Education about safe sex practices and infection control in healthcare settings are important, but a crucial ingredient is preventive newborn vaccination and special interventions in the case of infected mothers.
In fact, Hep B vaccination offers lifelong protection against Hep B. Important facts: (1) newborns are at very high risk of chronic infections. (2) Vaccination at birth stops perinatal transmission almost entirely. (3) Hep B infections may occur early in life and go unnoticed. (4) Universal vaccination works better than risk-based vaccination. (5) The vaccine is safe and highly effective. And finally (6) the public health impact of newborn vaccination has been enormous.
The U.S. adopted universal Hep B vaccination for newborns in 1991, by the recommendation of a real ACIP (back when we had one). In 1990, Hep B infection rates in people under 18 had been around 3 per 100,000 persons, but with the vaccination program those numbers declined by at least 90%. Crucially, those infection rates have continued to go down, and remain at essentially zero at present.
What is more, the Hep B vaccine is very safe—anaphylaxis rates are below 1 in 600,000, and are eminently treatable. No study (and there have been many) has found links between Hep B vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, autism, developmental delays, autoimmune disease, or any other disease.
So what does all of this point to?
1. Trump is ignorant: Trump, as always, makes sweeping and underinformed statements, and allows his underlings to drive the bus. I am certain that Trump cares zero about Hep B or any other disease that does not affect him. (It could, though, as testimony from one of his victims indicates that he does not engage in safe sex practices when he is raping underaged girls.)
2. RFK Jr. is on a mission: RFK Jr. lied to the Senate during his confirmation hearings. He said, “If you show me data, I will be the first person to assure the American people … that they need to take those vaccines.” Yeah, well, if Trump gives RFK Jr. complete control over the U.S. public health infrastructure, it will turn out a bit different. This ACIP and its idiotic decisions are a big part of RFK Jr.’s longtime campaign to reduce vaccination in the U.S.
In sum, it all comes down to sacrificing public health for one man’s idiotic conspiracy theories. Other than anti-vax activism, there’s no good argument against vaccinating all newborns against Hep B.
Kill Them All: Late Hits on the QB and What Goes Around Comes Around
Trump Diaries #80, 3 December 2025
In professional football, over the past several decades, the National Football League has instituted firm rules about when and how it is okay for a defender to hit the quarterback of the other team. Starting in 2001, the NFL applied rules to protect a quarterback who is preparing to pass the ball, and in subsequent years rules were added to prohibit hitting a quarterback helmet-to-helmet or too low. The whole point was to avoid injuries to a player who, given his role in the game, is especially vulnerable.
Over the past several months, Trump and his obedient “Secretary of War” Hegseth have begun a series of military attacks on small, high-speed boats off the coasts of Latin America. The total appears to be more than 20 strikes on such boats, resulting in the killing of 80+ persons who may or may not be guilty of crimes. Here are the important parts: (1) the U.S. has not declared war, (2) none of the persons killed was given a fair trial, (3) no evidence of drug smuggling has ever been presented for any of the boats destroyed, and (4) the laws of war have been ignored completely by Trump and the U.S. military.
It is well worth reading the actual text of the Geneva Convention. Very simply: war has rules, combatants in wars have rights, and the “winners” in war have responsibilities. The Geneva Conventions have governed how international conflicts happen since the 1860s.
Donald Trump said, “I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We're going to kill them. They're going to be, like, dead." But of course Trump has never cared about the ethics, symbolism, or even legality of what he says or does. This sounds a lot like Putin or Rodrigo Duterte.
This essay is not about what is right or what is wrong, whether Trump and Hegseth have the authority under U.S. law to conduct this military campaign, or what Trump’s ultimate motives might be (distract the country from the Epstein files, create a national emergency that would allow him to cancel elections, or what?). Rather, this essay is about what these behaviors—extrajudicial killings and overt violations of the international rules that govern warfare—imply for U.S. citizens and particularly the U.S. military and their safety around the world.
When the U.S. decides that the rules do not apply to the U.S., then other countries (and particularly countries that are enemies of the U.S.) may also decide that the rules do not apply to them. Under President Cheney, in the early 2000s, the U.S. tortured enemies who were captured, and many of those captured are still being held long after the “hostilities” ended—these behaviors are strictly against the Geneva Convention. Now, Trump is actively engaging in extrajudicial killings and execution of helpless individuals who survive U.S. military attacks in the Caribbean.
Very simply, what goes around comes around. If Trump, and by extension the whole U.S. government pay no attention to the rules of war (if this even is a war!), then others around the world may not obey the rules either. Imagine the uproar if U.S. soldiers were tortured or executed somewhere else in the world. The individual humans in the U.S. military deserve much better than this: the U.S. is of course a major world power, but that does not mean that we should imagine that rules do not apply to us as well as everyone else.
In the NFL, if a particular dominant team decides that it can do late hits on other teams’ quarterbacks, shouldn’t the dominant team’s quarterback be fearing for his own well-being?
Trump for Matt Van Epps: He Likes Country Music!
Trump Diaries #79, 2 December 2025
If you read Trump’s TruthSocial feed, like I do (yes, I am a pretty sick individual!), you will see that he has been focused closely on the special election that concludes today in Tennessee. Trump, of course, is fully and completely behind the Republican candidate. Of course, instead of telling us what is good about the Republican candidate, Trump focuses his energy instead on how terrible he thinks that the Democratic candidate is. Take a look at Trump’s rhetoric over the past couple of days:
To the Great People of Tennessee’s 7th District, who gave me Record Setting Wins in each of three Elections, I am asking you to get out and VOTE FOR MATT VAN EPPS. HE WILL BE A GREAT CONGRESSMAN and, unlike his Opponent, he cherishes Christianity and Country Music — She hates them both! This is a very pivotal Election. The whole World is watching. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
And a little later:
I am asking all America First Patriots in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, who haven’t voted yet, to please GET OUT AND VOTE on Election Day, Tuesday, December 2nd, for a phenomenal Candidate, Matt Van Epps. Matt is fighting against a woman who hates Christianity, will take away your guns, wants Open Borders, Transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, and openly disdains Country music. She said all of these things precisely, and without question — IT’S ON TAPE! Do not take this Race for granted. The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat one of the best Candidates we’ve ever had, Matt Van Epps! You can win this Election for Matt. GET OUT AND VOTE FOR MATT VAN EPPS, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!
So Trump is laser-focused on this election… why is he so worried? I mean, in the 2024 elections, this was a massively Republican-voting district: Mark Green won this same House seat by more than a 21% margin, and Trump won the district by perhaps even more. What is more, after the 2020 census, the Republican-controlled Tennessee General Assembly modified this district to make it even more pro-Republican when they created a new map for Congressional districts in the state. And yet the Democrat, Aftyn Behn, is catching up with the Republican, Matt Van Epps.
The most interesting part is Trump’s list of the qualities of Aftyn Behn, and why he does not like her. Aftyn Alyssa Behn was born on 24 November 1989, in Knoxville, Tennessee. She got her B.A. and a Master of Social Work at the University of Texas, and worked as a licensed social worker and as a health-care community organizer for the Tennessee Justice Center. In 2023, she won a seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives. Behn is generally progressive, with a strong focus on affordability and advocating for marginalized communities.
Fatal—in Trump’s eye, at least—to Behn’s candidacy, however, she has expressed discomfort with how religion is so intricately interwoven into Tennessee politics. She basically worried that overtly Christian lawmakers have a lot of power in the state. Trump caricatures this as showing that Behn “hates Christianity.” Way worse than hating Christianity is, of course, that Behn may not like country music! Oooooooh.
Note Trump’s list of complaints about Behn: (1) a woman, (2) “hates” Christianity, (3) will take away your guns, (4) wants Open Borders, (5) pro-transgender, and (6) doesn’t like country music. Points 1-5 are basically the trope of what Trump hates about every progressive Democrat. Point 6 is just unfathomable…
Still, by the end of today, we may know a lot more about what Tennessee’s 7th District thinks of Trump, country music, and smart women with strong opinions. If Behn even runs a close race, she will have shown what is likely to happen in the 2026 mid-term elections. If she wins, then you will see the Republicans start to shit themselves in fear.
America’s National Parks: for Americans and Nobody Else
Trump Diaries #78, 29 November 2025
In 1872, Congress passed a law decreeing America’s first national park, which was signed into law by president Ulysses S. Grant. It read (in part):
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, — That the tract of land in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming, lying … [detail about the location and extent] … is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people …
Note that it does not say “for the benefit and enjoyment of the AMERICAN people” or “for the benefit and enjoyment of U.S. CITIZENS ONLY” or anything like that. Rather, the U.S. national parks system has been an example followed by many other nations. Yellowstone is considered to be the first national park anywhere, and millions of people literally from around the world have enjoyed the natural wonders located in this country.
However, President Stephen Miller just rolled out the next chapter of his “America First” agenda for the U.S. (It’s kind of amazing… when Trump talks, you can barely see Miller’s lips moving!). Yes, here’s the next one: charge non-Americans for access to “our” national parks. That is, the National Park Service will now charge foreigners extra to visit our national parks. I know that this is small compared to some of the “freedom and democracy” things that have been happening, but it’s meaningful.
Here’s the straight poop, right from the National Park Service website:
Beginning January 1, 2026, changes to entrance fees and passes include:
-
America the Beautiful passes will cover entrance fees for up to two motorcycles. [not relevant to this essay]
-
A new America the Beautiful pass for nonresidents of the US will be available for $250. All other America the Beautiful passes will only be available to US citizens and permanent residents.
-
Entrance fee free days will only apply to US citizens and residents. Nonresidents will be required to pay entrance fees and applicable nonresident fees.
-
The following parks will have a surcharge of $100 for each nonresident of the US entering the park: Acadia National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Parks, and Zion National Park.
Yup, that’s $100 per person to enter the big ones. The argument is that the surcharge will assure that foreign visitors “contribute their fair share” to maintaining our national parks system. (Bear in mind that the Republican-controlled Congress has proposed a budget of $2.1B for FY 2026, compared with the $3.3B NPS budget for FY 2025, so the surcharges are at least in part shifting the budgetary burden from the U.S. government to foreigners, making up for a planned 37% budget cut.)
As with many of the sweeping, gut-reaction changes that the current administration has been making to the U.S. government, this one is little thought-out and will have consequences that are not positive. That is, although these surcharges will recover some of the planned Park Service budget cuts by taxing foreign visitors, they will also deter many visitors from coming in the first place. That will not only not offset the budget cuts, but will also reduce the national, regional, and local benefits of having numerous foreign visitors flooding into (and spending money for hotels, restaurants, etc., in) many regions of the U.S.
More fundamentally, however, is the administration’s continued desecration of national symbols. The U.S. national park system has long been an example for the entire world, showcasing the natural wonders, history, and beauty of the U.S. The current administration has already sent out edicts to the entire National Park Service that they are to cleanse the information content of Park Service properties of any content that might detract from a 100% positive image of the country. So, thanks to the current administration, the manifold ways in which history has not always been positive in the U.S. are prettied up, and any difficult content removed.
You would think that the Trump administration would want foreigners to come into national parks, to absorb the now-entirely-positive image that they show of the U.S. Yet now, the park system is going to be made increasingly off-limits to foreigners. Oh yeah, America First, baby!
Justice and Democracy are Alive and Well!
Trump Diaries #77, 27 November 2025
Imagine this… The president serves a four-year term as a legitimately elected head of state. The term is marked by upheaval, mis-management, and political tensions. The president is eager to serve a second term, and runs for re-election. In the elections, however, he is defeated by a political opponent.
The president, however, would not concede the election. Rather, he and his supporters filed legal challenges, arguing that the election had had many problems, and had been rigged. Although the legal challenges failed, as the change of president approached, protests began among the president’s supporters, including mass storming of federal buildings in the capitol of the country. The president also was deeply involved in scheming towards a coup against the new government and put the president back in power.
As the coup attempt and efforts to take over the capitol fizzled, however, federal investigations began, and clear evidence accumulated that implicated the president in numerous dimensions of the effort to overturn the election results. Eventually, the president was indicted for conspiracy, planning a coup, and undermining the basic institutions of democracy in the country.
The judicial process in the country progressed, and the now-former president was put under house arrest, with an ankle monitor and everything. He was convicted in the country’s highest court, and sentenced to 27 years and 3 months in prison. In spite of appeals to the Supreme Court, and he was taken to prison. And there he remains today.
NOW, you may be saying that that is not the way things worked out, right? Trump is president again, regardless of his election denial, and notwithstanding his plotting a coup to remain in power in the U.S. in 2020. He got off without consequences, right?
Well, I wasn’t talking about the U.S. The story that I just told you is about Brazil and its former president Jair Bolsonaro.
What about the U.S. and our criminal former president? Trump is president again. All federal cases against him have been dismissed, and his Department of Justice is now investigating the special prosecutor who brought many of them against Trump. Charges against Trump in the state of Georgia, which could not be dismissed by Trump, were just withdrawn by the state (who knows what influences came into play there?). And the Supreme Court has ruled that anything that Trump did or does in the course of “official acts” as president is covered by complete immunity.
If there were to be some serious legal situation for Trump, he could either pardon himself and any of his lackeys who were involved, or surely the Supreme Court would find some way to back him up and excuse him.
Inflation, Prices, and Affordability
Trump Diaries #76, 25 November 2025
Economics is complex, but some concepts are simple, like how much it costs to live. When costs go up, people have trouble paying for housing, food, education, and healthcare. And they are not happy about those struggles. That’s why it is always a political “thing” if the cost of living is high.
So no one should be surprised if Trump, wanting to return to the presidency, made a slew of promises about cost of living to his party and the broader public. For example, speaking to the Republican National Convention on 18 July 2024, accepting the party’s nomination for the presidency, Trump said:
Starting on day one, we will drive down prices and make America affordable again. We have to make it affordable. It’s not affordable. People can’t live like this.
Trump parroted similar things endlessly in the run up to the election. These promises were apparently a major part in getting Trump elected in 2024: people were frustrated with higher costs of living starting in 2020, during the Biden presidency, and Trump made all sorts of promises that he would make things better starting on the first day of his second presidency.
Of course, we have seen since then that the promises were empty, as costs continue to be high, even almost a year into the second term. One thing would be to make credible efforts to lower costs of living, but Trump has done the opposite: his tariffs explicitly raise costs on many goods, at least in the short term. Trump insists that tariffs will eventually encourage businesses in the U.S. to “onshore” production, resulting in a more prosperous and autonomous U.S. economy. Whether that will happen or not is debatable, but it certainly won’t happen any time soon…
Instead of my usual AI-generated cartoon to accompany a Trump Diaries entry, I have included a screenshot of a Trump TruthSocial post from last night. Trump brags that his first term had almost no inflation, that inflation soared under Biden, and that it is low again now.
Trump, of course, omits two key points. First, inflation indeed spiked during the Biden presidency, but in largest part that spike was a consequence of the unique situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic, with its surge of demand coupled with interruptions to the supply chain for a vast diversity of goods. This central problem was exacerbated by high energy costs owing to the war in Ukraine, for example, and economic stimulus plans designed to avoid social catastrophe during the Pandemic shutdowns.
Trump’s second omission is clearly visible in the graphic accompanying this Diaries entry: inflation indeed spiked during the Biden presidency, and then came down basically to present levels by the beginning of 2023, long before the election catastrophe. That is, Trump has done nothing to reduce inflation, regardless of his promises and regardless of what he says these days that he has achieved.
The final comment is about Trump’s idiocy. Does he know what inflation is? Inflation is the percent increase in prices over a period of time. So low (but positive) inflation means that prices keep increasing. Trump’s promise was to reduce prices, and that is not happening… as that would mean negative rates of inflation.
The sad truth is that Trump’s promises about affordability were empty. He should thank Biden for bringing inflation rates down after the Pandemic. Even if inflation has remained relatively low in this first year of Trump’s second time around, whether he understands it or not, prices will keep rising. One wonders if he was paying attention when he was studying so hard in his undergraduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Economics.
The Fur Flew… But Who Won?
Trump Diaries #75, 22 November 2025
The tsunami of crazy news continues. Latest (from last night) is that Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), the MAGA attack dog and Trump’s biggest and most fearless fan, is quitting Congress as of January 2026. MTG committed the ultimate sin of having an opinion not in accord with the edicts of Trump, but no one expected her to quit. Avid Trump Diaries readers will remember that, as Trump and MTG mixed it up, I suggested that we all sit back and watch the fur fly. So they mixed it up, and the fur flew, but who won?
At first glance, we might conclude that Trump won. That is, MTG is not just announcing that she is not going to run for re-election in Fall 2026, as have done many other Republicans with opinions but no backbone. Rather, this is just plain quitting almost a year before the end of her term. Maybe she is afraid of the death threats, or maybe she is just deeply hurt at being called a traitor, or who knows what. She is apparently not in the running for Jon Ossoff’s Senate seat or the Georgia governorship, as either would be near-impossible without MAGA support. Rather, she seems to be resigning to slink back to Georgia to her life of conspiracy theories and hatred of liberals. It would seem that MTG is genuinely exiting the crazy play of the politics of the 2020s.
But did Trump win? He showed the world that he is willing to kill and eat his own spawn. Check out his passive-aggressive post on TruthSocial from this morning:
Marjorie “Traitor” Brown, because of PLUMMETING Poll Numbers, and not wanting to face a Primary Challenger with a strong Trump Endorsement (where she would have no chance of winning!), has decided to call it “quits.” Her relationship with the WORST Republican Congressman in decades, Tom Massie of Kentucky, also known as Rand Paul Jr. because he votes against the Republican Party (and really good legislation!), did not help her. For some reason, primarily that I refused to return her never ending barrage of phone calls, Marjorie went BAD. Nevertheless, I will always appreciate Marjorie, and thank her for her service to our Country! President DJT
Note that Trump is adding one Republican after another to his list of hated traitors: MTG, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie. And the Republicans are starting to realize that they can have a voice separate from that of Trump: consider the Epstein vote in Congress saw only one vote on Trump’s side, such that even the adorable lap-dog Mike Johnson voted against Trump. Think of the pushback against a “tariff rebate” to the American people, the lack of broad Republican-state participation in mid-cycle redistricting, etc.
If Republicans continue to show glimmers of courage and intellectual independence, and if they indeed (finally) push back against Trump’s insanity, Trump will lash out. This week, he accused six members of Congress of sedition, under penalty of death, and called MTG a traitor. This is what happens when a bully finally gets called out, and his allies start to bolt in other directions. Of course, there will be ignorant supporters who still pay attention to the bully: this is likely the source of the apparent death threats against MTG, and it was definitely the cause of the 6 January 2020 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
If the Republicans genuinely have started to find courage and independence from Trump, the Dear Leader will rage and rant, but maybe will start to face. It’s up to the Republicans to figure this out… Do I offer MTG and other repentant but not-very-courageous Republicans my sympathy? Not at all… they were too weak-minded and power-hungry back when Trump was rising to power. They deserve ignominy, to be honest.
Who won? No one, at least yet. Who might win? The U.S., but only if the Republicans can find that courage, and realize and admit their mistakes in elevating Trump to so much power.
Congratulations to the World: Peace Chair Trump
Trump Diaries #74, 20 November 2025
Trump’s TruthSocial feed is a wellspring of ideas and inspiration for these diary entries. Translation: Trump says some crazy shit on TruthSocial! [Anyone remember when, in his first term, his habit of doing business via Twitter was controversial? Well, we have certainly gotten used to it.] There is just a big mound of bullshit in there as well. Here’s a recent example, from Monday afternoon:
Congratulations to the World on the incredible Vote of the United Nations Security Council, just moments ago, acknowledging and endorsing the BOARD OF PEACE, which will be chaired by me, and include the most powerful and respected Leaders throughout the World. This will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations, will lead to further Peace all over the World, and is a moment of true Historic proportion! Thank you to the United Nations, and all of the Countries on the U.N. Security Council, China, Russia, France, The United Kingdom, Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, South Korea, Pakistan, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia. Also thank you to those Countries that weren’t on this Committee, but strongly backed the effort, including Qatar, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkiye, and Jordan. The members of the Board, and many more exciting announcements, will be made in the coming weeks.
Yes, congratulation to the world! This is exciting… according to Trump, the United Nations Security Council just created a board designed to promote world peace. And, on top of all that, they named Trump as the chair! Yes, this is exciting. Maybe even better than a Nobel Peace Prize. Right?
Ummmm, no. As always, Trump is the master bullshitter. This is not a world “board of peace,” but rather a working group to oversee the Israel-Gaza agreement. There’s not really a full version of the resolution available out there, but I could find a draft version (hosted at info.wafa.ps). Resolution 2803 was adopted by the Security Council at its 10046th meeting, on 17 November 2025. Here are relevant parts:
Welcoming the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict of 29 September 2025 (“Comprehensive Plan”)(annex 1 to this resolution), and applauding the states that have signed, accepted, or endorsed it, and further welcoming the historic Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity of 13 October 2025 and the constructive role played by the United States of America, the State of Qatar, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the Republic of Türkiye, in having facilitated the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip,
Determining that the situation in the Gaza Strip threatens the regional peace and the security of neighboring states and noting prior relevant Security Council resolutions relating to the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,
1. Endorses the Comprehensive Plan, acknowledges the parties have accepted it, and calls on all parties to implement it in its entirety, including maintenance of the ceasefire, in good faith and without delay;
2. Welcomes the establishment of the Board of Peace (BoP) as a transitional administration with international legal personality that will set the framework, and coordinate funding for, the redevelopment of Gaza pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, and in a manner consistent with relevant international legal principles, until such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has satisfactorily completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French Proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. After the PA reform program is faithfully carried out and Gaza redevelopment has advanced, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence; …
And there are 11 points in all that form the actual Security Council resolution, with no mention of Trump chairing the Board of Peace. But the resolution annexes the text of the 29 September 2025 White House press release, entitled “President Donald J. Trump's Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.” Point #9 in that plan (written by Trump administration sycophants, of course) includes this text:
Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.
So, just for clarity (not to mention honesty), the U.S. Security Council only endorsed the Israel-Palestine peace plan, but did not specifically designate Trump as the chair of the Board of Peace. The designation of Trump as the Peace Chair was by Trump’s own press release.
What is more, this is not an effort that will “will lead to further Peace all over the World.” Rather, it is simply the Gaza peace plan, with no connection to problems elsewhere in the world. Trump has to toot his own horn, of course, particularly when the Nobel Peace Prize was given so unjustly to some lesser individual.
Home Ownership and Very Old Age
Trump Diaries #73, 17 November 2025
Trump, during the 2024 campaign, promised that he would bring prices down on everything as soon as he became president again. About 51% of U.S. voters of course believed him, and that got Trump elected. Trump just recently seems to have remembered those promises, and so is taking a few steps that are designed at least to give the appearance of lowering costs for consumers.
One of the most pernicious of the many ways in which the cost of living in the U.S. has risen precipitously is in the cost of housing. After ignoring these issues for most of the year, perhaps in view of how badly things went for him and his in the election earlier this month, Trump recently floated the idea of creating 50-year mortgages on TruthSocial. (Curiously, he did not say anything about it, but rather just posted an image titled “Great American Presidents,” with a picture of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the words “30-Year Mortgage,” and a picture of Trump and the words “50-Year Mortgage.” Also curiously, the commentary on TruthSocial was pretty negative, which is very rare.)
Trump has been talking up this idea of 50-year mortgages as a way of making housing affordable for more people. I was curious, so I got on a mortgage calculator, and did some comparisons. The results are pretty impressive, but not in a good way for Trump.
I set up a pretty optimistic scenario for home ownership. Our imagined buyers want to buy a house that costs $400,000, and they are able to put up a 20% down payment so as to avoid having to pay the private mortgage insurance. So these are some people who are pretty well set up for home ownership. The question is whether Trump’s 50-year mortgage would make sense for them.
I made some standard assumptions, and used a 6.9% annual percentage rate loan. Their monthly payment for a 30-year mortgage is $2289, which comes down to $2055 with the 50-year plan, a drop of 10.2%. I guess that a 10% reduction in monthly payments might help some borderline buyers feel that a purchase is possible. However, for the 30-year plan, our buyers would pay a total of $369,202 in interest, whereas the 50-year plan would have them spending a total of $689,860 in interest. That is, under the 30-year plan, our buyers pay an additional 92.3% of the value of the house in interest, whereas under the 50-year plan they pay an additional 172.5%.
Playing around a bit with amounts (called a sensitivity analysis in science), I also checked out a house at $200,000 and another at $800,000 for our imagined home buyers. The monthly payments were 8.8% and 11.2% lower with the 50-year mortgage, respectively. However, for the $200,000 house, the buyers would pay $184,600 in interest under a 30-year loan versus $343,930 in interest under a 50-year loan; for the $800,000 house, our buyer would pay $738,403 under a 30-year plan versus $1,375,721 under the 50-year plan.
What do we learn from this? Trump’s 50-year mortgage idea cuts monthly payments only by about 10%, which is not a lot when compared with taking 67% longer to pay off the loan. The interest paid out rises massively with Trump’s plan, in each case making the total cost of the loan markedly higher.
Next thing to think about: old age. That is, the median lifespan in the U.S. is 78.4 years. The median age in the U.S. at first home purchase is 40 years. That means that the typical U.S. home buyer using a 50-year mortgage will still be paying off their mortgage even if they live 10 years beyond the typical lifespan. This would create issues of livable income after retirement, because people are still paying for their housing. And, because the banks set up mortgage payments such that one pays off the interest up front, and the principal nearer the end of the loan, the amount of wealth and prosperity passed from one generation to the next will decline considerably as well
Final point (I promise!): supply and demand. Trump’s 50-year plan in essence is designed to make more people feel that they are able to afford buying a home, but doesn’t do anything about changing the supply of affordable housing. So if supply stays stable and demand goes up, home prices go up too. Is that what the U.S. wants and needs?
In sum, Trump appears to be in a rush to do something to make it look like he is doing something about affordability and cost of living in the U.S. Rather than careful analysis and strategizing, this mortgage plan appears to be a quick one-off idea. The only way that it helps to promote home ownership is in lowering monthly costs, but it keeps most of the buyers paying mortgage payments to banks for the rest of the buyer’s lifetime. It seems more of an elaborate rental scheme, in which the banks are perpetual landlords, than real home ownership. Does Trump care either way? You figure it out.
Sit Back and Watch the MAGA Fur Fly
Trump Diaries #72, 15 November 2025
If we go back in time only a couple of years, Trump adored Marjorie Taylor Greene. According to Trump, Greene was “a fantastic person, a very smart person and very respected in Congress.” And, of course, the most important quality is loyalty: “She has been with me for so long, in good times and bad.” And Trump always brings in his perpetual other considerations, calling her “beautiful,” while introducing her. Yes, this was truly a match made in heaven.
Greene has been everything that the Dear Leader could want from a sycophant. Here’s just a selection of the various things that she has advocated over the years: she was a QAnon follower, she suggested that the 9/11 attacks were staged or were an inside job, she called several school shootings “false flag” events, she calls Democratic leaders “communists” and “traitors” and “the enemy within,” she called Biden and other Democrats pedophiles, she called for impeaching Biden and others and expelling “the Squad” (AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib) from Congressional committees, she calls transgender protections “child abuse,” she has compared vaccine mandates to Nazi policies, she has called Jan. 6 rioters “patriots,” and she opposed aid to Ukraine.
My own favorite one, however, was when Greene suggested that California wildfires had been started by laser beams from space. Oh yes, and there was even a vague suggestion that the space lasers had been a Jewish thing. Of course, she has since said “I support Israel … I have no antisemitic sentiments whatsoever.”
Yes, Greene is the total package, the whole nine yards… What more could a proto-dictator want?
However, recently, Greene has shown a few indications of intellectual independence. Shesigned the discharge petition demanding release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. She’s also had the temerity to express anything other than adoration for Trump’s overwhelming focus on foreign policy, health care policy, lack of attention to inflation, and some aspects of trade and tariffs. And in Trump’s world, no independent thinking is permitted, remember.
So Greene was the target of a Trump TruthSocial post last night. Check it out…
I am withdrawing my support and Endorsement of “Congresswoman” Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the Great State of Georgia. Over the past few weeks, despite my creating Record Achievements for our Country including… [insert here the usual litany of Trump’s imagined achievements]… all I see “Wacky” Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12%, and didn’t have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn’t about to get!). She has told many people that she is upset that I don’t return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Countries, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day. I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support. She has gone Far Left, even doing The View, with their Low IQ Republican hating Anchors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
And, first thing this morning …
Marjorie “Traitor” Green is a disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!
Damn. I am headed to the kitchen to make some popcorn. Yes, America, let’s sit back and watch the MAGA fur fly.
Who Was the Last Person in the Room with Donnie?
Trump Diaries #71, 13 November 2025
What seems a long time ago, in September, Trump decided that the U.S. had too many legal immigrants, and imposed a huge fee ($100,000) on issuance of any new H-1B visas. This change had the effect of throttling off the entrée into the country of highly-qualified and capable foreigners who might work in the U.S. for up to six years. I wrote a Trump Diaries entry on 22 September 2025, in which I ruminated on the idea that the visa policy change was a move to keep the U.S. white, and to keep foreigners out as much as possible.
I do not doubt that the visa policy change was a xenophobic, white supremacist move. However, I now perceive that it probably came from Stephen Miller or some other of the demons lurking in the shadows of the Trump administration. That week, in my imagined interpretation of what happened, Miller (or whoever) got to be the last person in the room with Trump, and so the new H-1B visa policy was born.
This week, however, Trump has been making a very different type of noise. In an interview with Laura Ingraham of Fox News, he made a series of comments about how we need a vibrant H-1B visa program to bring in skilled foreign workers… Ingraham was asking about how much his administration would promote H-1B visas if he was really wanting to improve wages for Americans. Trump replied:
TRUMP: I agree, but you also do have to bring in talent. When a country…
INGRAHAM (interrupting): We have plenty of talented people here…
TRUMP: No you don’t. You don’t have people with certain talents, and you have to… people have to learn. You can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, “I’m going to put you into a factory and we’re gonna make missiles…”
So, all of the sudden, the wind has shifted. Trump clearly wants a viable H-1B visa program back, which would mean taking away the $100,000 fee, right? Maybe this is because billionaire CEOs have been bending Donnie’s ear, or maybe he is thinking about actually getting the mythical massive investment from other countries that he has been talking about, or who knows.
The lessons to be learned from this situation mirror lessons learned in many other situations. They are twofold:
First: Trump is erratic and unpredictable. Visa policies, foreign relations, economic policy, investment environments… they all depend on stability. You set a policy and then you stick by it, if you want systems to function properly. Trump gives them none of that. Trump spews out whatever thought he has on the tip of his tongue, and has no long-term views, it would seem. The unpredictable nature of the system works well for no one.
Second: I am guessing here, but it seems that everything depends on who had Trump’s attention last, or what he just saw on TV last night. In this case, someone seems to have gotten to Trump after Stephen Miller did, and so all of the sudden the U.S. is going to harvest talent from around the world and use it to our advantage, maybe to make missiles.
Whatever it is, it is scary as hell. I want a president with a brain, and with a long-term plan that will guide his actions. I have lived through presidents who had long-term visions that I disagree with, but at least I knew what was going to happen next. But Trump is different… he seems to have no opinion, but rather is just figuring out whom to suck up to today with some new policy or some new opinion. I don’t want a president who is weak intellectually, and who will bend in whatever direction the wind blows him, but that is apparently what we have.
Give Back the Money, Donnie!
Trump Diaries #70, 11 November 2025
Last night, just before midnight, Trump posted the following on TruthSocial:
The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The “unwind” in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars. It would not be possible to ever make up for that kind of a “drubbing.” That would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country - Possibly non-sustainable!
This is an interesting moment: Trump’s “unwind” is the economic cost of a negative decision by the Supreme Court… giving back tariffs to U.S. businesses, and undoing the weak promises supposedly made by other countries to the U.S. The Supreme Court at least looked like it was not going to buy Trump’s justification for imposing tariffs as a scattershot economic policy in the face of an imagined national emergency. What would this mean for Trump and Trumpism?
In the broadest sense, Trump doesn’t want to accept the checks and balances that are the centerpiece of the U.S. Constitution. Congress so far has not been a problem: the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate have objected to Trump’s abuses of power only very rarely, and have in essence abrogated the Congress’s role in checking the president’s power. The Supreme Court has perhaps been more subtle in its submission to Trump, but things may be coming to a head.
If the Supreme Court does not buy the Trump lawyers’ weak argument that illicit drug and drug precursor trafficking and large and persistent trade deficits constitute a national emergency, Trump’s international tariffs would fall apart. In the most extreme case, the $150-200B that the U.S. government has accumulated as part of the Trump tariffs would have to be returned to the innumerable importers in the U.S. who have paid those importation taxes.
So that is what Trump is freaking about in his TruthSocial post. I have to add this… Just a few minutes after Trump’s post, TruthSocial user @EagleEye45 responded. (@EagleEye45 describes herself… if she actually exists… as “💎LoveMyTrump💎… I love God, Family, Country and my Guns. I believe in and study Q! Trump is Supreme Leader and peacemaker.”) @EagleEye45 said:
I'm my opinion the US Supreme Court is as corrupt as all the rest of the infiltrators. If they vote against tariffs then the only way to end the inserection and corruption is the military.
(No, I am not going to comment on how this very intelligent Trump follower can’t distinguish an insurrection from an ins-erection. Enough said!)
The @EagleEye45 circus aside, Trump’s and @EagleEye45’s posts point to a possible next chapter in the evolving story of the Trump presidency. You declare an emergency… ostensibly an existential threat to the U.S…. and you take over.
Could this happen in the U.S. in the 21st century? Well, no one imagined that the Texas National Guard would be sent to enforce the president’s will in Chicago. No one imagined that the president’s followers could close the House of Representatives for more than a month, to avoid swearing in a duly elected representative. How many other things did we never imagine but have happened?
What’s Next, Republicans?
Trump Diaries #69, 8 November 2025
I suspect that not many Republicans read the Trump Diaries. Still, this Diaries entry really is for them, and not so much for the bunch of liberal types that I am guessing read this series most of the time. I am, once again, taking a moment free from current events (my usual fodder for these essays), and instead reflecting on the future for the Republican party. Hear me out, please…
I think that the only interpretation of the 2025 election, limited as it was, is that the Democrats kicked some Republican butt. Sure, they took the two governorships, which were admittedly in blue states, and Mamdani took the mayoral race in New York City, against a couple of very flawed opponents. And yes, as expected, they got the California redistricting proposition passed. But they also won some other interesting statewide competitions: lieutenant governor and attorney general in Virginia, and two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission. The Democrats swept all of these competitions. No exceptions.
Next year, just 51 weeks into the future, a much bigger election will come to pass. Literally all of the seats in the House of Representatives will be up for election. And 35 Senate seats will be up for election as well, 22 of which are seats currently held by Republicans, and only 13 of which are held by Democrats. A whopping 36 states and 3 territories will hold gubernatorial elections, with highlights including California, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And there will be innumerable other elections at the state and local levels, all to be decided on 3 November 2026.
Every indication is that the 2026 elections will go much as the 2025 elections went: the Trump-era margins narrowing, and Trump-backed, MAGA, or just plain old Republican candidates taking a beating. Very simply, Trump is fast becoming toxic: his campaign promises of lowering the cost of living are clearly hollow, his tariff policies are destroying sector after sector of the economy, and his hunger for power is turning off even the most ardent conservatives. Republican candidates are seen as either supporting these toxic ideas, or as being too cowardly to stand up and contradict the dear leader.
What are the choices for Republicans? To be honest, none of them is particularly attractive, but let’s review what comes to mind, at least my mind. I could come up with three scenarios of the future:
OPTION 1. Lose and keep losing with Trump and his descendants. Under this version of the future, Trump will field a flock of MAGA candidates for House and Senate seats and governorships, aiming to keep their incumbents in office, beat key Democrats, and replace Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) with people more completely willing to bend the knee to Trump. However, given the compounding effects of Trump’s initiatives (e.g., cut SNAP, allow ACA premiums to go up massively, fire legions of government workers), although Trump has unprecedented power as president, democracy will not reward him for these ideas. Rather, clearly, the Republican party will take a bath in 2026: the MAGA candidates will lose big to the Democrats, and Trump’s power will attenuate once the country has a Congress again. The Democrats will win the presidency back in 2028, probably against the reviled J.D. Vance, and Trump and his followers will lapse into the dustbin of history and failed U.S. movements.
OPTION 2. Trust that Trump will find a way to kill democracy. Sure, the 2025 elections went poorly, but that doesn’t matter if you can figure out a way to rig the game and hold onto power regardless of the will of the people. Maybe it is about stacking the House of Representatives with gerrymandered districts that install MAGA-backed Republican candidates, or maybe it is about having the National Guard hanging around polling places and menacing voters, or maybe it is about calling off elections entirely because the U.S. is in a war and a national emergency. Or maybe all of those things. In this version of the future, the U.S. continues its transformation into an autocracy, and Trump manages to keep Congress under the control of his sycophants. The 2028 presidential election either installs a puppet or doesn’t happen (so that Trump can enjoy his ballroom!): the country lapses into a state that does not honor the will of the people, but rather the will of Trump.
OPTION 3. Find a real candidate. Here is the most fascinating future. The Republican party has a long tradition of leaders who espouse and promote a particular brand of politics: political and (at times) social conservatism, small government, and a general appeal to the prosperous rather to the challenged in the U.S. That is, not all members of the Republican party are MAGA: the party has had John McCain and Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney, all principled individuals who have been sidelined by MAGA, but who are (or were) still leaders among conservatives. Under this future scenario, the party at some point realizes that Trumpism is a losing proposition, and walks away from Trump and Vance and that gang. They put up real candidates who make honest cases for conservative policies to the American people, and they compete for votes the way the country has always done: in an honest battle in a war of ideas. To be clear: I disagree with these people politically, but I can at least respect them… for instance, Liz Cheney walked away from a rich future in the Republican party because she believed in truth and honesty, and was courageous enough to call Trump out in his first term.
So we have to be realistic about the future… Trumpism is a losing proposition. Trump makes no appeal to the general public, other than to his small-minded “bro” culture who want to kick ass and have their way. But even those people will eventually turn on Trump, as his selfish priorities have more and more far-reaching effects on more and more people in the U.S. Cuts to SNAP and the ACA don’t just affect Democrats, notwithstanding Trump’s efforts to direct pain towards “blue” cities and states. Rather, they affect the U.S. population, such that Trump’s followers will walk away from him, and the MAGA idea will lose, at least in the end.
My future option #2 is the most bleak. In that future, the U.S.’s two-and-a-half-century-long experiment with democracy fails, and Trump (or whoever takes over when he passes on) locks down the country in an autocratic nightmare. Somehow, I am still optimistic that there is an escape from this future: that the country’s people will “just say no,” at some point.
My future options #1 and #3 are more optimistic, as they are futures in which democracy and the will of the people drive the future of the country. The difference between option #1 and option #3, however, is all about how smart the Republican party is: if Republicans are smart enough to realize the losing proposition that Trump represents, and if they are able to pivot to a better version of their ideals, they can have a political future.
I would like to believe that my option #3 will indeed prevail, at some point. The Republicans currently in power in our government do not inspire much hope to that end: the Mike Johnsons and John Thunes of the country look only to Trump for instructions, and do not appear to think, strategize, or dream on their own. Within the party, any individual who does stand up is drummed out of the party; in too many cases, Republican leaders only speak up after taking the decision to retire and leave politics.
In the end, it’s up to the Republicans to decide about their future course (i.e., option #1 versus option #3). Whether the U.S. allows option #2 to grow, however, depends on all of us. It’s a matter of demonstrations, discussions, courageous voting… everything that is a way to “say no to Trump.”
The Communist Democrat Party? Republicans were Not Paying Attention in School
Trump Diaries #68, 6 November 2025
I made the mistake of turning on Fox News this morning, to catch its stream of current events in Washington, D.C. In the aftermath of Tuesday’s elections, Mike Johnson and the other Republican leaders of Congress are busy creating their new “spin” on what is happening in our country. The theme on which every single one of them is focused is that Communists (i.e., Zohran Mamdani) have taken over the Democrat party. Trump also has called Mamdani a "communist" and a "communist lunatic."
Mamdani has been very clear that he is a democratic socialist, and not a communist, but that does not stop the Republican rhetoric. There are two problems: (1) the Republicans are looking for a good way to spin a big Democrat win into a new way to attack the Democrats, and (2) the Republicans clearly do not understand what socialism is. So let’s go back to high school civics and go over some basics.
Socialism is a system in which inequality among individuals is reduced by major industries or resources being owned or regulated collectively. Many times, these key elements of societies are often owned by the government or by cooperatives. However, private property and market activity are still very much in existence in socialist systems. It should be noted that many elements of U.S. society are “socialist” in their design and conception: for example, we do not have private roads, but rather roads are built and maintained by the government. The goal in a socialist society is to ensure that wealth and production serve the common good rather than private profit. Simply put, we all benefit now from elements of socialism in our society right now, right here in the U.S.
Communism, on the other hand, was conceived of by Karl Marx as a completely classless, stateless society. In a communist society, all property and all means of production are owned collectively. No private ownership exists, and goods are made available based on need. In practice, communist states, such as the Soviet Union, Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, etc., have ended up as one-party systems that supposedly represent the working class. In many of these cases, however, the result has been something approaching a dictatorship, rather than the stateless and classless ideal that Karl Marx had envisioned, and nothing that Mamdani is proposing resembles a communist system.
I am unsure as to whether Mike Johnson and the other Republicans are just playing politics and wielding the loaded term “communist” against the Democrats, or they are just ignorant and uneducated. Either way, I don’t like it. I would like the leaders of this country to be educated and honest, but that clearly is not the case, at least for the time being.
Julius Streicher and Stephen Miller: Best Buddies Spanning a Century
Trump Diaries #67, 5 November 2025
Julius Streicher was born in 1885, and died in 1946, when he was hung for his crimes against humanity, having been found guilty in the Nuremberg Trials. Stephen Miller was born a hundred years later, in 1985, and is presently one of the most influential individuals in creating policy for the Trump administration.
Let’s explore some quotes from these two individuals, from the 20th and 21st century, respectively.
I see thousands of workers poorly dressed passing me by after a hard day’s work … They speak of their hard life and of their unbearable misery. But other people also pass me by clad in valuable fur coats, with fat necks and paunchy stomachs. These people do not work. They are Jews taking an evening walk. … The Jew is born for driving hard bargains and doing nothing … people that is born for bargaining has no right to live amongst the people which for thousands of years has made its living by honest work. Julius Streicher, 1922
We know that Germany will be free when the Jew has been excluded from the life of the German people. Julius Streicher, 1922
I bear within me the knowledge that the whole misfortune was brought to Germany by the Jews alone. Julius Streicher, 1924
In Berlin, in Nuremberg, in Munich—everywhere the Jew is the master of the streets, of the press, of the theater. The German worker sees nothing of his own anymore. Julius Streicher, 1933)
Germany will not be free and clean until the last Jew has left our cities and our land. Julius Streicher, 1938
Now, a century later (in fact last night), Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and U.S. Homeland Security Advisor, posted an excerpt from the New York City government webpage on his X feed, which read thus:
Almost 50 percent of New Yorkers live in family households with at least one immigrant. Over one million children, equaling 62 percent of all children in New York City, live in a household with at least one foreign-born family member. Of the one million New Yorkers who live in mixed-status households, 265,500 or 27 percent are children. 80 percent of these children, are U.S.-born citizens. Mixed status households demonstrate that all New Yorkers are impacted by federal policies that separate families. Stephen Miller, 4 November 2025
On the face of it, you could just say, “thanks for the information, Stevie.” But… then you go a bit deeper, and thinking that he is advisor to Homeland Security and its Fascist roundups of immigrants across the country, and you realize that this is not just information. Rather, at least in my eyes, it is a threat. This, I perceive, is a person who deeply hates people whom he judges not to belong here. And, in case you might be thinking that this is just one social media post that is a bit “off,” there are lots of other quotes to harvest from this guy that are eerie and menacing and not at all subtle like the one from last night:
We have a completely open border... with the world flooding our schools with students who are not even literate in the language in the countries from which they came—destroyed our education system, destroyed our infrastructure, destroyed our health care system. Where do Americans go to get their cities back? Where do they go to get their lives back? Stephen Miller, 18 April 2025
All I would say to that is, this administration is going to pursue immigration enforcement and cooperation in every city. And anyone who doesn’t comply with the laws and dictates of this country, will face the appropriate legal consequences. That applies to Eric Adams, and that applies to every other mayor in this country. Stephen Miller, 9 May 2025
Oh, yes, I get it. We can paraphrase what old Julius said, the U.S. will not be free and clean until the last foreigner has left our cities and our land. Right, Stevie?
It’s all pretty darn weird, coming from a descendent of Jewish immigrants from Belarus back a few generations (in 1905). (Of course, equally weird is Mark Krikorian, who describes himself on his X feed as "The leading theorist of immigration restriction in America" and the "Chief Nativist," and yet is a first-generation American with parents of Armenian origin.) These guys are immigrants, just like me, but they are somehow jealous of any other immigrant that might also want to come to the U.S. and build a life here.
So I guess that there is something about being here, in America, that may make some people want to slam the door behind them and lock it carefully so that no one else gets in?
Dr. Strangelove Returns: Trump Wants to Test Nuclear Weapons Like Everyone Else…
Trump Diaries #66, 4 November 2025
Trump was interviewed on 31 October 2025 by Norah O’Donnell, of CBS News. I genuinely mistrust CBS News, given how they have paid large tributes (i.e., $$$) to avoid his wrath, and have apparently edited spots featuring Trump recently to avoid making him look as bad as he really is. Nevertheless, CBS released a full, and apparently unedited, transcript of O’Donnell’s interview with Trump, and it is quite disturbing (if CBS edited this one to make Trump look good, then he is really really bad).
I could have riffed on many aspects of the interview, but the part about nuclear testing caught my eye (and turned my stomach) in particular. O’Donnell asked Trump an extended series of questions about nuclear testing, as Trump had posted on TruthSocial that the U.S. would resume nuclear testing. Here are some key quotes from the interview, so that you get a taste of Trump’s thinking (or lack thereof) about this important issue:
O'DONNELL: So why do we need to test… our nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Well, because you have to see how they work. You know, you do have to—and the reason I'm saying—testing is because Russia announced that they were gonna be doing a test. If you notice, North Korea's testing constantly. Other countries are testing. We're the only country that doesn't test, and I wanna be—I don't wanna be the only country that doesn't test.
We have tremendous nuclear power that was given to us largely because when I was president (and I hated to do it, but you have to do it)—I rebuilt the military during my first term. My first term was a tremendous success. We had the greatest economy in the history of our country.
But my second term is blowing it away. It's blowing it away when you look at the numbers, the stock market, the jobs. Look at the job numbers, how good they've been. And, again, I have costs down. Remember, Biden gave me the worst inflation rate in the history of our country…
[Ummmm, Donnie, let’s stop the usual stream of lies and stick to the point?]
O'DONNELL: But the only country that's testing nuclear weapons is North Korea. China and Russia are not…
TRUMP: Well, Russia's—no, no. Russia's testing nuclear weapons—And China's testing 'em too. You just don't know about it… Russia's testing, and China's testing, but they don't talk about it. You know, we're a open society. We're different. We talk about it. We have to talk about it, because otherwise you people are gonna report—they don't have reporters that gonna be writing about it. We do. No, we're gonna test, because they test and others test. And certainly North Korea's been testing. Pakistan's been testing… But they don't go and tell you about it. And, you know, as powerful as they are, this is a big world. You don't necessarily know where they're testing. They—they test way under—underground where people don't know exactly what's happening with the test.
So let’s have a little review of nuclear testing. Nuclear testing began on 16 July 1945, with the Trinity Test in New Mexico; the U.S. conducted five more tests by 1948, either in the western U.S. or in remote parts of the Pacific. The U.S. did a total of 188 nuclear tests between 1951 and 1958, and considerable testing was done by the Soviet Union and a few other countries in that same period. In 1963, the U.S., Soviet Union, and Great Britain, among others, signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, space, or underwater. In the ensuing three decades, nuclear testing became less frequent, though other nations (e.g., France and China) continued testing into the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. conducted its final underground test in 1992; India and Pakistan tested nuclear arms as late as 1998, and North Korea tested as late as 2017, to prove that it had nuclear weapons.
The Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty (CTBT) aimed to create a global consensus “not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion,” and opened for signatures in 1996. In all, 187 countries have signed the treaty, but the CTBT only enters into force if all 44 of a list of key countries (the “Annex 2” list) sign and ratify it. As of the present, the great majority of countries on the list have signed, but China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the U.S. have signed, but have not ratified the treaty officially. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have not even signed, much less ratified. Russia had ratified the treaty, but then revoked its ratification in November 2023. So the CTBT is not in effect, and likely never will take effect.
Trump said that “everyone is doing it” (i.e., nuclear testing), but suggests that they do it so far underground that no one knows. This is patently stupid… The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) has an International Monitoring System (IMS) that would almost certainly detect nuclear explosions anywhere on Earth via a combination of seismic monitoring, monitoring of radionuclides in the atmosphere, hydroacoustic monitoring, and infrasound monitoring. Very simply, if any country tests a nuclear weapon, everyone will know about it.
The most recent tests of nuclear weapons around the world are as follows: Russia last tested in 1990, and the U.K. and U.S. stopped in 1991 and 1992, respectively. China and France last tested in 1996, and India and Pakistan in 1998. The only recent tests (last one in September 2017) were by the rogue state of North Korea.
So is Trump privy to “intelligence” of which I am not aware, and yes, “everyone” is testing? Not likely… Rather, Trump is lazy and uncareful with his information. He cannot distinguish between nuclear testing and testing the delivery vehicles (e.g., missiles) for nuclear weapons. (Russia has, for example, been testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile and Poseidon underwater drone recently) The problem, quite simply, is that Trump does not listen, and apparently never reads.
Is the U.S. really going to start nuclear testing again? Between Trump and Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth, I would not be surprised. The damage to diplomacy, trust, and the environment will be incalculable. Quite simply, the U.S. would be setting a very poor example for the rest of the world.
Who is Killing Obamacare?
Trump Diaries #65, 1 November 2025
On 30 October 2025, Trump was apparently sitting on the pot on Air Force 1, sending out TruthSocial posts. Yes, I know that Air Force 1 and its bathrooms are nowhere near as nice as the Qatari plane will be, once the U.S. government dumps a few hundred million dollars into renovating it. Still, it appears that Trump was able to write one of his all-caps rants (posts) without supervision. The message of the day was:
As I have said for years, OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER! Rates are going through the roof for really bad healthcare!!! Do something Democrats!!!
As always, the truth takes a beating when Trump is posting, but this one is unusually bad. In effect, this post blames the Democrats for healthcare rates going up massively under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare”). Of course, given the tens of thousands of times that Trump has lied to the American people over the past decade, what one usually does with his pronouncements is to ignore them and get on with life. This case is different, however.
Trump’s statement will clearly be recycled and reused by deep intellects like Mike Johnson, himself a proficient liar as well. The Democrats are trying their best to weather forcing a government shutdown about exactly this issue. So it is worth taking a moment (or a Trump Diaries post) to understand what is actually going on.
Why are healthcare rates under the ACA going up? Very simply, the original ACA had rates that were intended to be long-term sustainable, though high for many people who needed affordable healthcare. As a consequence, subsidies to the ACA were created in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Those subsidies were up for renewal, by design, at the end of 2025.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was the huge budget reconciliation that was passed and signed into law in July 2025; very simply, it was the key legislation that should have addressed this issue. It was written by Republican lawmakers and did not address the subsidy renewal issue; that was not an accident. There are other factors that exacerbate the non-renewal of ACA subsidies, but the subsidies that were ignored in the OBBBA are why “rates are going through the roof.”
So get ready for the storm of lies. Or rather, the lies have already started. Every time Trump starts something on TruthSocial, his sycophants and lapdogs immediately start parroting his most recent platter of lies.
Trump Gets the Nobel Prize in Physics!
Trump Diaries #64, 31 October 2025
This just out, on Trump’s TruthSocial feed:
Chris Wright: "A former Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientist won the Nobel Prize in physics for work in Quantum physics. Quantum computing, along with AI and Fusion, are the three signature Trump science efforts. Trump 47 racks up his first Nobel Prize!!”
Ummmm, let’s talk about this a bit. The prize was awarded to three physicists, not Trump, nor anyone else in his administration. All three are based at U.S. universities: John Clarke (United Kingdom), Michel H. Devoret (France), and John M. Martinis (United States). Trump did not win this… the physicists did!
Point #1: All three are immigrants. That is exactly what Trump and friends are trying to throttle off, making H-1B visas massively expensive, deporting anyone who might not be a “real American,” and trying to get U.S. universities to limit numbers of foreigners on campus. First of all, on a slightly longer time scale, almost all of us are immigrants, and immigrants are an endless source of innovation, creativity, and energy in the U.S.
Point #2: All three are (or have been) based in California, at elements of the Universities of California system. California and its universities have been particular targets of Trump’s venom this year. I guess that Trump loves California when California racks up Nobel prizes for Trump.
Point #3: Trump has no idea about how research is done. John Martinis, Nobel laureate, commented… “This work was done in 1985, so I suppose you should credit another Republican, Ronald Reagan."
Trump, as always, is all about Trump and nothing else but Trump. His hypocrisy knows no ends: he claims credit for the Nobel Prize in Physics, when that work was done by people he denigrates (immigrants), in places he hates (California), and long before he was president.
TruthSocial and Prediction Markets: No Conflict of Interest Here!
Trump Diaries #63, 28 October 2025
As a loyal TruthSocial subscriber and close follower of Donald Trump’s feed on that platform, I have an inside track on many exciting things in the 2025 version of the U.S. In fact, I just received this exciting email from TruthSocial:
SARASOTA, Fla., Oct. 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Trump Media and Technology Group Corp. (Nasdaq, NYSE Texas: DJT) (“Trump Media”), operator of the social media platform Truth Social, the streaming platform Truth+, and the FinTech brand Truth.Fi, today announced that it will make prediction markets available on Truth Social through an exclusive arrangement with Crypto.com | Derivatives North America (CDNA), a CFTC-registered exchange and clearinghouse. Following the integration, Truth Social will be the first social media platform to offer its users technology to access embedded prediction markets capabilities through CDNA.
I had to look up what “prediction markets” are all about, and (with the help of Google AI) I now understand that they are exchanges on which people can trade contracts based on the outcome of future events. The price of each contract (between $0 and $1) represents, the odds of the event happening… so a price of $0.50 for a contract about the Toronto Blue Jays winning the next World Series game means that the community is giving it even odds. These bets could be about the results of an election, the winner of a sports event, or some economic indicator. Indeed, Google’s AI Overview even made the fascinating point that prediction markets could even address “specific statements made by public figures.”
So, let me put all of this together… Trump creates a social media platform that has participants only because it is where White House news appears first. Indeed, there is no “social” in TruthSocial, as any dissenting opinion is immediately answered with one being cancelled on the platform (yes, it’s happened to me!). Now, Trump’s TruthSocial team is linking the power of Trump’s voice and having the inside track on what stupid-ass thing he will do next with crypto-currency and betting on outcomes.
Anyone else think that this is an idea loaded with conflicts of interest and opportunities for grift? In effect, Trump controls many aspects of what will happen … what a public figure will say, what will happen to a particular market, etc. And now he will have even more ways in which to make money off of his position as president.
Donny Jr. and Hunter Biden: A Tale of Two Spoiled Brats
Trump Diaries #62, 27 October 2025
What is it like to have a daddy who is the president of the U.S.? I have never had any such opportunity, so I am just trying to imagine. I am imagining that anyone and everyone who wants an “in” with daddy starts congregating around you like flies around shit. So let’s look at the last two presidential brats, and see what has happened with each.
In May 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas-and-energy company. Daddy Biden was the U.S. vice-president at the time. Apparently, Hunter later asked the U.S. ambassador to Italy to help regarding an energy project that Burisma was pursuing. The people at Burisma knew that Hunter was a bit of a loser, but thought that his daddy was a big-enough bigwig that they might get something good out of it. Hunter may have tried to mobilize other influences that only a president’s little boy might be able to provide. All the same, in spite of intensive investigations, no proof has emerged that indicates that Daddy Biden did anything in response to his loser son’s lame attempts at influence.
More recently, in November 2024, Donny Jr. joined the advisory board of Unusual Machines, a Florida-based country that makes drones; he also owns about $4M in shares in the company. And… now, Unusual Machines was just awarded a significant contract from the U.S. Army, to the tune of about $12.8M. Sure, Donny Jr. made some money off of his investments, but most important is that she showed that he can influence daddy Trump, even where Hunter could not get his daddy to do much of anything.
So we have two loser presidential brats, one who couldn’t influence daddy, and one who can and is still at it. I don’t know either of them personally, but my impression of each is not particularly positive. I do, however, have a pretty clear picture of the two daddies: one who tried… as far as I can see… to run a clean ship as president, and one who has a presidency that is all about graft and grift, and any way to make money and build influence that he can find. Would I like to have a beer with either of the p-brats? No. Are they much different, other than in terms of the money that they had at the beginning of their daddies’ presidencies? Probably not.
The big difference, of course, is that Hunter was investigated in 1000 ways by the Department of Justice, and no implication of daddy ever emerged. Indeed, more interestingly, the DoJ under Joe Biden was able to operate independently of the president, and cause all sorts of problems for the president’s loser son. In stark contrast, however, Donnie Jr. is still at it, and the Trump DoJ is not interested in his wrongdoings in the least.
Who’s Cheating? Canada, Argentina, and the USA
Trump Diaries #61, 24 October 2025
At 6:20 am this morning, Trump announced that all trade negotiations are suspended with Canada, and posted on TruthSocial the following:
CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY. Canada is trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country. Canada has long cheated on Tariffs, charging our farmers as much as 400%. Now they, and other countries, can’t take advantage of the U.S. any longer. Thank you to the Ronald Reagan Foundation for exposing this FRAUD. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
(He also reposted an image of himself with the slogan “Make Canada the 51st State.”) As always, the lies and hypocrisies coming from Trump are nothing short of overwhelming. But I just want to point out two things about this situation…
First, the lies, Reagan was very clear about tariffs being useful only when they are limited; in general, he thought them a very bad idea. Reagan was a major proponent of free markets. Check out these quotes, directly from the Reagan Presidential Library website:
You see, at first, when someone says, ``Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,'' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.
Very simply, Reagan did not like tariffs and Trump’s statements about Reagan loving tariffs are simply lies. Sure, there were very specific instances in which the Reagan administration used tariffs, but they were targeted and limited. So, flat out, Trump is lying.
Second, the hypocrisy… Trump said in his TruthSocial post, “Canada is trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court...” Well, in other current events, Trump is planning to gift Argentina $20B, to support Argentine president Javier Milei. Trump was quoted recently as saying,
If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina… I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct. And he may win and he may not win – I think he’s going to win. And if he wins we are staying with him, and if he doesn’t win we are gone.
So how is it that Canada would be doing something illegal if it were trying to influence the U.S. Supreme Court, yet Trump is fine if he offers $20B from the U.S. government if the Argentine people elect the person that Trump favors as their president? Is Trump simply being an overt hypocrite? Or is Trump unaware that he is a walking, talking contradiction? Or is it somehow OK for the U.S. to influence other countries’ elections, but not OK for other countries to try to influence our politics?
And, by the way, after 60 or so of these commentaries, I have no problem if people read what I write and say… “Peterson is full of shit.” That’s okay with me. But I would ask those people one thing: check into what Trump says, on your own, independently, just to make sure that what he says is true. Please do that before you believe anything that the guy has to say?
Lucifer, Dr. Faustus, and U.S. Universities
Trump Diaries #59, 21 October 2025
In a previous post, I analyzed the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education that the Trump administration sent to nine U.S. universities on 1 October 2025. In effect, in the Compact, the Trump administration threatened the nine universities with losing federal funding, tax-exempt status, and other benefits, if they do not accept a series of Draconian measures related to free speech, academic freedom, numbers of international students, funding via tuition hikes, etc.
Today marks almost three weeks since the Compact was sent out, and much has happened. Nine universities that were initially sent the threat (Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, University of Arizona, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University). Since receiving the Compact, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Virginia, Dartmouth College, and University of Arizona, all have said an emphatic “no” to the crazy academic lockdown proposed in the Compact.
Although the University of Texas Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife said that the UT system was “honored” that it was among the first nine institutions to receive the offer, UT has not yet responded either way to the Compact. (One has to wonder if Eltife had even read the text in his rush to kiss administration butt.) Vanderbilt University similarly has not responded either way.
More recently, perhaps in view of the overwhelming negative response to the Compact among the original nine universities, the administration invited more universities to a conversation about the idea. Although a formal list of invitees or attendees has not been made available, it is public now that Arizona State University, University of Kansas, and Washington University all attended a virtual meeting with the administration, along with four of the original nine institutions.
All of this is scary beyond belief… the Compact lays out all sorts of ways in which academic freedom would be throttled if the universities accept the deal, and threatens all sorts of ways in which universities that decide not to sign will be throttled in terms of lost privileges from the government. In effect, the leaders of 12 U.S. universities… and surely all of them in the not-distant future… are being presented with an impossible choice. Do they sell out the students and faculty and sign, or do they cut their own throats and refuse?
The legend of Dr. Faustus is of a scholar who sells his soul to the Devil (Lucifer) in exchange for knowledge, power, and pleasure. Trump’s Compact offered to universities is Lucifer’s deal offered to Dr. Faustus. The knowledge, power, and pleasure offered to Dr. Faustus are the list of blessings bestowed on universities by the U.S. government, such as tax-exempt status, visas for foreign students, and research grants. Universities that sign the deal will be signing away their souls in exchange for those academic pleasures.
Universities that refuse to sign, however, enter a terra incognita… if one university says no, it will probably be quite ugly for that university. The world has seen what Trump is willing to do to impose his will and bring institutions to their knees. But what if all of the universities say no?
So have courage, university administrators. You all know that the Compact is evil, and threatens U.S. universities in innumerable ways. Saying yes will humiliate your community in exchange for false academic pleasures (most in the form of not losing things that we already have!). Don’t weasel and convince yourself that one or two of the terms of the Compact are not that bad: too many of them go against fundamental principles of the academy.
The only way to thread this needle is to present a unified front, and every university says no to the Compact. Please, have courage.
Let’s Make Voting Democratic, Please?
Trump Diaries #58, 20 October 2025
OK, so I am tired of all of this back and forth about districting and redistricting. I got onto this topic back in August in TD#40, and found it to be frustrating. What it comes down to is that both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, particularly in situations in which one party controls the entirety of a state’s government. (Republican gerrymanders, particularly in the south, however, often have a racial dimension to them that I find particularly disturbing.)
I have a radical proposal… let’s get the Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.4) passed as soon as possible? I am assuming, perhaps naively, that we will get back to a sane Congress and presidency pretty soon. How about the biggest and fattest plank in the Democrat platform for the 2028 elections be to get this key pair of acts passed?
Freedom to Vote is very broad, taking on longtime issues as regards voter registration and voting access, election integrity and security, redistricting, and campaign finance. And the Lewis Act strives to resuscitate and reinforce the Voting Rights Act, which has recently been at least partly gutted by the Supreme Court, with more damage to come, I am guessing. The Lewis Act sets out key new criteria for federal supervision of states, when states have had a history of poor behavior as far as permitting fair elections. Together, these two bills would limit the ability of states for which one party has full control to take advantage of their power to make voting undemocratic.
To be clear, taking a firm stand on these bills… or some future-Congressional-session version melding them… would likely involve some pain for Democrats as well. That is, not all gerrymandering is Republican neo-Jim Crow stuff… some of it is protecting Democrats in blue states. But a principled stand for fair elections would be a solid plank in the party platform that would show all of the populations making up the Democrat community that they matter to the party.
In effect, I am losing hope in the current situation: Texas does a mid-decade redistricting because Trump wants it, and California has to respond to the Texas move by abandoning its non-partisan districting process, at least for a while. Several southern states are already gerrymandered and unrepresentative of their populations. These days, the Supreme Court is looking at nullifying Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which would all but kill that landmark legislation. And all of this is not to mention Trump’s insertion of federal troops into “blue” cities, which could easily be twisted to affect upcoming elections.
If the Democrats are to have any future in governing this country, they should take a firm stand on keeping voting fair and democratic. In my imagined future of Democratic control of the presidency and Congress, if not enough Republicans have the backbone to support bills that simply reinforce democracy, I am fine with eliminating the filibuster and reconfiguring the Supreme Court. It’s that important. Without a firm, absolute, principled stand about fairness in voting, I see very little hope for this country.
Mike Johnson and Dead Fish: No Representation for Arizona’s 7th District
Trump Diaries #57, 17 October 2025
Adelita Grijalva won a special election on 23 September 2025 to represent Arizona’s 7th District seat in the House of Representatives, and the election results have been certified by Arizona Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes. Nonetheless, Grijalva is not yet a member of the House of Representatives, because Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has put off returning the House to a session or otherwise taking steps to swear in Grijalva.
Note that Arizona’s 7th District is more than 60% Hispanic, and has a total population of more than 800,000 people. The district is >90% U.S. citizens. This suggests that Johnson has found a way to leave 800,000 people without representation in Congress, with the special extra “benefit” of the unrepresented district being overwhelmingly Hispanic. (It’s a benefit if you maybe want the U.S. government to represent whites disproportionately!)
So what is the basis for Johnson not swearing Grijalva in as a member of Congress? Article VI of the Constitution says that new members must swear to support the Constitution before they can be full members of Congress. U.S. statute 2 U.S.C. § 25 further specifies that the oath of office will be taken at the first session of the House after the election, and that members elected outside of general elections will be sworn in “previous to their taking their seats.” So, the actual U.S. statutes are a bit unclear.
Thankfully, there is a Supreme Court decision that speaks directly to this issue (this is from back when Supreme Court decisions were less blatantly partisan). In Powell v. McCormack (1969), the Court decided that the House (or its Speaker) cannot refuse to seat a member who meets all of the constitutional requirements and has been duly elected under state law. Powell, in this case, was apparently a corrupt individual who was nonetheless elected by his district… as evidence of his corruption emerged, the House refused to seat him. Regardless, the Supreme Court decided that Powell had to be sworn in, as he fit the requirements of the Constitution. And, of course, Adelita Grijalva is not a criminal!
What is more, there have already been three other special elections in 2025 for members of the House of Representatives. Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine were elected in special elections in Florida on 1 April 2025, and were sworn in to Congress on 2 April 2025 (the next day!). James Walkinshaw was elected on 9 September 2025 in Colorado, and sworn in on 10 September 2025 (also the next day!). And, lest we believe Johnson is constrained from swearing Grijalva in because Congress is not in session, he could convene a “pro forma” session, as he did for the two Florida members.
So, what is going on? I go back to my old maxim: if it looks like a dead fish and smells like a dead fish, it IS a dead fish. Here we have Mike Johnson steadfastly refusing to seat a duly elected and fully qualified individual, but SHE happens to be HISPANIC and DEMOCRAT representing a largely NON-WHITE district.
I’m not implying that Johnson is biased. Rather, he is showing the whole world clearly that he is biased.
The Donald J. Trump $250 Bill: Legal or Not, Here It Comes!
Trump Diaries #56, 12 October 2025
Way back in February, Representative Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, introduced the “Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act.” The bill begins with this text:
To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to print $250 Federal reserve notes featuring a portrait of Donald J. Trump, and for other purposes.
Now, we all know that U.S. currency can only have the likeness of deceased individuals. The prohibition apparently goes back to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, when Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase had a portrait of himself put on the 1861 one-dollar bill. That prohibition is formalized in the statute 31 U.S. Code §5114(b), which reads:
United States currency has the inscription “In God We Trust” in a place the Secretary decides is appropriate. Only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities. The name of the individual shall be inscribed below the portrait.
So that is the law, right? Well, Rep. Wilson, in all of his Trump-adoring fervor, with co-sponsors Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Ralph Norman (R-SC), and Darrell Issa (R-CA), prefers to ignore the rules that have guided our country for so many years, and instead wishes to make an exception for Trump (hey, why not a bill with the likeness of Obama?).
But perhaps the most fascinating dimension of the Wilson proposal for a $250 Trump bill is a comment from him quoted on his webpage:
Bidenflation has destroyed the economy forcing American families to carry more cash. President Trump is working tirelessly to fight inflation and help American families. This achievement is deserving of currency recognition, which is why I am grateful to introduce this legislation. The most valuable bill for the most valuable President!
Oh my. Really? Monthly estimates of annual inflation rates were above 9% in mid-2022, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic, and declined during the Biden presidency to below 3%. And guess where they are now… 2.9% in August 2025, the most recent estimate available. That is to say, Trump has not achieved anything in his “fight” against inflation, and has not helped American families much at all, as far as I can see.
This initiative from Rep. Wilson would seem to have gone nowhere, as it has not advanced through the process of consideration in Congress. But, on 26 September 2025, Rep. Andy Barr (another Trump sycophant) wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Reporter, arguing that this proposal be revived. The essay is mostly just re-chewed MAGA drivel, so I won’t waste your reading time and attention on much of it… suffice this quote to illustrate: “Let us honor the president who has made America great again.” And, of course, in all of his boundless humility, Trump himself reposted the Barr Washington Reporter piece on TruthSocial on 8 October 2025.
But I end up marveling at the idea of Americans needing a $250 bill because inflation has made everything so expensive that one needs to have one’s wallet full of $250 bills to be able to buy groceries and gasoline. Is that really the view that the Republican sycophant members of Congress have? I, for one, these days, always have two or three grand stuffed into my wallet.
The Future Supreme Court: How to Assure Lasting Trump damage
Trump Diaries #55, 9 October 2025
The nine members of the Supreme Court have lifetime appointments, which means that the president who appoints them has the opportunity to influence the nation decades into the future. Among the current team of nine justices, one was appointed by George H. W. Bush, two by George W. Bush, two by Barack Obama, three by Trump (in his first term), and one by Joe Biden. In that sense, Trump has already had a massive influence on the Court: Trump appointed new justices at a rate of 0.75/year, whereas all four other recent presidents appointed justices at a rate of only 0.25/year.
We should not forget how it is that Trump, in his first term, had such good fortune to get to appoint three justices to the Court. Brett Kavanaugh was appointed when Anthony Kennedy retired, and that indeed was in the middle of Trump’s first term. The other two, however, were quite a bit dirtier… Here is how all that went down.
On 13 February 2016, Antonin Scalia passed away; President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed him on 16 March 2016. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided that, because the presidential elections were coming up eight months later, the new Court member should be named by the next president… Translation: he did not want Obama to name that justice. And indeed, McConnell did not allow Obama’s nomination to be considered. Trump was able to nominate Neil Gorsuch as that next justice on 31 January 2017, and Gorsuch was confirmed by the Republican-dominated Senate on 7 April 2017.
Now jump forward to the end of Trump’s first term, with another presidential election coming up fast. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had been battling with cancer for some time, and apparently thought either that Obama would be succeeded by another Democrat president, or that she could outlast the next president. Ginsberg passed away on 18 September 2020, and Trump announced the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace her on 26 September 2020.
Although this death and replacement nomination came far closer to the presidential election than had been the case for Gorsuch, Mitch McConnell this time was willing to fast-track the consideration of the new justice, and Barrett was confirmed on 26 October 2020. The hypocrisy was nauseating: thanks to the deceitful and dishonest collaboration of McConnell, Trump in effect stole two Supreme Court nominations, one from his predecessor and another from his successor. As such, Trump has had a greatly outsized influence on the current composition of the Court.
Now, look at the age distribution of the current justices. Among liberals, Sonia Sotomayor is 71 and Elena Kagan is 65, and the only Biden nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is 55. Among conservatives, the Trump nominees are all painfully young, at 53, 58, and 60 (remember that these are lifetime appointments!), and the other three are 70 (John Roberts), 75 (Samuel Alito), and 77 (Clarence Thomas).
So, what about the future of the Supreme Court? If a Democrat succeeds Trump, Alito and Thomas (the two most venomously conservative members of the court) will both be pretty old, which could generate vacancies for that Democrat to fill. My prediction is that Trump will pressure Alito and Thomas, and maybe even Chief Justice Roberts himself, to retire in the next couple of years, rather than lasting on into a post-Trump era. That could give Trump another three spots to fill, in effect naming young conservative justices to two-thirds of the full court!
Farther into the future, I am beginning to think that some sort of reform is needed. That is, always before, I liked the idea of lifetime appointments, as a way of making Supreme Court justices immune to political influences. Now, however, I see that the lifetime appointment thing does not make the justices immune to politics; rather, lifetime appointments can make the politics that got them appointed permanent. Seems like some sort of term limit would make the politics of the apolitical Supreme Court more fair, and much less open to Trump-style abuses.
Mike Johnson Lies Like a Professional
Trump Diaries #54, 6 October 2025
I start most days with a solid hour of listening to political podcasts, and today was no exception. I listened to Face the Nation, with Margaret Brennan (5 October 2025), which featured an interview with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Johnson was lecturing Brennan on how the Democrat proposal to end the government shutdown—which he attributes solely to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—was causing real harm to real people. The harm was, apparently, that of the Democrats wanting to fund healthcare for illegal aliens, which he said was stated clearly on page 57 (section 2141) of the Democrat proposal, available on the speaker.gov website.
Brennan challenged Johnson about his statement, so he went on to say:
Chuck Schumer’s proposal, in page 57, wants to return that $200 billion of taxpayer funds to pay for [healthcare for] illegal aliens and other non-citizens. That is a fact, and you can check it out on the website speaker.gov. Don’t trust me; look at Chuck Schumer’s own paperwork.
When people lie, I assume that they must be pretty sure that they can get away with it. But I am always inclined to doubt, so I went to speaker.gov, found the infamous page 57, and read the text there. It is about repealing all of Subtitle B of Title VII of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” signed into law by Trump on 4 July 2025. Pretty quickly, I found that Johnson is nothing short of a baldfaced liar.
Johnson’s first lie: The alleged healthcare for illegal aliens is not $200 billion, as Johnson stated clearly. Rather, that sum applies to myriad terms in the Big Beautiful Bill, and not just to funding illegal alien healthcare.
But we are not done. The Big Beautiful Bill does include language stating and restating that illegal aliens are not eligible for healthcare benefits. But that verbiage implies that before the Big Beautiful Bill came along, illegal aliens had been eligible for healthcare. That implication is deceptive and disingenuous.
Johnson’s second lie: Illegal aliens never were eligible for healthcare benefits. Sec. 2141 of the Democrat proposal would repeal Subtitle B of Title VII of the Big Beautiful Bill, which in turn amended Section 1903(v) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)). That section includes this text (along with a lot more verbiage):
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4), no payment may be made to a State under this section for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.
It is clear that the Social Security Act never did permit healthcare costs for “aliens” to be covered by the U.S. government. Section 1903(v) was part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which was signed into law by President Reagan in 1986.
It is also pretty clear that Mike Johnson is not an honest man. He answered each of Brennan’s questions with confidence, and without the slightest hesitation. That may be his secret: if you look someone in the eye and lie without flinching, if your conscience is clean simply because you have no compunction with lying, then your lies can be convincing.
I had been planning these days to dig deep on the Republican talking points about the government shutdown. What is it that the Democrats are saying when they talk about healthcare costs going up massively, and what is it that the Republicans are saying when they talk about the Democrats wanting to have the U.S. government pay for illegal alien healthcare? Well, today’s dive down a rabbit hole indicates that the Republican line of Chuck Schumer and the Democrats wanting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on healthcare for illegal aliens is just plain bullshit.
Mike Johnson lies, and lies with confidence and conviction. I guess that it has served him well, given his current position. But he does lie, and he lies to the nation about issues of national importance.
Today’s News: Fascist Takeover of U.S. Higher Education
Trump Diaries #53, 3 October 2025
In June 1939, as the world recovered from one world war and spiraled down towards a second, Ralph Cooper Hutchison published a lengthy essay in The Atlantic entitled “Fascism and Higher Education.” To be honest, I would love to reproduce the entire piece here, as it is impressively prescient, but I will give some key excerpts for the sake of brevity:
The years during which such freedom was actually maintained in the German university might have argued against any danger in a higher education supported by the state. However, as always happens, there came a time when he who paid the piper called the tune. The demagogue and the totalitarian state appeared. The gymnasia and the university surrendered, without a struggle, all that had given them validity. The universities were centralized and made a mere branch of the national political system controlled by the party. The depths to which they fell can be expressed no better than in their own words: —
“We renounce international science. We renounce the international republic of learning. We renounce research for its own sake. We teach and learn medicine, not to increase the number of known microbes, but to keep the German people strong and healthy. We teach and learn history, not to say how things actually happened, but to instruct the German people from the past. We teach and learn the sciences, not to discover abstract laws, but to sharpen the implements of the German people in their competition with other peoples.
This bleak picture painted by Hutchison is scary in a historical sense, but screams warnings in light of the events of this past Wednesday. That is, the Trump administration has been throttling Harvard University by every means that comes to mind, and has already cowed Columbia University completely. Threats have been also made by the administration against UCLA and University of California Berkeley.
But today’s news is more worrisome still: the Trump administration has sent a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to nine high-profile universities across the country: Vanderbilt, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Texas, University of Arizona, Brown University and University of Virginia.
The threat is completely clear, with wording as follows:
To advance the national interest arising out of this unique relationship, this Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education represents the priorities of the U.S. government in its engagements with universities that benefit from the relationship. Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits.
And those benefits that any non-signatories would “forego” include:
(i) access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts; (ii) funding for research directly or indirectly; (iii) approval of student and other visas in connection with university matriculation and instruction; and (iv) preferential treatment under the tax code.
So what is this “compact” and how does it promote “academic excellence”? It comes down to ten points, as follows:
1. Equality in Admissions: “Therefore, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors shall be considered, explicitly or implicitly, in any decision related to undergraduate or graduate student admissions or financial support, with due exceptions for institutions that are solely or primarily comprised of students of a specific sex or religious denomination.”
2. Marketplace of Ideas & Civil Discourse: “Therefore, signatories to this compact commit themselves to fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus. A vibrant marketplace of ideas requires an intellectually open campus environment, with a broad spectrum of ideological viewpoints present and no single ideology dominant, both along political and other relevant lines. Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” [Oops… looks like this clause is just there to protect conservatives, and not create a genuinely open campus environment!]
3. Nondiscrimination in Faculty and Administrative Hiring: “Consistent with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts and other federal employment discrimination statutes, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, national origin, disability, or religion shall be considered in any decision related to the appointment, advancement, or reappointment of academic, administrative, or support staff at any level, except as described in section 9 or otherwise provided by Title VII or other federal employment discrimination statutes.”
4. Institutional Neutrality: “Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university… Policies requiring institutional neutrality must apply with equal force to all of the university’s academic units, including all colleges, faculties, schools, departments, programs, centers, and institutes.”
5. Student Learning: “Signatories acknowledge that a grade must not be inflated, or deflated, for any non-academic reason, but only rigorously reflect the demonstrated mastery of a subject that the grade purports to represent.”
6. Student Equality: “Students shall be treated as individuals and not on the basis of their immutable characteristics, with due exceptions for sex-based privacy, safety, and fairness. Women’s equality requires single-sex spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, and fair competition, such as in sports. Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes. Otherwise, immutable characteristics, particularly race, do not permit unequal treatment, including in grading as well as access to buildings, spaces, scholarships, programming, and other university resources.”
7. Financial Responsibility: “Signatories acknowledge that universities that receive federal funds have a duty to reduce administrative costs as far as reasonably possible and streamline or eliminate academic programs that fail to serve students. Towards this end, signatories to this compact commit to freezing the effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years… Signatories shall responsibly deploy their endowments to the public good. Any university with an endowment exceeding $2 million per undergraduate student will not charge tuition for admitted students pursuing hard science programs (with exceptions, as desired, for families of substantial means).”
8. Foreign Entanglements: “Federal permission for foreign student visas is intended to further America’s national interest to the extent the selected foreign students exhibit extraordinary talent that promises to make America stronger and more economically productive, and the selected students are introduced to, and supportive of, American and Western values, ultimately increasing global understanding and appreciation for the United States and our way of life. Universities that rely on foreign students to fund their institutions risk, among other things, potentially reducing spots available to deserving American students, and if not properly vetted, saturating the campus with noxious values such as anti-Semitism and other anti-American values, creating serious national security risks… Therefore, no more than 15 percent of a university’s undergraduate student population shall be participants in the Student Visa Exchange Program, and no more than 5 percent shall be from any one country. For schools presently over the 15 percent population, incoming matriculating classes should meet the 15 percent cap. Signatories pledge to select those foreign students on the basis of demonstrably extraordinary talent, rather than on the basis of financial advantage to the university; to screen out students who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values; and to provide instruction in American civics to all foreign students.”
9. Exceptions: “Notwithstanding the forgoing, a religious institution may maintain preferences for religious affiliation or belief in hiring and admissions, a single-sex institution may maintain sex-based preferences, and any institution may maintain preferences in admissions for American citizens.” [Ahhh, so some kinds of discrimination are okay!]
10. Enforcement: “Adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice. Universities found to have willfully or negligently violated this agreement shall lose access to the benefits of this agreement for a period of no less than 1 year. Subsequent violations of this agreement shall result in a loss of access to the benefits of this agreement for no less than 2 years. Further, upon determination of any violations, all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation shall be returned to the U.S. government. Finally, any private contributions to the university during the year(s) in which such violation occurred shall be returned to the grantor upon the request of the grantor.”
So, this is the Fascist takeover of the American system of higher education… first, Trump showed that he could punish any university, no matter how rich, into submission. Now, with this “compact,” Trump is saying to the entirety of higher education: “you will kiss my ring, or you will lose access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts; research funding; access to foreign visas; and non-profit status for tax purposes.” The scope of the changes that he is demanding of the nine universities is nothing short of breathtaking.
I have lived my entire life around U.S. universities, and can say with confidence that such a threat from the government has never existed before. I see this is as a watershed moment for higher education in the U.S. I will let Hutchison wrap up this commentary, as he stated so clearly and eloquently more than 80 years ago:
Returning, for contrast, to the American system, we find within state education a series of safeguards already described. But more important than these technical devices is that ideal of education free from political control — an ideal which is sustained by the independent colleges and universities. So long as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, Chicago, Lafayette, Washington and Jefferson, and others hold that ideal, it can never be seriously or permanently violated in the state-supported institutions. From the public elementary school to the state university, the comparative freedom from political domination and interference now enjoyed is defended and ensured by those parallel institutions which are actually independent. They are the champions. They set the tone. So long as they are free, the politically supported institutions will never be entirely enslaved.
And also …
The danger, then, is that the state will either control through subsidy or stifle by competition the independent colleges and universities and thus destroy the champions of freedom in education. That the elimination of many if not all of these institutions which fail to accept government support is possible would be questioned by many. It may not be inevitable, but it is possible. ‘It can happen here.'
Or rather, IT IS HAPPENING HERE. Right here, right now. Nine universities today, and, once they are on their knees, all the rest. I certainly hope that the leaders at each university in the U.S. are thinking about this situation carefully: what will be the response when Draconian threats are made, and each university is told to sign the “compact” or else? Will each university kneel before the Fascist takeover, or will some have backbone enough to say no?
The Hatch Act and Whose Shut-down Is This?
Trump Diaries #52, 2 October 2025
I went online earlier today, and had to check something on the U.S. Department of Agriculture website. A banner across the top of the site said:
Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.
Hmmmmm. Very interesting to see a U.S. government website with a political message, posted apparently following the instructions of Trump. So I went to the website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Forest Service, and found this at each site:
The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government.
I explored further… the White House, Department of Justice, and Freedom of Information Act websites were all a bit more discrete, saying only,
Democrats Have Shut Down the Government.
I explored a bunch of other government websites, and most did not have these messages, but rather just warnings that the website is not being maintained and/or that critical services may be slower or unavailable. Talking with friends who are U.S. government employees, apparently similar text about the shutdown being the Democrats’ doing was sent to them for use as “away messages” for their email accounts during the shutdown.
This “Blame Game” is old news… it happens every time that there is a government shutdown, or any other change in services. Still, there is something called the Hatch Act. In 1939, this law, “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities,” was passed to keep civil service employees in the federal government (except the president and vice president) from participating in political activity. Of course, it does not prevent them from voting or speaking their minds as private citizens, but the idea was (and is) to keep the federal government clean of political activism.
The current version of the Hatch Act (it has seen amendments and such) is codified as 5 U.S. Code § 7323, and indicates that
An employee may not engage in political activity—
(1) while the employee is on duty;
(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee…
So I am to believe that the people in the employ of the U.S. government who changed the website messaging to blame Democrats were doing that work in their off hours, from home, and not wearing any official uniform? Or did Trump and JD do the HTML and web programming work themselves? Yeah right.
I am pretty sure that those messages will begin to disappear soon, but this is one more example of the Trump administration using the immense power of the U.S. government to push their message, regardless of the rules.
Put another way, these blaming banners are a minor thing, and probably won’t change the mind of anyone. But the rules are important, and they are being ignored. You can ignore the Hatch Act, the details of the Alien Enemies Act, or innumerable other federal statutes, and each little detail in and of itself does not matter. But in aggregate, when it becomes clear that Trump and the people who manipulate him obey no rules, it becomes very scary, and that is where we are right now in this country.
The Kirk Silver Dollar
Trump Diaries #51, 25 September 2025
The country has been in upheaval since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, with blame and recriminations being thrown around wildly. Certainly, this… and any… political killing is reprehensible and lamentable. Very clearly, that such a thing could happen is a terrible and damning commentary on the state of the nation at this point in time.
Charlie Kirk’s mourners have been busy with memorials and rallies, as might be expected. But the memorial that I might least have expected came yesterday. Representative Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) and Representative and Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman August Pfluger (TX-11) introduced a proposed bill that would create a 400,000-coin limited edition of the U.S. silver dollar in Kirk’s honor. Pfluger termed the coin “a fitting honor that cements his extraordinary legacy alongside presidents and founding fathers who shaped our republic.”
Seriously? Again, Kirk’s assassination was a criminal act, and any and all politically motivated killings are a national shame. But Kirk is the guy that said:
No, Israel is not starving Gazans.
America does not need more visas for people from India… Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our people first.
Transgenderism is a mental disorder. I want people suffering from transgenderism to get care.
It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
… and many other statements and comments that highlight a mind that is focused on difference, and that presumes the superiority of white males, above all.
An extraordinary legacy along presidents and founding fathers? Seriously? Well, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before there are also coins for each member of the Trump family, right? And we do still have the $20 bill in honor of Andrew Jackson, another fine example of great figures in American history.
H-1B Visas and “Make America White Again”
Trump Diaries #50, 21 September 2025
H-1B visas are temporary (i.e., non-immigrant) visas that allow employers to bring highly educated foreigners to work in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. These visas are initially granted for three year periods, but they can be extended to a maximum of six years. Employers wishing to use this program have to demonstrate that employing an H-1B worker will not adversely affect wages and opportunities for U.S. workers.
Candidate Trump, in his 2024 campaign, made it clear that he supported the H-1B program. CNN reported, at the time, that Trump called himself a “believer in H-1B,” saying… “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.” “I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.” Indeed, with his usual overwhelming self-interest, he indicated that he would like to extend the program to include more “competent people,” and listed “Maitre d’s, wine experts, high-quality waiters.” Of course, Trump indicated some concerns about “rampant, widespread H1-B abuse…” but Candidate Trump was very much an H-1B supporter.
On 19 September 2025, however, Trump issued two executive orders that make major changes to legal immigration. One adds a $100,000 fee to any new applications for H-1B visas; the other opens a new opportunity for easy, legal immigration for potential immigrants who can make a $1,000,000 donation to the U.S. government. For the H-1B order, the rationale is focused on abuses of the current version of the program, in which employers take advantage of the program to pay lower wages to H-1B workers instead of U.S. workers. For the other order, Trump lays out the failures of the preceding administration in allowing illegal immigration, and goes on to say:
I hereby announce the Gold Card, a visa program overseen by the Secretary of Commerce that will facilitate the entry of aliens who have demonstrated their ability and desire to advance the interests of the United States by voluntarily providing a significant financial gift to the Nation.
Like a million dollars. And, clearly, in Trump’s mind, it is much less probable that someone will be a bad addition to the U.S. population if they have a million dollars extra to give to the U.S. government.
So let’s get to the point. H-1B workers are not illegal aliens. Paying $100,000 to the U.S. government does not avoid abuses: it just raises the cost of potential abuses. Rather than implement further regulation to avoid abuses, Trump simply imposes a tax on the system, such that H-1B visas bring in money to the U.S. government. Similarly, paying a million dollars to the U.S. government does not stop illegal immigration, and does not guarantee quality citizenry to add to the U.S. population.
Rather, in both cases, to my eye, it is all about “cleansing” the U.S. immigrant population. In effect, with these two executive orders, Trump eliminates the H-1B program, and creates an open immigration door for the rich. H-1B is a program dominated by people of color… i.e., some color other than white. Indeed, of the top 10 H-1B countries, the only mostly-white-populated countries are the United Kingdom and Canada, which contribute only 1.4% of the total number of participants in the program. The rest of the top countries (in 2024) are India, China, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, and Pakistan.
My reading of the tea leaves? This has little or nothing to do with avoiding abuses of the H-1B or any other immigration program. Rather, this has to do with cleansing the pool of immigrants into the U.S. of people of color. These two executive orders will, in effect, create an economic barrier to immigration: only the very rich need apply. Make America White Again?
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com.
The Planet Will Burn While We are Fiddling (with Democracy and Freedom)
Trump Diaries #49, 18 September 2025
I have been an environmentalist my entire life, and concerns about the health of the world have been the center of much of what I have done in my 61 years, both personally and professionally. In 2025, and particularly in the Trump Diaries series, however, I have been focused on what seem to be the most fundamental issues: freedom, democracy, and the future of freedom and democracy in the face of a second round of rule by Trump and friends.
A friend recently reminded me, however, that Trump and friends are simultaneously taking major steps that will damage the environment deeply. This jalón de orejas was much needed, as my friend was correct: these changes are big, and will cause permanent damage. What use are freedom and democracy if the planet is sick and dying?
So what’s going on that is so urgent? Check out what the Environmental Protection Agency is up to these days:
On July 29, 2025, EPA proposed to rescind the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding is a prerequisite for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Absent this finding, EPA lacks statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to prescribe standards for GHG emissions. Therefore, EPA also proposed to remove GHG regulations for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.
This proposed change goes back to what was called the Chevron Doctrine. “Chevron” was the idea that, when a law was not sufficiently precise, federal agencies like the EPA could make a reasonable interpretation of that law. That is, quite a bit of U.S. law predates fundamental ideas like electricity, telecommunications, computation, the Internet, and artificial intelligence; federal agencies have had to interpret those laws in the context of these new developments, which was U.S. policy under the Chevron Doctrine.
The alternative, of course, is no regulation until new laws are passed that respond directly to each of these new developments. That, of course, means no regulation. In 2024, however, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in the typical 6-3 decision, the Trump-owned Supreme Court ended the Chevron Doctrine. This crazy new world created by the Supreme Court is wide open to interpretations like the EPA proposal to end its 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, and in fact all greenhouse gas emissions-related regulation for cars and trucks.
Is this step smart? Not only will the U.S. surge in its emissions of gases that contribute to global warming, but the U.S. will also fall further behind in key technologies related to alternative energy use. The U.S. will also become progressively weaker in all negotiations related to climate change, being seen as an unreliable partner in climate change initiatives, regardless of who is the president.
I am guessing that Trump does not care in the least about the health of the planet. However, he clearly has sold out his interests to many powerful interests and individuals. A lot of those powerful people would love to have a world… or at least a country… without regulation.
More and More and More Executive Orders
Trump Diaries #48, 15 September 2025
When Trump was just a presidential candidate, back in 2014, he was incensed about President Obama’s seemingly frequent use of executive orders to get business done. In a 20 November 2014 tweet, Trump said, “Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress…”
So I got curious about how many executive orders each recent president has issued. I found some data, did some calculations, and came to something interesting. In the years from Richard Nixon up through Joe Biden, presidents averaged almost exactly 4 executive orders per month. The president who used executive orders the most was Jimmy Carter, at 6.7 orders per month. Curiously, in view of Candidate Trump’s complaint, the president who least used executive orders was Barack Obama, at 2.9 orders per month.
The big surprise, however, is Trump himself. In his first term, Trump was above the median, at 4.6 orders per month, but that was nothing much out of the ordinary. In this beginning of Trump’s second term, however, he has issued 202 executive orders (so far!), in just two-thirds of a year. Calculating executive orders per month, it comes out to 25.2 orders per month. That is to say, in spite of Trump’s early indignation about Obama’s use of executive orders, Trump, in his second term, has issued 8.8-fold more orders per month than Obama, and 3.8-fold more than any other president in recent history. Even more impressive is that this tsunami of executive orders comes in a period in which the Republicans "own" not just the presidency, but also both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.
Given all of the dramatic news in recent days, this tidbit is nothing special and nothing surprising. However, it underlines yet again how Trump has no principles, believes in nothing, and stands firm on nothing, so long as his own ambitions and interests are advanced.
When Do Ex-Presidents Go to Jail?
Trump Diaries #47, 12 September 2025
Just imagine it: the president has a stormy term, but is not at all wanting to leave the office of the presidency at the end of his term. He plots to figure out a way to stay in office. Democracy can be twisted, and the president is hopeful that he can just stay in power. Except that democracy wins, if only by a hair, and the man is removed from office and replaced by someone else. It goes to the point that the president engineers a mass storming of government buildings in January, when he had hoped to stay in office but couldn’t.
And then continue imagining… crimes are alleged, and court cases are filed, and evidence emerges of a very real coup plot engineered by the president that is traitorous to the nation. The president whines that the whole thing is a witch hunt, and that all of the evidence is false. But when the evidence is presented, it is quite clear, and the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. The justices weigh the evidence, and overwhelmingly vote that the president is guilty (there’s just one dissenting justice). And the president is sentenced to jail likely for the rest of his life.
Trump in the U.S.? No, we saw what happened to the court cases against him for what he did in 2019-2020, though all of the above events sound painfully familiar.
No, we’re talking Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. All that just happened, last night. Bolsonaro, the tough guy president, has been sentenced to a long prison sentence. Read about it all here. Maybe the point is that Brazil had a recent brush with fascism, with a military government running the country from 1964 to 1985. So now their wannabe tough guy… “the Tropical Trump” he was called… is going to jail. Wow!
Trump is not at all happy about this. Think about the example that it sets… hopefully, the second time around, Trump won’t be able to jump into the shelter of the presidency, with all of its protections. Maybe the judicial system will actually work this time. Maybe the U.S. could do things as well as Brazil has done, and put its criminal ex-president in jail, where he belongs, and not back in office.
More predictions… Trump has already badgered Brazil about this court case against Bolsonaro, citing the country’s oppression of its ex-president when he imposed 50% tariffs as a punishment. Now, Trump will surely hit Brazil with even-more-massive tariffs. Who knows, maybe he will even expand the Venezuela blockade and proto-war to include Brazil!
More Political Gun Violence in America
Trump Diaries #46, 11 September 2025
Charlie Kirk was assassinated yesterday, in a chilling next chapter to the story of political violence in America. Indeed, Kirk appears to have been killed with a shot from a long gun; given that it was a single shot, he was probably killed by an experienced marksman. He joins a long list of recent victims of political gun violence in America: Aaron Danielson, Daniel Anderl, Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, Garrett Foster, John and Yvette Hoffman, and Melissa and Mark Hortman. That is not a comprehensive list, but it gives an idea of how violent U.S. politics has become. If you search on those names, you will notice that there are victims on both sides of the political debates in the U.S. Kirk’s killing is lamentable: politics should exist by discourse and debate. The loss of Charlie Kirk as an individual is terrible, and the loss to his friends and family is incalculable.
Kirk, however, is part of a political lineage that has lived and breathed hatred and division, following, building on, and feeding off of the ideas and attitudes of his guru, Donald Trump. Kirk’s ideas over the years have included statements like “The ‘Great Replacement’ is not a theory, it’s a reality”; calling for President Joe Biden to face the death penalty for “crimes against America”; “I haven’t even done my show yet on MLK Jr. and already it’s clear to me that I have found the sacred cow of modern America…”; “I’m sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”; “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people”; calling for gender-affirming care providers to receive a “Nuremberg-style trial”; “White privilege is a racist lie”; and “George Floyd was a ‘scumbag.’” (Whatever Charlie Kirk, Martin Luther King Jr. and George Floyd were like as human beings, good or bad, none of them deserved to die violently.)
Kirk is just following in Trump’s footsteps, though. Trump made his mark, from the first moments of his political career, by insulting immigrants, demeaning women, inciting violence against people he disagrees with, etc. Trump’s followers loved his edgy, hate-filled remarks, showing the racism and hatred underlying our culture, even in the 21st century. And Kirk (and others like him) have risen to fame and fortune by hanging on Trump’s coattails, being particularly emboldened by Trump’s sweeping changes to the U.S. since taking office again in 2025: anti-DEI initiatives, mass deportation of immigrants, suppression of free speech, etc.
As I am writing this, I tuned in randomly to a past episode of The Charlie Kirk Show. Just for a few minutes. And I hear one of his guests say, “… it’s obviously a good thing if it inspires left-wingers to set themselves on fire.” I couldn’t tell who it was who chuckled, but Kirk didn’t object to the statement at all.
I know, it is not okay to speak ill of the dead (though someone should have talked with Kirk about that as regards George Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr.). I never met Kirk, but I have been horrified at what he said about everyone around him who was different from him. Kirk’s (and Trump’s) violent rhetoric has played a significant role in creating our current political situation, one in which physical violence… and particularly gun violence… are far too common.
Smithsonian Museum of the Bible
Trump Diaries #45, 9 September 2025
I swear that I wasn’t planning on another Diaries entry this morning, but I made the mistake of reading Trump’s feed on TruthSocial. Trump posted:
"America has always been a nation that believes in the power of prayer... Together we will make our Country greater, stronger, more united, and more faithful than ever before!"
It is the header to a video of himself, apparently from yesterday evening, speaking at the Museum of the Bible (which is in DC). In the video, he goes on to say lots of inspiring stuff, but here are some key excerpts:
"Under the Trump administration, we’re defending our rights, and restoring our identity as a nation under God. We will protect the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding… [video clearly edited]… I am delighted to announce that I have personally delivered the Trump Family Bible given to me by my mother. It was used in both my inaugurations and will now be displayed right in the heart of our nation’s capitol... [some stuff about protecting prayer in public schools]… and I created the first ever Department of Justice task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias…"
I’ve never been to the Museum of the Bible, but its website actually looks pretty professional, I have to say. And now they have the donation of the Trump family bible (I guess that he may not be needing it very much?). Regardless, though, if they put the bible with “Donald Trump” neatly inscribed on its front cover on display, it is clear that they are participating in the Trump national bullshit campaign of whitewashing the image of a very dirty person. Imagine the display in the museum: “and now, a tribute to the faith of our dear leader, a saintly man and devout Christian…”
But another Trump ego trip is not why I am writing this commentary. Rather, I want to make a prediction before Trump goes and does what I am predicting. How about we add the Museum of the Bible to the Smithsonian portfolio? That way, it can be funded federally, as a symbol of the Judeo-Christian nature of our country. Editing those pesky exhibits at the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to remove all of the negative stuff about good (white, Christian) Americans is going to be a pain in the butt.
Why not just close those museums, and focus on a new suite of Smithsonian museums? We can start with the Museum of the Bible, front and center. Then, we can go on to the MAGA Museum, the National Museum of American White People, and the Museum of Important Men. Maybe even the Trump Museum?
Department of War or National Military Establishment?
Trump Diaries #44, 8 September 2025
Trump recently issued an executive order entitled “Restoring the United States Department of War.” The gist of this order is that, under the early name of the “Department of War,” the U.S. military won the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, “inspiring awe and confidence in our Nation’s military, and ensuring freedom and prosperity for all Americans.” In effect, given Trump’s announcement, the Department of Defense can now be referred to as the Department of War.
All of this is notwithstanding the fact that cabinet-level departments (e.g., Department of State) were created by acts of Congress. Because the names, structures, and functions of the various departments are formalized in laws, any changes to those departments have to be changed by Congress, not by whim of the president. What Trump has done is to create a “secondary title” for the department and for Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense. (Do we really trust Hegseth to be the Secretary of War?) Which is to say, the name of the Department of Defense is still the Department of Defense, but Trump’s government can use the alternative name so that they feel that there is a new name.
I write this essay to suggest that Trump go farther back into history and get an even better name for his version of the U.S. military. Between 1947 and 1949, the military was unified under the name “National Military Establishment.” In this age of sending troops into U.S. cities and carrying out acts of war against other countries with no authorization from Congress, I think that “National Military Establishment” is actually more appropriate.
Now, if you have been reading the Trump Diaries series, you have seen my rather twisted views of history, and you might wonder why?
Well, and these comments are in view of the mis-use and mis-command of the military that are unique to the Trump administration, consider the “National Military Establishment” carefully… Just like we refer to the Department of Defense as the “dee ohh dee,” we could refer to the National Military Establishment as the en em eee. Right?
[I wish that I could take credit for this one, but a number of media sources have suggested that this unfortunate abbreviation was the reason for the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (Public Law 81-216), changing the name of the U.S. military to “Department of Defense.” However, ChatGPT and I have done extensive searches … the National Security Act Amendments conference report, Congressional Record debates, President Truman’s signing statement, the Truman Library collections, the Hoover Commission reports, the Eberstadt Task Force recommendations, oral histories and memoir excerpts available online, the Department of Defense Historical Office, digitized newspapers from 1947–1949, secondary DoD historical summaries, and FRUS compilations, modern press and encyclopedic accounts. ChatGPT and I did a pretty thorough search, and nothing… no historical mentions! Sadly, it looks like there is no mention of “NME” as a reason for “DOD.” That would have been a fun read.]
Still, as long as Trump is mis-using the military as a tool for furthering his own political whims and racist leanings, maybe NME would be a better name. This is not about the soldiers… they are being used as pawns by Trump and his minions to further political whims, and they are being put in the middle of a big, messy constitutional crisis about what powers the U.S. president actually has. Let’s hope that Congress or the Supreme Court can find the backbone to put Trump in his place, and make clear that the president does not have the power to mobilize the military within the country, or to make wartime moves against a country with which the U.S. is not at war.
Will they? I’m not holding my breath.
Destroying Public Trust in the CDC
Trump Diaries #43, 4 September 2025
Two days ago, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, We’re Restoring Public Trust in the CDC. As I mentioned in my previous Trump Diaries entry about the CDC, I have worked for many years in collaboration with numerous CDC scientists, so this issue is close to my heart. But I would have blown up and written another Diaries entry regardless: RFK Jr. is simply delusional… he has no understanding whatsoever of what is his job and how he is messing up nonstop. (And those who know me will tell you that I am holding my tongue about this shitshow.)
Consider some points that RFK Jr. raises in his 2 September 2025 opinion piece:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was once the world’s most trusted guardian of public health. Its mission—protecting Americans from infectious disease—was clear and noble. But over the decades, bureaucratic inertia, politicized science and mission creep have corroded that purpose and squandered public trust.
The politicization blew up when RFK Jr.’s boss, Trump, shot off his mouth endlessly about how he thought public health measures aimed at braking the epidemic spread of COVID-19 were unnecessary. It continued with Trump’s libelous defamation of Dr. Anthony Fauci, and it continues to this day with Trump’s support for the lamest excuse ever for an HHS Secretary.
That dysfunction produced irrational policy during Covid: cloth masks on toddlers, arbitrary 6-foot distancing, boosters for healthy children, prolonged school closings, economy-crushing lockdowns, and the suppression of low-cost therapeutics in favor of experimental and ineffective drugs.
Ummm, RFK Jr., if he had any knowledge of public health, or if he were ever to consult with the public health experts who work under him (e.g., at the CDC!), might realize that mountains of modeling work and numerous empirical studies have shown that social distancing is key in slowing epidemic spread, and particularly for respiratory illnesses like COVID-19. Very simply, the CDC implemented exactly what was the best idea at that early stage in the global epidemic spread of an unknown virus; if it had not been knee-capped by Trump’s politicization of public health policy, CDC would have evolved its recommendations through time as knowledge built and evolved about the disease it was battling.
This failure was no anomaly. For years the CDC has presided over rising chronic disease—a true modern pandemic—and, since 2014, declining life expectancy. Trust has collapsed: Only one-third of health care workers participated in the 2023-24 fall Covid booster program, and fewer than 10% of children under 12 received boosters in 2024-25. The American people no longer believe the CDC has their best interests at heart.
Well yes, vaccination rates are low in the U.S. Isn’t that probably a function of Dear Leader Trump telling people that COVID-19 vaccination isn’t necessary, and the HHS Secretary casting doubt on all vaccinations. RFK Jr.’s war on vaccines even went so far as to include cancelling all of the research on mRNA-based vaccines, precisely the technology that saved so many lives during the Pandemic.
The CDC began in 1946 as the Communicable Disease Center, tasked with eradicating malaria. Within a year it expanded to all communicable diseases and provided hands-on support to state health departments. In 1951 it founded the Epidemic Intelligence Service—the “disease detectives” who became America’s first line of defense against outbreaks.
This and the following paragraphs that summarize the history of the CDC are cribbed by RFK Jr. (with careful adjustments to the text so as not to look like plagiarism) from a 1996 piece entitled History of CDC.
Today, only half of the CDC’s budget supports its infectious-disease mission. Fewer than 1 in 10 employees are epidemiologists. That drift explains much of the agency’s disastrous pandemic response. The Biden administration’s restructuring failed to solve the problem. It made a priority of health equity while ignoring the central issue: The CDC has strayed from its core mission.
This is the classic statement coming from a white male of massive privilege, and who could be more of a privileged white male than RFK Jr.? He said in 2021, “We should not be giving Black people the same vaccine schedule that’s given to whites, because their immune system is better than ours.” Well, first of all, that is racist bullshit. Second of all, how can you say something like that and then cancel all research at CDC about health equity? A crucial element of that research is how individuals and populations may or may not differ in their health-care needs, so you need to include all sectors of the U.S. population in research efforts: white, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, men, LGBTQ+, straight, everyone.
We have shown what a focused CDC can achieve. When measles flared this year in Texas, we brought vaccines, therapeutics and resources to the epicenter. The outbreak ended quickly, proving the CDC can act swiftly with precision when guided by science and freed from ideology.
RFK Jr. is nothing short of a lying sack of shit here, as his HHS did nothing of the sort. A bit of history… as of 1964, the U.S. had >450,000 cases of the disease; with introduction of a first measles vaccine, national case rates dropped about 9-fold by 1968. With introduction of a 2-dose vaccination regime, case rates dropped still further, and the disease was declared “eradicated” in the U.S. by 2000. Occasional cases and small outbreaks did pop up, indeed mostly in communities with low vaccination rates: 13 in 2020, 49 in 2021, 121 in 2022, 59 in 2023, and 285 in 2024.
But in 2025 so far, under the supposed health leadership of RFK Jr., there have been 1431 cases, in a massive outbreak that blew up in February, beginning in rural western Texas. RFK Jr., in a 4 March 2025 Fox News interview, said “Right now, we have… uh… we’re delivering vitamin A. Umm… we’re providing assistance if people need ambulance rides…” No mention of vaccination, but he does go on to cite cod liver oil (among other treatments) as having given very good results. In no way, can RFK Jr. take credit for effective handling of the measles outbreak.
We know chronic disease made Covid especially lethal in America. Infectious and chronic illness are linked. Tools meant to fight disease—vaccines, antibiotics, therapeutics—can save lives but also trigger adverse events in some patients. That truth must no longer be ignored.
Now, RFK Jr. gets to his “thing.” He is all about chronic diseases, and he hates vaccines. Note his comment that vaccines cause “trigger adverse events in some patients,” and please see an earlier Diaries entry (#6) about the lack of truth in RFK Jr.’s frequent assertion about those adverse events. Yes, of course, chronic and infectious diseases are linked, and both link to human diversity, which is no longer included within the CDC’s purview.
[In a list of priorities for CDC…] Invest in workforce. Rebuild the proud tradition of disease detectives, training epidemiologists at home and abroad.
Here again, RFK Jr. is simply out in fantasyland in saying that this is among the important priorities for CDC into the future. Not only was Susan Monarez fired from the directorship and four of her top leaders in running CDC resigned, but the CDC is seeing massive personnel reductions… some from firings, and many disease experts (including RFK Jr’s “disease detectives”) are leaving. Lots of them. And it is because they have perceived that the CDC is being run by an idiot HHS Secretary, and Monarez will surely be replaced by someone similarly idiotic as CDC Director.
We have already taken steps to eliminate conflicts of interest and bureaucratic complacency. We have shaken up the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. We have replaced leaders who resisted reform.
RFK Jr. did not shake up the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but rather removed all of its members! The new ACIP includes multiple individuals known to be vaccine skeptics, and Susan Monarez said that she was fired because she would not pre-approve whatever would be the recommendations of the new ACIP about vaccine schedules and protocols. This is not about resisting reform, but rather seeking “yes men” who will follow whatever babble RFK Jr. and Trump want them to follow.
The American people elected President Trump—not entrenched bureaucrats—to set health policy. That is the MAHA commitment—make America healthy again—in action.
Did they? No one votes for a president to set health policy. Have we ever had a U.S. president who was a medical doctor? Nope. And certainly no one voting for Trump did it because of his public health expertise.
Most CDC rank-and-file staff are honest public servants. Under this renewed mission, they can do their jobs as scientists without bowing to politics. The agency will again become the world authority on infectious-disease policy.
RFK Jr., I know that you will not read this, but give me a break. The politicization of CDC and U.S. public health policy is a Trump creation. Until you, RFK Jr., learn that research is objective, that CDC scientists are scientists and not idealogues like yourself, and that public health proceeds as a series of best-guess solutions with the best of intentions (e.g., masking in schools), the CDC will continue to decline towards death. Shame on you.
Is the Gulf of Tonkin in Venezuela?
Trump Diaries #42, 3 September 2025
(The focus of this day should be on the testimonies being given by the brave group of victims of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and others. By offering this commentary about Venezuela, I do not in any way intend to take away from the importance of that event. Rather, my concern is that events going on near Venezuela may be another attempt to distract the nation’s attention from the child abuse situation.)
Yesterday afternoon, Trump posted the following on TruthSocial:
Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere. The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!!!!!
The content of this post is typical: full of bluster, and full of things presented as facts that are probably not at all factual. For example, I can find no reputable reports linking Nicolas Maduro to Tren de Aragua, other than the messy and chaotic nature of the country and the lack of a serious plan from Maduro to fight this organization. I also cannot find, and really do not expect to find, any evidence that the vessel allegedly destroyed by the U.S. military was indeed trafficking drugs. I cannot imagine killing 11 people with no trial, evidence, or judgement: how do we know that family members or hostages were not on that boat? Please do not think that I am defending the Maduro regime: I am simply expressing my complete lack of trust in Trump, in view of his penchant for lying.
Why is this happening? Many people believe—myself included—that Trump does big, controversial things as a way to distract attention from things that he does not want to be featured in the news. In this case, I can only assume that the Venezuelan thing is about keeping the U.S. attention far away from the Epstein matter.
But this Venezuela attack by the U.S. military brings up echoes of events that happened 60 years ago. On 2 August 1964, the USS Maddox was apparently attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam. A second attack purportedly happened on 4 August. (I was almost three weeks old when all of this was happening, by the way!) Although subsequent information indicates that the second attack never happened, President Lyndon Johnson used the supposed attacks to convince the Congress to give him considerable military authorization (yes, Johnson asked for authorization, unlike Trump!). Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which Johnson and later Nixon used as authorization for the massive-scale Vietnam War.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution reads (in part):
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace… Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
A nice, winnable, but not short war against Venezuela might be ideal for Trump right now. In the short term, it would be a great distraction from the Epstein matter and other problems that Trump has on his radar screen.
In the longer term, one can imagine Trump and his supporters using the old Republican slogan, “Don’t swap horses in the middle of the stream.” (Yes, that came from Abraham Lincoln, and he was a Republican.) Could this be the seed for canceling the 2028 elections because we might be in the midst of a war with Venezuela?
Yes, I know that I am venturing a lot on one rather heavy-handed apparent drug interdiction. But I also know that these things aren’t happening at random or by coincidence. Why start rattling sabers with Venezuela now? You tell me.
Killing the CDC: Trump’s Worst Presidential Sin?
Trump Diaries #41, 29 August 2025
Straight-up opinion coming in this Diaries entry. I’ve worked with researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for 20+ years now, and I have gotten to know the CDC and its public health mission pretty well. As president, Trump has made many mistakes, and has done many things that I find reprehensible. But this could be his biggest sin yet… I am heartbroken to see the U.S.’s public health agency being dismembered; more importantly, this sequence of events will result in deaths and suffering in the U.S. and around the world.
The CDC was founded in 1946, growing out of the Public Health Service and other wartime disease-control initiatives. Over the ensuing decades, the CDC led many initiatives triggered by disease emergence events: perfecting polio vaccination protocols, development of an influenza vaccine, eradication of smallpox, discovering the causes of Legionnaires disease and toxic-shock syndrome, helping to shape public health responses to AIDS when it emerged, and creating an effective response to the emergence of American hantavirus and associated respiratory syndromes. A more complete history of the CDC can be found here.
CDC is a jewel in the U.S. government, with great achievements that have made for meaningful improvements to public health in the U.S. and around the world. (It is also far from perfect. CDC was a focus of a much-deserved firestorm of criticism regarding the infamous Tuskegee study of effects of untreated syphilis on black men, and later for its response and recommendations in a swine flu epidemic that fizzled out and never happened.) Overall, though, at least in recent decades, CDC is what this country should want from a public health agency: a unit that makes bold public health recommendations based on evidence, with the goal of controlling and preventing disease outbreaks.
Most prominent among public health challenges in recent memory was the COVID-19 Pandemic. This outbreak was a massive-scale epidemic that was caused by a coronavirus, a group of viruses that at the time had very unclear potential to cause massive mortality among humans. As the Pandemic developed rapidly in 2020, CDC issued the best guidance about public-health response that could be made at that moment. Clearly, some of the early response recommendations were unnecessary (remember all the focus on washing your groceries?), but that is what you do when nothing is known about a particular disease agent. As the Pandemic and knowledge about the virus evolved, CDC’s recommendations evolved as well, as it should be when an agency offers evidence-based advice.
Where does Trump come into this picture? In 2020, as the Pandemic was blowing up and as Trump’s first term was winding down, Trump politicized public health response. Trump had his own, deeply misinformed ideas about how the country should respond to COVID-19… remember the bleach idea or the bright light idea? Trump, over and over, blamed the agency tasked with caring for U.S. public health, expressed doubt about CDC recommendations, and encouraged states to ignore those recommendations. The president is supposed to be a leader: appoint the best people to head government agencies, and then back them up. Rather, he undercut key agencies like the CDC at every opportunity.
In Trump’s second term, the first warning signs were his appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as initial attempts to name a director for the CDC. However, as of 31 July 2025, Director Susan Monarez was in place; though not perfect, she made credible efforts to guide the CDC through the complex landscape of the second Trump presidency. Possibly Trump himself has been quieter about CDC in his second term, but RFK Jr. clearly has an agenda of his own that contrasts sharply with public health practice. RFK Jr. has been working steadily to dismantle anything and everything that has to do with vaccination, and the Musk/DOGE efforts took out many other sectors of the agency.
What have they done? Trump and RFK Jr. and Musk/DOGE have hollowed out the CDC. It is not just an across-the-board reduction, to be clear. Rather, they have targeted programs that have social and economic dimensions: for instance, they devastated the CDC sections focused on environmental health and injury prevention, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, and chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes). All efforts to assure that public health responses apply broadly across the diversity of the U.S. population have been reduced or removed. Crucial mechanisms for assuring that U.S. vaccination policy is science-based and maximally effective have been knee-capped. What is left is a shell: not just is Monarez gone, but a long line of leaders and scientists at the CDC are leaving. Perhaps more important still, the lack of a basis on evidence is tangible, and public trust is (appropriately) waning.
Will this matter? Yes. The U.S. is a big country that continually faces public health challenges. Not all of them are as dramatic as the COVID-19 Pandemic, but all of them threaten human life and well-being in the U.S. Without a vibrant, independent, evidence-based CDC, lives will be lost. Shame on Trump, shame on RFK Jr., and shame on all in the U.S. who are standing by as if this does not matter much.
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
Who’s The (Un)Fairest of Them All?
Trump Diaries #40, 25 August 2025
The uproar over the Trump-demanded, mid-cycle, explicit party gerrymandering that Texas is setting out to implement has boiled down to the Republicans saying that the Democrats have gerrymandered way more than the Republicans have, and the Republicans want to make things fair again. I head J.D. Vance spouting these ideas this morning, and he and Trump always say things with such conviction that you almost believe them. But then I remembered that Trump… and it would seem Vance as well… are pathological and habitual liars, so I thought that I should see for myself.
If you have been reading the Trump Diaries, you know that most of the time I just go deep on the facts, going back to original sources and coming to my own understanding of things. Sometimes, however, I reach into my scientist toolkit and do some geek-it-out data analysis. So this time, I decided to link two key datasets: the percentage of voters either voting for or leaning towards voting for a particular party, and the number of seats that each party in each state holds in the House of Representatives. The product of the proportion of voters going for a particular party and the number of House seats that a state has would give an expected number of seats for that party if there is no partisan gerrymandering going on. If, on the other hand, a particular party has more seats in the House than its proportional representation in the state would predict, it would smell of political gerrymandering.
So I grabbed a table of the results of a 2017 Gallup Poll about party affiliation in each state, and another from Brittanica that is a summary of the composition of the 119th Congress. I counted the number of Democrat and Republican representatives (skipping vacancies), and calculated the expectation of number of representatives if the Gallup poll accurately reflects how voters vote in that state. I then compared the no-gerrymander expectations to the actual number of representatives for each party in each state, and flagged possible gerrymanders if the positive difference was greater than or equal to 1. That is, I am interested in cases in which a party has more than one full House member more than you would expect given reported party allegiance in that state.
Indeed, both parties have situations in which the party has more representatives than the Gallup Poll results would lead us to expect in a given state. The Democrats have excess numbers in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, whereas the Republicans have excess numbers in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. And the winner for worse gerrymanderer is? Who is the (un)fairest of them all? Basically, it is a tie… Democrats 22 extra representatives, and Republicans 21 extra representatives.
Of course, many reasons exist for why a state might vary from exact expectations of party balance in its Congressional delegation as I have calculated, particularly as to how voters are distributed spatially, given that House districts are supposed to be contiguous: If parties are concentrated in different parts of the state (e.g., in Missouri, where Democrats are concentrated in St. Louis and Kansas City, and Republicans are everywhere else, for the most part), then my calculations should be pretty good. But if the minority party in a state is a minority everywhere in the state, it may come up with no representation whatsoever, even without gerrymandering. Other potential problems include that the Gallup Poll might be misleading, or simple random variation. Still, in broad view, my index should at least catch big, bad gerrymandering cases.
So no, J.D., the Democrats have not been on a decades-long, crazed gerrymandering spree! Rather, the voting system is mostly representative of how the Gallup Poll captured party affiliation and allegiance, and neither party is outpacing the other in terms of fixing the results… YET. What Texas is doing would tip the balance. California proposes to tip it back into balance. I simply do not understand the immaturity of Trump in saying, in effect, “I hate to lose, so I will abandon all principle and ethics [if he ever had any!], and rig the game.”
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
No More Voting by Mail VS The ConstitutioN
Trump Diaries #39, 22 August 2025
My morning perusal of Trump’s TruthSocial posts got me to this August 18 post, where Trump announces his attention to create a radically different electoral system:
I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly “Inaccurate,” Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.
Trump goes on, with his usual penchant for mistruth, to say “We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting.” (The list of countries in which all voters are eligible to vote by mail includes such un-democratic entities as Canada, Germany, Iceland, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. But we have all gotten very used to Trump’s mistruths, so I am just going to cruise by this lie.)
More importantly, however, is Trump’s thought that he can lead such an effort to change states’ electoral systems. In a rather chilling statement of presidential overreach, he says:
Remember, the States are merely an “agent” for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.
Ummmm, that is simply not true. We have something that is called a constitution, which states quite clearly who does what in federal elections. Here is Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
This clause is pretty darn clear. The Constitution was a tool by which the Founders of the country united 13 colonies, each of which had its own ways of doing business. None of those early colonies was interested in creating a system in which the new federal government would tell them how to conduct their elections.
Trump has already issued one executive order about elections (25 March 2025), where he talked about banning mail-in voting and voting machines, but the order per se is about identifications and enforcement, and does not speak to the mail-in voting issue. One would assume that he either plans another executive order, or that he will have his minions in Congress try to construe the second part of the quote above from the Constitution (“Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”) in a way that it has never been construed before.
My prediction is that he will go the executive order route, and will aim to cut off all federal funding to support elections in states that do not follow his order. Programs such as those created under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which has amounted to more than $4.35 billion. Which is to say, Trump is the Threat President: if anyone (or any state) does not follow his orders (whims), he searches the federal government for a way to ruin them.
Lost In Translation
Trump Diaries #38, 20 August 2025
Trump started my day yesterday with a TruthSocial post telling the world what a success the U.S.-Ukraine meeting was on Monday. (My best guess is that the meeting went well thanks only to the large retinue of European leaders who accompanied President Zelenskyy to make sure that Trump did not disgrace himself and the office of the president of the U.S., as he did the last time that he received Zelenskyy at the White House… But at least the right things were said, and relatively few of the wrong things were said.) But, at the end of Trump’s post, he mentioned, “Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.” That started my day off poorly…
The mention of “Special Envoy Steve Witkoff” reminded me of a news item that I set aside months ago, and which is worthy of mention in the Diaries series: more on that below. First of all, who is Steve Witkoff? Born in the Bronx, Witkoff studied at Hofstra University, earning a bachelor’s degree in 1980 and a J.D. in 1983. He then became a real estate lawyer, with clients including Trump, and went on to considerable success in real estate, with a fortune of about $2 billion. Witkoff has been present throughout the Trump presidencies, being part of a group formed to avoid economic damage from the COVID-19 Pandemic, playing golf with Trump the day of the second assassination attempt, co-chairing the 2024-2025 Presidential Inaugural Committee, etc.
As is typical of Trump’s presidency, Witkoff was named U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East when Trump took office for the second time, notwithstanding the fact that Witkoff had no diplomatic experience. Witkoff apparently had some role in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, but of course always deferred to Trump and appeared to be cutting deals with Israel that did not favor the people of Gaza in any way, and has lost the trust of many involved with those deals.
Importantly, Trump soon began using Witkoff as his lead in relations with Russia as well, clearly putting Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines. Witkoff met with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia early in 2025, and has met with Putin himself on several occasions. Clearly, though, Witkoff adheres to the Trump tendencies to trust Putin as having good intentions, blame the war on Ukraine, and assume a priori that Ukraine will have to cede territory to Russia to end the war.
Okay, so back to the minor news item that set me off months ago, but that got lost in the flood of other crap coming out of the Trump presidency… it emerged that Witkoff did official “special envoy” visits to Russia without a U.S. government translator. Instead, he apparently relied on the translations provided by the Russians.
I have spent my entire life in multilingual situations. My grandparents spoke little English, so my siblings and I had to ask a parent, uncle, or aunt to translate for us. My spouse is not a native English speaker either, and we communicate with one another exclusively in Spanish. And much of my own career as an academic has been based on collaborations with colleagues in Mexico, Brazil, Africa, and Asia. In some cases, I have language ability, and in others I have depended on someone else to translate for me.
Very simply put, there is no substitute for your own, deep understanding of a language in any communication. Lacking that… of course, Witkoff has no knowledge of Russian… one must have trusted, reliable translators if one is to get anything done. But relying on Russian translators in difficult discussions of international policy (not to mention war)? What a stupid idea.
As with everything in the Trump Era as regards Russia, Witkoff trusts the Russians just as Trump trusts them. After all, Putin is a good guy, and I am sure that we can trust him. Right?
Biden’s Stupid War?
Trump Diaries #37, 17 August 2025
Trump started my morning today with a TruthSocial post saying, “I had a great meeting in Alaska on Biden’s stupid War, a war that should have never happened!!” For once, Donald and I agree on something… “the Russian war on Ukraine should never have happened. The rest of that sentence, however, is something on which we cannot agree: Trump is, as always, distorting and misrepresenting the truth.
Let’s review what has actually happened between Russia and Ukraine in the past couple of decades. In his earlier career, Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych had been a proponent of greater ties to the West, but apparently came under increasing Russian influence once he became president. His sudden withdrawal from an agreement with the European Union early in 2014 sparked large-scale protests and his ouster. Within a few weeks, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, including crucial ports on the Black Sea that had been Ukraine’s vital tie to global shipping. Within a couple of months more, pro-Russian groups seized parts of eastern Ukraine, starting a long-term conflict that was supported covertly by Russia. With the conflict in eastern Ukraine ongoing, and with the excuse of possible NATO membership for Ukraine, Russian President Putin sent a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Yes, indeed, it is true that the full military Russian invasion of Ukraine began during the Biden presidency. But the Russian takeover of the young country of Ukraine began long before Biden. Putin has his reasons why he would want to conquer Ukraine: resurrecting the Russian empire, access to key shipping ports, keeping NATO farther from the Russian border, etc. I am certainly not an expert in the region, but I visited Ukraine in 2013, and the Ukraine-Russia tension was very evident, again long before Biden was president.
If any U.S. president is to blame for the Russian war on Ukraine, it would be Trump himself. Remember the infamous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy? The one that led to Trump’s first impeachment? That call came after Trump stopped a shipment of military aid to Ukraine; once the call became public, it was clear that Ukraine had no support from the U.S. president… Trump. Putin already had his eye on Ukraine, and Trump very clearly opened the door to a full-scale invasion.
Obama's Treason
Trump Diaries #36, 15 August 2025
I’ve always been bothered by any linkage between the world “intelligence” and Tulsi Gabbard, but she is, factually at least, the “Director of National Intelligence” for the U.S. at the moment. On 18 July 2025, Gabbard accused Former President Barack Obama and his leadership team of creating a false intelligence analysis, indicating that Russia had set out to help Trump win the 2016 election. Trump was interviewed by CNN recently (23 July 2025), saying (about Former President Obama):
And except for the fact that he gets shielded by the press for his entire life, that’s the one they — look, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. You know, I like to say, ‘Let’s give it time. It’s there. He’s guilty.’ They — this was treason, this was every word you can think of.
In spite of Trump’s disjointed way of speaking, you get the treason accusation pretty clearly. What I find hilarious, however, is that Gabbard makes a criminal referral, and Trump blabs incessantly about Obama’s crimes. However, they forget completely the 1 July 2024 Supreme Court decision (23-939, Trump versus United States) that states the following:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
So, Obama’s “treason” was allegedly for an unsuccessful attempt to slander Trump’s good name by pointing out that Trump has long been kissing Putin’s ass, and that Putin knew that he could manipulate Trump far easier than he could Hillary Clinton. All that was and still is all pretty obvious, to be honest (and we have yet to see what Trump does in his upcoming meeting with Putin). If only Obama had known about the Supreme Court ruling and about what Trump would do once he got a taste of power… Obama could have put that absolute presidential immunity to much better use!
Check out the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
2025 Kennedy Center Honoree List!
Trump Diaries #35, 13 August 2025
At 07:30 am, on 12 August 2025, Trump posted the following on TruthSocial:
GREAT Nominees for the TRUMP/KENNEDY CENTER, whoops, I mean, KENNEDY CENTER, AWARDS. They will be announced Wednesday. Tremendous work is being done, and money being spent, on bringing it back to the absolute TOP LEVEL of luxury, glamour, and entertainment. It had fallen on hard times, physically, BUT WILL SOON BE MAKING A MAJOR COMEBACK!!! President DJT
The National Cultural Center was established via the National Cultural Center Act of 1958. The center was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 1964, after President Kennedy’s assassination. Note that this is a cultural center, for the performing arts, not any forum for luxury or glamour. Trump is clearly missing his glory days of running the Miss USA Pageant.
Trump will apparently announce the 2025 Kennedy Center Awards today, so I am rushing this one to get it out to you all. I am interested in how the honorees will be chosen this year, so I started Googling (it is the 21st century, right?). I see on the Wikipedia page about the Kennedy Center (but with a broken link to a part of the Kennedy Center website that has likely been taken down) that
Honoree recommendations are accepted from the general public, and the Kennedy Center initiated a Special Honors Advisory Committee, which comprises members of the board of trustees as well as past Honorees and distinguished artists.
Given that honoree recommendations are accepted from the general public, I got excited that maybe I can get some good candidates out there and under consideration by Trump. Just hoping that some of these genuinely great people might be considered for the 2025 Trump/Kennedy Center Awards. Here is my list of nominees:
-
Singer Rhiannon Giddens – Grammy Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, of African-American and Native descent. Candidate statement: “I cannot in good conscience play at The Kennedy Center with the change in programming direction forced on the institution by this new board.”
-
Actress and singer Renée Fleming (though she won it already in 2023) – Five-time Grammy Award winner, awarded the U.S. National Medal of Arts, the Crystal Award from the World Economic Forum, the Fulbright Lifetime Achievement Medal, and honorary doctorates from eight universities. Candidate statement: “It has been a privilege to serve as an Artistic Advisor at Large to The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. David Rubenstein’s leadership as Chairman is just one of the many ways he has contributed to America’s cultural and historic heritage. He is the greatest patriot I know… As President of the Kennedy Center, Deborah Rutter has been a tireless, creative leader, successfully expanding our National Center for the Arts in visionary ways. [Both were sacked by Trump.] They have both been an inspiration to me; and out of respect, I think it right to depart as well.”
-
Performance artist Dread Scott – Awarded the Rome Prize, and named as a Guggenheim Fellow, and a United States Artists Fellow. Early in his career, Scott offered a challenging exhibit entitled What Is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag, which led to Congress attempting to make flag desecration illegal. That measure was later overturned by court decisions, and it is accepted that flags can be used in free speech. “Trump has promised to conduct mass deportations, force Muslims to register in government databases, torture families of suspected terrorists, and impose “law and order.” He has surrounded himself with neo-Nazis, climate-change deniers, Christian fundamentalists, and robber barons who with official power aim to eliminate access to abortion, seal borders, and expand wars.” (By the way, this quote is from 2016, when things hadn’t even started!)
-
Singer Ermias Joseph Asghedom (A.K.A. Nipsey Hussle) – Hussle denounced gun violence, even working with rival-gang-affiliated rappers; he funded improvements to neighborhood schools, and started co-working environments to create opportunities for youth in challenged neighborhood. Around 2016, he produced a very relevant rap. Candidate statement: “It wouldn't be the USA without Mexicans / And if it's time to team up, shit, let's begin,” and about speaking out… “But… this hip hop, this rap, we got a platform and we're going to use it for the right shit. I ain't hesitating no more.”
Yes, those are my nominees. If there is anyone left in the federal government, and if that person happens to read this essay, could you please pass them on to Trump, for his consideration?
But more seriously, a million questions come to mind. Why would we allow Trump to change our national cultural center into a big show venue for his chintzy events? And if Congress decreed the name of the center as the Kennedy Center, can’t only Congress make a second name change to the Trump Center (I do not doubt that some Republican congressman will make the proposal. With his slip of the tongue about a name change for the Kennedy Center, it is clear that Trump’s ego, and his followers’ tolerance for that ego, know no limits.)
Nipsey Hussle said, “I thought all that Donald Trump bullshit was a joke.” Back in 2016, too many people thought that. Now it’s real. It’s no joke, sorry.
Martial Law in D.C.
Trump Diaries #34, 11 August 2025
This morning … Trump and an impressive band of sycophants held a press conference at the White House about the future of Washington D.C. He had forewarned us. If you, like I do, open a TruthSocial account, you can see his announcement that …
Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today! Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR. I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN! The days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people, are OVER! I quickly fixed the Border (ZERO ILLEGALS in last 3 months!), D.C. is next!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT
[and yesterday, for a bit more detail…] The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong.
In the press conference per se, Trump laid out his plans for a federal takeover of Washington D.C., including taking control of the D.C. police and deploying the National Guard to control crime in the capitol.
This is tantamount to a declaration of martial law in the capitol city of the U.S. Clearly, Trump believes that he has the power and the right to use the full force of the U.S. government to take over, threaten, and silence anyone and anything that he wishes. Washington D.C. was established on 16 July 1790 (by none other than George Washington), and the D.C. Home Rule Act was enacted by Congress in December 1973, which allows the district a degree of autonomy in its city governance. Trump invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which reads:
SEC. 740… (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate. In no case, however, shall such services made available pursuant to any such direction under this subsection extend for a period in excess of forty-eight hours unless the President has, prior to the expiration of such period, notified the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and the House of Representatives, in writing, as to the reason for such direction and the period of time during which the need for such services is likely to continue.
Trump apparently signed the notifications to Congress this morning. It is worth noting, however, that subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this part of the Home Rule Act indicate time limits on this emergency power… distilling them down, these emergency powers cannot extend more than 30 days unless “the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.” (Remember to check on that one in early September!)
Initially, Trump is “just” taking over the D.C. police and deploying National Guard troops there, but in the press conference he indicated that he was willing to mobilize the military as well. Don’t think that there are limits, though … He perhaps slipped up when he said:
Under Biden, it was a disaster, and nobody did anything about it. We’re going to do things about it like you wouldn’t believe… We have other cities also that are bad. You look at Chicago. How bad it is … You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have of course Baltimore and Oakland … And this will go further. We are starting very strongly with D.C., and we’re going to clean it up real quickly, as they say.
With ICE roundups, and now cleaning out the homeless population, taking over civil governance, and military policing, among many other measures too numerous to list, we have major steps towards martial law.
And why stop at cities, when the U.S. has so much that can be put under Trump’s control. The southern border, Washington D.C., sanctuary cities, universities, national parks, federal lands, etc. With people, Trump said he would focus on violent criminal illegal immigrants, but that quickly turned into anyone undocumented, and then into anyone who is brown. Now it is the homeless. Who’s next? (People who write political commentaries might be a good place to start.) Hell, why not just take over the whole country?
Check out the whole Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
The Party of Lincoln
Trump Diaries #33, 9 August 2025
The nation has fixated on the drama in Texas. Trump orders his loyal followers in Texas to redistrict off-cycle, to generate five more reliably Republican seats in the House of Representatives, and governor Greg Abbott obediently introduces a bill to that effect in a special session of the Texas Legislature. Several Democrat members of the Texas Legislature flee the state to prevent the vote, and Texas threatens to arrest or fine them, or even to strip them of their seats in the Legislature. Trump says, “A lot of people are demanding they come back. You can't just sit it out. You have to go back…” and indicates that the FBI may have to help return them to Texas.
Well, fleeing a state legislature to break quorum and prevent a vote on important issues is nothing new. Indeed, in 1840, the Illinois State Legislature was using a Methodist church as a temporary home, and the Democrats were about to pass a bill that threatened the state bank. None other than Abraham Lincoln, to stop the passage of that bill, took action. The Illinois State Register recounted what happened:
A laughable circumstance took place while the yeas and nays were being called on the passage of the resolution. Mr Lincoln, of Sangamon, who was present during the whole scene, and who appeared to enjoy the embarrassment of the House, suddenly looked very grave after the Speaker announced that a quorum was present… Mr Lincoln came under great excitement, and having attempted and failed to get out at the door, very unceremoniously raised the window and jumped out, followed by one or two other members… We have not learned whether these flying members got hurt in their adventure, and we think it probable that at least one of them came off without damage, as it was noticed that his legs reached nearly from the window to the ground! …
We learn that a resolution will probably be introduced into the House this week to inquire into the expediency of raising the State House one story higher, in order to have the House set in the third story! so as to prevent members from jumping out of the windows! If such a resolution passes, Mr Lincoln will in future have to climb down the spout!
The Republicans proudly call themselves “the party of Lincoln,” as Lincoln was the first Republican to become president. Well, my Republican compatriots, maybe you should realize that Lincoln had ethics and strong beliefs, and was willing to act on them.
Maybe the Texas Republicans should find a backbone, admit that they know fully that an off-cycle partisan gerrymander at the order of an insecure president is not democratic, and just say no to Trump?
Catch the whole Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
Bye Bye, OCO: The Climate is Not Changing
Trump Diaries #32, 7 August 2025
NPR recently reported that NASA is making plans to end the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, two space-based sensors that measure carbon dioxide and plant growth worldwide. OCO-2 is a standalone satellite, which would be directed to burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere. OCO-3 is attached to the International Space Station, and would apparently just be turned off.
OCO-2 cost $467.7M, and OCO-3 another $110M, all from U.S. government funds, to get them into space and generating data. The OCO sensors do cost some money now that they are established (about $15M yearly, covering data management, data validation, and avoiding damage from space garbage). So the initial costs have already been spent, and the savings from ending OCO would be only $15M per year, which in U.S. government costs is not much.
Is OCO worth the money being spent? A 2023 evaluation of OCO (among other earth science sensors run by NASA) rated OCO as “Excellent” in terms of overall science findings, with “High” national interest, at only “Med Low” cost risk. In the evaluation, there are several paragraphs of summary of the high quality and great importance of the OCO data to science related to carbon, photosynthesis, and plant growth.
Indeed, looking at the science production that has come out of it, there are literally hundreds of scientific publications that are taking advantage of the OCO data… Here are just a few example titles: The reduced net carbon uptake over Northern Hemisphere land causes the close-to-normal CO2 growth rate in 2021 La Niña. Satellite‐based analysis of CO2 emissions from global cities: Regional, economic, and demographic attributes. The total emission estimation of thermal power plants using a top-down approach strongly impacted by satellite spatial resolution, precision, and monitoring frequency. Vegetation greening does not significantly enhance ecosystem resilience in the Northern Hemisphere. Wildfire-induced increases in photosynthesis in boreal forest ecosystems of North America. Enhancing space-based tracking of fossil fuel CO2 emissions via synergistic integration of OCO-2, OCO-3, and TROPOMI measurements.
This is a lot of neat, unique information and inference about how carbon and photosynthesis and plant growth are behaving across the planet, allowing scientists to examine differences between regions and changes through time. Entire careers of scientists are centered around such data streams, yet the plan at Trump’s NASA is apparently to throw away a half-billion-dollar investment and get rid of these two sensors.
Why? Very clearly because of their focus on carbon… yes, the data coming from these two sensors are extremely relevant to understanding climate change. That 2023 NASA evaluation report states:
The instrument is in excellent condition. There is enough propellant to allow for operations until 2040. The detectors are exhibiting slow degradation that is well monitored, understood, and quantitatively accounted for in production of the data products.
And yet the OCO sensors are slated for removal from function, eliminating crucially important data streams from the NASA portfolio. I guess that if you stick your head in the sand (or anywhere else you might stick it), you cannot see what is happening around you.
Does this mean that climate change will stop when OCO-2 and OCO-3 are no more?
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
2026 Presidential Election Redistricting Plan
Trump Diaries #31, 5 August 2025
The size, shape, and population of our 50 states and assorted other entities are the outcome of some fairly random and often-not-logical historical processes. Thirteen became states because they were the original colonies that united to form the U.S. in 1776. The rest were assembled either by dividing existing states into multiple states (e.g., Virginia), via the westward- and southward-expanding footprint of the U.S. (many states), and even by purchase (e.g., Alaska). But why did huge land areas like Texas join the U.S. as a single state rather than as bunches of smaller ones, when a smaller part of the Louisiana Purchase was split into two territories (Kansas and Nebraska)?
Each state gets two senators, plus a number of members of the House of Representatives in accord with its population. In presidential elections, electoral votes are apportioned among states and territories according to the total size of their Congressional delegations, senators + representatives.
Donald Trump just directed his minions in the state of Texas to redesign its congressional districts to deliver him five more congressional districts that will be reliably Republican. This redistricting would be off-cycle, and out of line with Texas law, which reads as follows:
The Legislature shall, at its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts…
But Texas Governor Greg Abbott put this off-cycle redistricting on the docket for a special session of the Texas State Legislature.
Back to my main point… if our current set of districts by which we elect U.S. presidents was created via a convoluted process that had nothing to do with how ideally to elect presidents, why not change those districts? If Trump is willing to violate Texas law—not to mention the rules of fair play and democracy—to keep control of the House of Representatives in the next election, why not do the same in the next presidential election as well?
Next news cycle, who knows, but we might just see this proposal. Let’s lump a bunch of those (blue) northeastern states, which are tiny and pretty reliably Democrat, into a single state. And let’s give Texas a big reward for its faithful service to Trumpism, and divide Texas into nine new states…
Some specifics: we combine New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland into a single state. (We can throw in that pesky District of Columbia, so that they stop their whining about not having representation in the Senate.) This new state, which I will provisionally call “New England,” will have a population of about 53 million people in an area of 150,000 square miles; it used to have 91 electoral votes, but now will lose 20, given only two senators to represent the whole area. Texas, on the other hand, will divide into 9 states (I chose areas all with about 3 million people, but I haven’t picked names for them, as I kinda feel that the local people should be given that opportunity), which will add 16-ish electoral votes to Texas, which surely will put them to better use than the New Englanders.
Check out my proposed new map of the 50 United States. Sure, New England looks a bit gerrymandered, but it’s not worse than the Kansas 1st District (where I live and where my vote matters little). What was once Texas now has some big states and some little ones… and, out of full fairness, the faithful in the new small Texas states will have to work to make sure that they dominate the vote in their new states and keep those states red.
But now you have my plan to Make America Great Again by assuring a Republican president in 2028. I know, it’s a work in progress, but I just wanted to get the idea of presidential election redistricting out there.
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
Three Impeachments, Not Five?
Trump Diaries #30, 2 August 2025
The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History has an exhibit that is about the American presidency, and that exhibit has a part about impeachment, one of the key limits on presidential power. (Remember that the Constitution was written at a point in time when the U.S. had just recently shed the absolute dominion of King George III, so limits on presidential power were important.) The exhibit appropriately and factually listed the four U.S. presidents who have been impeached by the House of Representatives: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (Trump famously was impeached twice)… or at least it did, until now.
The original version of the exhibit was created well before Trump came to the presidency, but a label was added in 2021 to mention Trump's 2019 and 2021 impeachments. That 2021 label was just recently removed. I cannot find any press release directly from the Smithsonian, but NPR quotes the Smithsonian as saying, “Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance….”
Yeah right. It is incredibly clear that either the Trump goons threatened the Smithsonian with budget cuts or some other harassment if they did not remove the 2021 label, or that the Smithsonian staff removed it out of fear of awakening some harassment of that sort.
This bugs the crap out of me for two reasons, one proximate and the other pretty deep.
As a museum curator, I am used to uncomfortable tensions between the factual content that needs to be said about our collection items that are exhibited, and what other people might want to see said about those collections. Like, the museum where I work has Comanche, a horse that was long termed as “the only survivor of the Battle of the Little Bighorn.” Lots needs to be said about the horse, the U.S. government role in that battle, and the many survivors of the battle. Not everyone will be happy as that information is expressed, but the complex and often difficult nature of the content is important if one is going to exhibit that material.
The other reason goes much deeper, and is about whitewashing history, and the Trump administration has gone down this road before (see Trump Diaries #19). Comanche is important because the U.S. government committed terrible atrocities against Native Americans, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn was one key event in that long sequence of events. I would love for that stuff never to have happened, but it DID happen. It needs to be remembered, discussed, and thought about, so that it is less likely to happen again. The Jewish Holocaust is another landmark in this regard, with the motto “never forget” being key. As an Armenian-American, the Armenian Holocaust is in danger of being forgotten as well. When history is forgotten (or erased purposefully), it can be repeated much more easily.
The key point is that history is rarely comfortable. Every time that we look into the past, we see that it is complicated. There are good and bad moments, and there are terrible events that should never have happened. Trump’s impeachments were each the outcome of things that Trump, or any president, should never have done… badgering a head of state of another country to invent evidence against a political rival of Trump, or inciting a violent mob to invade the U.S. capitol building. It looks like Trump can bully the Smithsonian into whitewashing history, but the history is there, and must never be forgotten.
My Religion is Better than Yours…
29 July 2025, Trump Diaries #29
A 28 July 2025 memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is entitled Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. It lays out what federal employees can and cannot do in their workplace, and from the title ought to be something that one would view positively. Given, however, that we are in the Trump era, it is of course not something positively. Here are some particularly inspiring excerpts:
“The Founders established a Nation in which people were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by their government.” President Trump is committed to reaffirming “America’s unique and beautiful tradition of religious liberty,” including by directing “the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.” [So let’s look out for the protections for religious liberty coming up in the rest of the document.]
The Federal workforce should be a welcoming place for Federal employees who practice a religious faith. Allowing religious discrimination in the Federal workplace violates the law. It also threatens to adversely impact recruitment and retention of highly-qualified employees of faith. [So if we allow religious discrimination in the federal workplace, we are less able to recruit and retain highly-qualified employees of faith. Let’s see, are we worried about recruiting and retaining Muslim Americans? I don’t think so…]
Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.14 However, Title VII does not cover all beliefs. For example, social, political, or economic philosophies, and mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs within the meaning of the statute. [Subtle point, but religion includes only churches and church-like things, and not any other belief system.]
Categories of employee conduct which should not result in a disciplinary or corrective action include but are not limited to: … Conversations Between Federal Employees: Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities. The constitutional rights of supervisors to engage in such conversations should not be distinguished from non-supervisory employees by the nature of their supervisory roles. However, unwillingness to engage in such conversations may not be the basis of workplace discipline. [So any employee can push their own belief system on other employees, including supervisors on their subordinates!]
These are just samples from the text of the letter, but they give a pretty clear idea that one can do what one wants in terms of bringing religion into the workplace. If a Catholic wants to wear a crucifix, that is within their rights. If someone wants to thank God even out loud for the nice weather, that is within their rights. And a Muslim might wish to interrupt their work to pray multiple times per day. It all sounds OK, right?
But let’s go further… The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has very few rules and does not pressure its members to follow specific beliefs, although Pastafarians do believe that humans evolved from pirates. Or maybe some federal employee is a Wiccan, with rituals incorporating natural elements and honoring seasonal cycles like solstices and equinoxes, and gods like the Horned God and Mother Goddess, and practice of magic. Or Satanism, or … Are these less-dominant religions included in the protections outlined in this document?
The new system is that it is okay to blend one’s private beliefs with one’s professional life, at least if you work in a government job. In fact, one can even now set about convincing one’s coworkers that their religion is not as cool as yours is (but politely, of course!). To my knowledge, current (previous) system of not mixing religion and profession evolved precisely because of the conflicts of interest that arise, and the potential for abuse and exclusion. I will underline two features of the new policy, however, that I believe will surely lead to problems.
First of all, the new policy makes clear that supervisors have the same “rights” in this regard as the people that they supervise. That is, even though a supervisor may have considerable power advantage over their subordinates, the supervisor is free to proselytize and attempt to convince their subordinates that the supervisor’s religion is better than theirs. And of course the supervisor does evaluations, and makes all sorts of subjective decisions about who is the better employee. This is a system that is completely set up for abuse, subjectivity, and favoritism.
Second is how this new policy will interact with race and other norms in behavior in U.S. society. Remember the 2016 Dallas police shooting, where the Dallas Police Department issued a nationwide announcement that a Mark Hughes was a “person of interest” in the shootings? Yes, Mark Hughes had every right to carry an assault rifle according to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and Texas law. However, because Mark Hughes was a black man, he scared the crap out of the Dallas Police Department, and he alone among all the gun-toting Texans present that day was announced as a person of interest. Not because he was carrying, but because he was black and carrying. Now, think about how a black person (or anyone who doesn’t fit with Trump’s ideas of oppression of white Christians) who is proselytizing will be perceived… by co-workers and by their supervisor… worse still, imagine a person of color who adheres to a less common and less normative religion.
All of this takes us back to which subsets of humanity are disadvantaged and in need of support and protection. In the world up to 2024, the U.S. recognized that certain subgroups of our population (e.g., African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, disabled people, etc.) were indeed disadvantaged, and genuinely needed and merited an extra bit of support from the U.S. government. Beginning in the first days of Trump’s second round as president, however, in effect, the U.S. government has pivoted 180°, reorienting everything to protect and support the dominant white population and its associated religion. Now, not only are all DEI programs gone and forbidden, but the full power of the U.S. government is behind the non-diverse, dominant subset of humanity. In the case of this Trump Diaries entry, although it is cloaked in a veil of supposed equanimity, it is really about giving further advantage and power to white Christians… and they will be able to push their views of God and religion on everyone else as much as they wish.
Catch the full Trump Diaries series at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
FEMA Funds Immigrant Detention Centers?
Trump Diaries #28, 26 July 2025
Fridays in the Trump era always seem to be the days when the most gross and disturbing news items hit. Yesterday was no exception. Here it goes: FEMA, in partnership with ICE, is now offering states a share of $608M to build immigrant detention centers in each state.
But wait… FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal disaster relief dates back to the Congressional Act of 1803, which was about suspending debts in the face of a fire in Portsmouth, New Hampshire in 1802. FEMA per se was created in 1979 by President Carter, with the dual mission of emergency management and civil defense. Finally, the Stafford Act of 1988 created FEMA’s current framework for disaster response and recovery in tandem with presidential disaster declarations. Hear anything about immigration enforcement in there?
Indeed, I read FEMA’s “Publication One,” which is its capstone doctrine, explaining the agency’s role in the emergency management community and providing direction for how it operates. Nowhere in Publication One is immigration enforcement mentioned. Indeed, the word “citizen” is never used in any sense related to who should be treated how. In short, reading its own foundational documents, FEMA is there to help before, during, and after disasters, including some disasters in other countries. Nothing about any enforcement actions.
FEMA, to my understanding, functions on the basis of disaster declarations by the President. I looked at Trump’s executive orders, and the only two that include the word “disaster” are one about wildfires and another about economic resilience. What is more, on the FEMA webpage, the list of current disasters includes severe storms, tornadoes, floods, and wildfires, but no immigrants or anything like that.
So what is Trump doing with FEMA funds? He is pillaging the FEMA budget to build out his racist, fascist, extremist efforts to rid the U.S. of what he considers a plague of illegal immigrants. Of course, Congress determines on what the U.S. government will spend money… but if and only if they decide to exercise that power. This Congress, with its double Republican majority, appears not to have any desire to tell Trump what to do or what not to do. So FEMA funds… already in danger from other Trump initiatives… are being gifted to ICE to be used for purposes that have nothing to do with disaster relief. When the next flood or hurricane or whatever hits, will FEMA have enough resources?
Catch all of the Trump Diaries series on Substack.
TD27: “The First Lady Melania Trump Opera House”????
Trump and his first lady are not exactly what one would call patrons of the arts, or even aficionados of the arts. Trump, on retaking the presidency, removed and replaced the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center, and named himself as Board Chair, apparently to cancel the “woke” agenda of that once-great institution. Many artists scheduled to perform at the Kennedy Center opted to cancel, in recognition of this hostile takeover of one of the great bastions of the performing arts in the U.S. Now, in the next salvo, Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed renaming the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ Opera House after Melania Trump.
This provision was inserted into a bill that funds the Department of the Interior and the EPA for the next year, and so was snuck into subcommittee-proposed legislation. The chair of the subcommittee that created the proposal stated: “First Lady Melania Trump serves as the Honorary Chair of the Board of Trustees at the Kennedy Center,” and "Naming a theater after her is an excellent way to recognize her appreciation for the arts." Really?
Naming important things after oneself, or after one’s spouse or kids, is an overt act of nepotism. It is the inexcusable sin of pride, and reflects abject lack of humility, so this is something that we should expect from Trump. Naming a major forum for the fine arts after Melania, however, goes much farther: Melania is a cheap, bare-ass model and show-off trophy third wife for Trump. Has anyone ever seen her do anything to support the fine arts? Sorry, at least in my book, stripping and posing for cheesy photos doesn’t count.
23 July 2025, Trump Diaries #27
Catch the entire Trump Diaries series on Substack at https://townpeterson.substack.com/.
TD26:
What is Trump’s End Game?
Since re-taking the presidency half a year ago, Trump has made massive-scale changes to the country (many of which have been the subject of my Trump Diaries essays). Trump and his team have reduced the size of the federal government, lowered governmental spending massively, reduced governmental regulation and enforcement, all but eliminated foreign aid, and slashed taxes for the wealthy at the cost of increasing the national debt impressively. They have all but closed the borders of the U.S. to immigration—including eliminating most of the routes to political asylum for oppressed people—and created an air of inhumane persecution for the people that they do not wish to have here in the U.S. Globally, they have turned the U.S. away from its traditional allies, and isolated the country in diplomatic, human rights, ethical, and security dimensions. They have turned the U.S. rather abruptly towards Christian Nationalism, along the way reducing freedom of expression, constraining freedom of the press, near-eliminating programs aimed at providing equal opportunities for the full diversity of people in the country, and taking steps towards restricting access to voting by U.S. citizens.
So what is Trump after?
For a long time, I thought that Trump’s career as a politician was one big grift, and that he would be proud of himself for using the U.S. presidency to make off with huge sums of money (remember the Trump International Hotel thing in Washington, D.C.?). In fact, I expected that, after his first term as president, he would laugh at the country and tell us how he had “taken” the country in the biggest grift ever. Indeed, he has found a bunch of ways to make tons of money out of being president, and it looks like he will get away with it. But that is nowhere near all that he is doing… that is, he is doing the grifting plus a bunch of things that don’t make much money at all.
If it were about money, first of all, he has plenty of it. But what do you do with money if you don’t have time to enjoy it and spend it? Trump doesn’t look like he is in good health, and is already pushing 80, so it doesn’t feel like he will be around for a very long time in a healthy old age. And I am not sure that he is much worried about leaving a huge inheritance for his kids or grand-kids… he doesn’t sound like he particularly cares about them, and they already have a bunch of money anyway.
So why do all this? Here are some thoughts …
Stay out of jail: Maybe this is a small point at this stage, but becoming president again did make all of the prosecutions and such simply go away. That’s got to be part of this, at least in some small way. However, a realist would say that he was never going to jail even if he hadn’t been re-elected for a second term as president… very simply, the law does not apply equally to every person in this country.
Ego: Is it fun to play around the world just because you can? Clearly, Trump has an ego that is enormous, and he obviously loves the power and freedom that being the president of the U.S. brings. This is why he steals World Cup trophies and medals, and says things that he knows will get people upset around the world. Some of his followers even go so far as to equate Trump with Jesus Christ (see image of a recent book for sale on Amazon!)
Watch the world burn: Michael Caine (as the wise butler Arthur) told Batman in Dark Knight that some men just want to watch the world burn. Although this is a tempting idea to pursue, I don’t think so… the Joker, in that movie, had a pretty deep philosophy about how the world is by nature chaotic, and that people who want an orderly world are blind to reality. Trump just doesn’t seem to be that thoughtful, and certainly nowhere near that sophisticated.
Dumb and manipulated? Trump clearly does a lot of things that he does not particularly care about. As president, this has taken him to many social positions that have won him favor and adoration from different sectors, which perhaps is a big bump to his ego. Maybe you do anything that your followers want you to do just so that they keep following you and thinking the world of you? Maybe that is enough?
Soooooo …
Does Trump believe in much of anything? He currently owns the Republican party, but Trump has switched his party affiliation multiple times: Republican, Independent, Democrat, whatever. About abortion and choice, in 1999, he said:
I am very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. ... I just believe in choice. Again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in some different parts of the country. ... I was raised in New York and grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly pro-choice.
And yet he is the president that explicitly promised to fill the Supreme Court with justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.
So where does this leave us about understanding what Trump is actually after? He’s an old man with all the power and money in the world. But he really appears to be consumed by his ego… the need to have others fawning over and doing whatever he wants them to do. And his ego demands more power, which in turn has led him to allow himself to be used and manipulated by many others. Does Trump agree, say with overturning Roe or with implementing Project 2025? Sadly, I think that he just does not care, so long as he gets his way, feels important, and has his ego stroked endlessly.
Trump Diaries #26, 17 July 2025
TD25: SMALL GOVERNMENT
14 July 2025
Trump’s administration is purging the U.S. government workforce… this time, we see the headline More than 1,000 People Laid Off at US State Department, reported by the BBC. Trump argues that the U.S. government is too large, and aims to reduce the size of the U.S. government and reduce spending massively. This State Department purge is only the latest in a long sequence of “reduction of force” firings that Trump, Elon Musk, and “DOGE” have implemented across the government since Trump re-took the presidency in January.
[This round of firings comes soon after a recent Supreme Court ruling, in which the justices paused an order from a federal judge in San Francisco that had stopped the governmental worker purge for a time. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson provided a 15-page dissenting opinion, which she began with the following:
Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this power to himself.
Notwithstanding the dissenting opinion, the majority decision removed the barriers to the Trump administration’s massive reductions to the U.S. government, manifested most recently in the State Department, and clearly to continue in departments throughout the government.]
It is interesting to contemplate, however, the terrible disaster on the Guadalupe River of the early morning of July 4. The loss of life is heartrending, period. The temptation exists, however, to blame someone: it could be Kerr County for not prioritizing a system of warning sirens, or the National Weather Service for some trip-up in issuing advisories, or FEMA for not getting there soon enough, or Kristi Noem for insisting on signing off personally on any expenditure above $100,000, or Trump and DOGE for the reduction in force in the National Weather Service, or the camp owners and homeowners who built in a dangerous floodplain. Or maybe we just blame God or chance or Mother Earth for a terrible storm that caused the floods in the first place.
Regardless of who of all of those listed above is to blame, one thing is completely clear: we have a big federal government precisely because the U.S. is a big, prosperous, and active country. Emergencies will arise, and we will need to count on the National Weather Service to predict extreme weather events, or the U.S. Geological Survey to give us warning of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor disease outbreaks, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prevent establishment of new invasive agricultural pests, or any number of other challenges for such a big country. Or the Federal Emergency Management Agency to mitigate the terrible effects after disasters have happened. And it is not just about disasters: how about the Federal Reserve to provide wise and apolitical management of the economy, or the diplomatic corps to negotiate international affairs intelligently and effectively, or USAID to reach out to the rest of the world to avoid suffering?
So the point is not to blame someone for the Texas disaster. Rather, the point is that the U.S. is so big that the potential for disasters will arise regularly (somewhere in the country), and that challenges for the prosperity of the country will always be looming. Managing these threats requires a large, capable, and experienced workforce working for the U.S. government.
Trump’s reduction in force for the U.S. government is exactly what the country least needs. DOGE swept through one arm of the government after another, firing whomever they could, and bullying even more into retirement or resignation. The reduction in force was not strategic, nor were the targets chosen strategically or based on analysis and contemplation. Rather, the firings were based on convenience (e.g., fire the people with least seniority) or ideology (e.g., fire the entire STD-focused arm of the CDC). We have no idea as to what the next disaster will be for the U.S., but we are quite clear that there will be a next disaster. When these disasters happen, we look to the federal government, but… thanks to Trump’s smaller government idea… there will less and less of a federal government to avoid the worst consequences, or bail us out once they happen.
Trump Diaries #26
Read the Trump Diaries series on Substack, at https://townpeterson.substack.com/
TD24: Nobel Prize?
Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize, so Trump should too. Right?
One group after another has been lining up to tell Trump that they have nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Recently, it was Pakistan, in recognition of Trump’s guiding Pakistan and India to a resolution to their most recent round of troubles. Now it is Israel, to recognize Trump’s leadership in getting Israel and Hamas to a ceasefire agreement. Some Republican members of Congress have apparently promoted the idea as well. Apparently, all of these individuals think that Trump deserves this most revered of honors.
In the Netanyahu letter to the Nobel Committee, the Israeli leader cited Trump's role in brokering the Abraham Accords and his "steadfast and exceptional dedication to promoting peace, security and stability around the world." Trump thought that he could put an end to the Israel-Gaza conflict quickly and the Russia-Ukraine war on his first day in office. One of the first Trump-Nobel efforts, by Republican members of Congress in 2018, were spurred by his efforts to ease nuclear tensions with North Korea.
But none of the major conflicts mentioned above is resolved. Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza, as does Russia for Ukraine. Trump has not emerged as a leader working for peace: he has appeased Putin, he proposed turning Gaza into a new “riviera” development (talk about gentrification!), and North Korea is as scary as ever. The initial signing of the Abraham Accords happened, but they are seen as abandoning the cause of the Palestinians; Saudi Arabia has indicated that the Palestinian issue will be a deal-breaker for their full participation. And about India and Pakistan, Trump said that he helped mediate the ceasefire preventing a potential nuclear conflict, but India made clear that the cessation of hostilities was achieved by direct communication and without any U.S. role.
The most recent Nobel Peace Prizes have gone to a remarkable lineup of admirable individuals and groups who are genuinely advancing peace around the world. In the last three years, the Prize has gone to a group in Japan working to create a nuclear-free world, an Iranian promoting human rights in Iran, and groups in Belarus and Ukraine promoting human rights and resisting oppression in their countries.
Has Trump really been working at that level? Now for my prediction, which will surprise no one: when the Nobel Committee does not give Trump the much-desired Prize, he will start saying how biased and corrupt they are. No introspection, no intellectually honest self-assessment, just blame.
Trump Diaries #24, 8 July 2025
TD23: Checks and balances
6 July 2025
Mike Johnson: “Mr. President, this is the gavel used to enact the big, beautiful bill, and I want you to have that for your collection.”
Donald Trump: “Are we ready? Are you ready?” [bangs the gavel on the desk several times]
This was just a silly celebration of a celebration after a hard fight to pass President Trump’s huge budget bill, but the symbol of “passing the gavel” is actually a big thing. Passing the gavel is a symbol of transition of power from one to another… in this case from the most powerful person in Congress to the president of the country. In the complex system of checks and balances outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the president’s power is limited in several ways by Congress:
The president does not have the power to wage war without Congressional approval.
The president does not have the power to impose taxes without Congressional approval.
The president appoints cabinet members and Supreme Court justices, but the Senate approves them.
The president can negotiate treaties with other countries, but they must be approved by the Senate.
Congress can investigate how the president implements the laws that the Congress passes.
Congress controls the nation’s budget, and can guide presidential activities by deciding where to and where not to dedicate resources.
So far, in just six months, Trump has mounted a major attack on Iran without advising Congress, and his many tariffs have been imposed by his whims rather than by something approved by Congress. Trump’s “Department of Governmental Efficiency” was run by an individual whose appointment was never approved by Congress. What is next?
TD22: Independence Day
4 July 2025
Today is the 249th birthday of the United States. I thought to respond to the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” yesterday, but maybe—given the importance of the day—something broader is in order. So I decided that I would celebrate this day by re-reading the Declaration of Independence, the document that made this day special.
Everyone knows this quote, which is easy, as it is right at the beginning.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But it still has a lot of meaning: note that it says all men (let’s assume that that includes women!) are created equal. Not just the ones who are lucky enough to be citizens, or white-skinned, but all people.
But keep reading all the way down through the Declaration, and you find statements like this:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And then, about King George,
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures… [National Guard and U.S. Military deployed in Los Angeles?]
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: … [imposing tariffs that are paid by the people, not by the country doing the importation]
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: … [how about Kilmar Abrego García?)
And concludes, about King George [and for today … DJT?]
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Perhaps something there that is relevant to today? Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
TD21: FULBRIGHT QUITS
29 June 2025
In the mid-1940s, after the close of the Second World War, the U.S. faced a world that was fractured and full of resentments, hatreds, and misunderstandings. Young Senator J. William Fulbright proposed an arrangement by which surplus war materiel would be sold to fund a broad program of international exchange between the U.S. and other countries. Fulbright’s plan also included an arrangement in which the U.S. could trade debt accumulated by other countries for further funding of the exchange program. The program was extended and expanded in 1961, with passage of the Fulbright-Hays Act. Throughout, the Fulbright Program has been based on the idea that interchange, interaction, and communication could build understanding and promote peace and rich learning on global scales.
The Fulbright Program has evolved into a prestigious global program of international exchanges, both with U.S. scholars going abroad, and with international scholars coming to the U.S. I personally have done extended stays in Brazil, Chile, and India, thanks to Fulbright, and I have hosted Fulbright scholars from Egypt, Togo, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere. Indeed, Fulbright has been so successful that one is often introduced in academic circles as a “Fulbright Scholar” (the name was even featured in a Paul Simon song!), so this program is one of the most evident and effective academic programs in U.S. culture for the past 80 years.
[A sad side note is that last week I found a very nice and comprehensive history of the Fulbright program on the State Department website, and bookmarked it so that I could return when writing this diary entry. It no longer exists!]
A recent (11 June 2025) Substack post, however, came directly from the Congressionally mandated Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, which makes the final decisions about granting these prestigious fellowships. I will quote from it, so that their words stand clearly:
Effective immediately, members of the Congressionally mandated Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board voted overwhelmingly to resign from the board, rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago.
At the program’s inception, Congress clearly specified that the Fulbright Board has final approval authority of applicants, which occurs after an exhaustive and deliberate, year-long process led by non-partisan career staff at the State Department and Embassies around the world. The process involves 49 binational, treaty-based commissions and over 150 countries, which contribute a significant amount of the annual funding for the Fulbright program. In fact, 35+ foreign governments match or exceed the U.S. government’s annual contribution.
…
However, the current administration has usurped the authority of the Board and denied Fulbright awards to a substantial number of individuals who were selected for the 2025-2026 academic year. The administration is also currently subjecting an additional 1,200 foreign Fulbright recipients to an unauthorized review process and could reject more. We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute.
…
It is our sincere hope that Congress, the courts, and future Fulbright Boards will prevent the administration’s efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation’s most respected and valuable programs. Injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law that Congress so wisely established nearly eight decades ago.
Not much more to say about this. It is what it is. And what it is is that the Trump administration is doing everything possible to diminish higher education and learning in this country. This effort can take the form of open attacks on Harvard University and other high-profile institutions, revoking grants that do not fit with the MAGA ideology, and cutting budgets for federal research funding sources massively. Here is a new way: reduce the international experiences for U.S. students and researchers, en route to a more isolated country with fewer people able to analyze and explore the fascinating insights that other scholars have developed around the world.
TD20:
War?
23 June 2025
This one is going to be short. Just three key excerpts from some pretty important documents. President Trump used the U.S. armed forces to bomb Iran a couple of days ago.
The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy… (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States… (U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2)
And, from the War Powers Resolution of 1973:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Isn’t that clear enough? Congress decides when we are at war, and the president commands the armed forces once we are at war. The president can send the armed forces into conflicts only if Congress allows it, or if there is an attack on the United States.
[According to the Nixon Presidential Library, the War Powers Resolution was born from frustration in Congress about Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, which was conducted without congressional approval.]
I don’t get it. The U.S. Congress has the only power to declare war. There has not been any invasion of the U.S., by Iran (or by MS-13, Tren de Aragua, or anyone). So how does Congress allow Trump to use the U.S. military without approval. Shall we just get rid of the Constitution? Have we already?
TD19: Positive Parks
18 June 2025
So apparently our national parks are all being hung with signs that read more or less thus (this text is copied from a sign posted at Rocky Mountain National Park):
[National park name] belongs to the American people, and the National Park Service wants your feedback. Please let us know if you have identified (1) any areas that need repair; (2) any services that need improvement; or (3) any signs or other information that are negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.
June 13 was apparently the Department of the Interior internal deadline for all National Park Service properties to have this signage posted.
Posting these signs apparently comes out of Trump’s 27 March 2025 executive order entitled, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. The order begins with something that I can almost agree with… “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.” I agree, except that the great bulk of this revision has happened not over the past decade, but rather since Trump re-took the presidency.
Very quickly, however, we can see where Trump is headed with this executive order:
Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed. Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe.
And then we get down to work… Here is what Trump is instructing the U.S. government to do:
… take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times)…
DOI Secretary Doug Burgum then got to work putting Trump’s broad order into effect. He issued a 20 May 2025 letter that sets out how the Department of the Interior would proceed. The purpose of the letter was:
… to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.
He directs the National Park Service to review all DOI properties to detect anything that disparages Americans “past or living (including persons living in colonial times)” or that describes natural features in anything unrelated to its “beauty, abundance, or grandeur.” Then,
Within 120 days of the date of this Order, each land management Bureau shall remove any content meeting the criteria identified in paragraph 1 or otherwise found to be inconsistent with the purposes of EO 14253. The relevant land management Bureau shall then take action to replace the removed content with content that focuses on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape…
So, by 20 September 2025, all National Park Service properties will have good, positive depictions of all of the people and landscapes that they feature in any interpretative signage. [As a museum curator, I have to ask … does anyone know how much time it takes to develop new content for those displays?]
OK, to help Burgum and the National Park Service out, I will do my best to create some new taglines for some National Park Service sites, as Burgum’s order indicates that they will have to create a lot of new content for almost all sites across the National Park Service. [Note to readers: the items that follow are intended to caricature the abject stupidity that will be involved in attempting to portray all Americans and American history positively. In no way do I really believe this revisionist crap, please believe me!]
-
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. “This school is important because it was here that 9 African-American children were given the opportunity to go to a really nice school in 1957. It was such a happy event and the children were so well-received by the magnanimous local people that the local police, the U.S. Army, and the Arkansas National Guard were all brought in to help with the celebration.”
-
Manzanar National Historic Site. “Manzanar is one of several beautiful American landscapes that were set aside as special housing for more than 120,000 Japanese-Americans during the early 1940s.”
-
Ford's Theatre National Historic Site. “This national historic site celebrates an old theater in Washington, D.C., that opened in 1863. It was at this theater that an encounter between two good American citizens gave Andrew Johnson the opportunity to become President of the United States.”
-
Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park. “This attractive park was established in Topeka, Kansas, to commemorate the 1954 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to let black and white children play and attend school together.”
-
Antietam National Battlefield. “This site is located in northwestern Maryland, and commemorates a big get-together that happened in 1862, and united good-hearted Americans from all over the country, north and south.”
-
Homestead National Historical Park. “This national historical park celebrates an amazing program of the U.S. government that allowed good Americans to take ownership of land across the great American landscape. Given that no one was living there before the whites of European descent arrived to civilize the landscape, this program opened the U.S. to humanity and helped to make America great.”
Okay, okay, I cannot do any more of this. I am usually known for a dark and sarcastic sense of humor, but I am feeling sick already from what I have just written above. I am very sorry if I have offended anyone with any of the rewrites of historical events that I have just listed above… they are intended only to highlight the stupidity of the Trump and Burgum orders.
The simple truth about history is that it is never all about good stuff. Rather, history is about good and bad, beautiful and ugly, all mixed together. Trump and his minions may think that they will now be portraying America in a more positive light. In my view, whitewashing history only builds our own ignorance.
TD18:
She's
Fired!
16 June 2025
On 30 May 2025, Donald Trump announced on TruthSocial the following:
Upon the request and recommendation of many people, I am herby terminating the employment of Kim Sajet as Director of the National Portrait Gallery. She is a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position. Her replacement will be named shortly. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Sajet is the first woman to serve as director of the National Portrait Gallery, and has led the institution for 12 years. She was born in Nigeria, though her parents were Dutch parents; she was raised in Australia, and is a citizen of the Netherlands. She studied at Georgetown University, Bryn Mawr College, University of Melbourne, and Deakin University. She had previously worked as director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, and two Australian art museums. Her bio on the National Portrait Gallery website reads:
As the first woman to serve as director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, Kim Sajet (pronounced Say-et) has been exploring new ways to place personal experience and creativity at the center of learning and civic awareness. Not just a place to see famous Americans, the museum explores identity as a social construct that has been shaped in equal measure by opportunity and ability, prejudice and fear…
Yeah, I guess that I can see why she would be on Trump’s list of people to be fired, though to me she sounds like a fascinating individual who would be ideal to lead an institution that might otherwise be a bit dry and uninteresting.
[As an aside, I had to create a Truth Social account to write this essay, and that let me see what other people on Truth Social had to say about Sajet… It’s not pretty:
GOOD RIDDANCE: Fired Director of the National Portrait Gallery is a Crazed Leftist, Trump-Hater, World Economic Forum Member, and Democrat Donor
and
Sajet hates America. She can go back home to Nigeria, where she was born.
Ouch. It always comes back to telling immigrants to go back home where they belong.]
So the end of the story is that the Smithsonian responded to Trump very correctly that Trump as President cannot fire a Smithsonian employee, yet Sajet resigned recently. I have no direct information about Sajet’s motives in resigning, but I am guessing that the Smithsonian leadership (likely including Sajet) analyzed the situation and concluded that Trump’s next move would be to dissolve the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and take control of the institution entirely. My read is that Sajet “took one for the team,” and resigned to save the Smithsonian, at least for a while longer.
But what about Trump’s real motives? If he were genuinely looking to purge the Smithsonian of DEI and other identity-based initiatives, wouldn’t he have gone after the National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of African Art, or the National Museum of the American Indian first? Or wouldn’t he have cancelled the planned National Museum of the American Latino, or the affiliate status of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History. Why not fire Smithsonian Secretary, Lonnie Bunch, who was the founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, has since been named Secretary of the Smithsonian, and has spoken up in protest against Trump’s desire to fire Sajet?
Rather, I think that a more pedestrian reason is lurking in the background. That is, Sajet rejected an amateurish and adoring “portrait” of Trump for display in the National Portrait Gallery… the amazing story was reported recently by The Washingtonian, which I will summarize here. Julian Raven, the painter (hard to say “artist” in this case), describes himself as “the artist who painted the prophetic, symbolic, patriotic, and historic Trump portrait/painting.” Raven apparently had “a vision” in 2015 of an eagle swooping down to save a fallen flag, which he eventually connected to Trump and eagles (he later described the moment as “WOW! WOW! WOW!”).
Raven traveled across the country as a Trump campaign groupie, and arrived uninvited to Trump Tower, where he passed a mini-version of the painting to one of Trump’s minions. He crashed a Trump meeting on African-American churches, charmed his way in, and eventually got his painting hanging in the Trump campaign headquarters. When Trump won the 2016 election, Raven realized that he had his big chance—to have his masterpiece hang in the National Portrait Gallery—as part of the celebration of Trump’s inauguration festivities. [You can see an image of the painting below, and you can make up your own mind… to my eye, it is pedestrian and has no creativity, insight, inspiration, or message, other than sucking up to Trump.]
Shortening a very long story, it apparently fell to Sajet to reject Raven’s bid to infect the National Portrait Gallery with his painting. In the course of a 12-minute conversation, she eventually had to tell Raven simply that “… the painting is no good.” Raven has since let loose a torrent of legal cases, and has appealed decisions all the way to the Supreme Court (which has not agreed to hear his case). But the simple message is clear… Sajet rejected a favorite portrait of Trump for inclusion in the National Portrait Gallery. What could paint a bigger red target on Sajet’s back more than that?
TD17: WAR ON CALIFORNIA II
13 June 2025
Five days ago, I wrote TD15, about Trump’s little war on California, in which he federalized California National Guard troops, and sent U.S. Marines as well, to quell protests that had turned violent in Los Angeles. There are lots of angles to this story, and the legal battles by which Governor Gavin Newsom will eventually reclaim control of the California National Guard are only beginning. This one will be complicated… but it comes down to a misstep in how the national disgust with Trump’s actions is being expressed.
In this diary entry, however, I want to focus on that one detail that is highly relevant… Up until now, in The Trump Diaries, I have pointed out errors and excesses committed by Trump. I will get back to Trump briefly at the end of this short diary entry, but I want to focus on an error being made by a small segment of the people doing the protests. This comment is particularly important because tomorrow is both Trump’s big birthday military parade and the “No Kings” protests in cities across the country… that is, there is going to be a lot of opportunity for protest, and it is really crucial to get this right.
Martin Luther King brought a fascinating innovation to the fight for civil rights in the U.S.: nonviolence. In effect, King’s idea was a nonviolent response to violence and hatred that had the effect of bringing about massive change. According to Stanford’s Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute, King’s idea of nonviolence had six key principles. (1) One can resist evil without resorting to violence. (2) Nonviolence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him. (3) The evil itself, and not the people committing the evil acts, is what must be opposed. (4) Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation, as suffering itself can be redemptive. (5) Nonviolent resistance avoids “external physical violence” and “internal violence of spirit” as well, which King described as, “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him.” Finally, (6) the nonviolent resister must have a “deep faith in the future,” stemming from the conviction that “the universe is on the side of justice.” King’s thought about this topic clearly was deep, and one will have to contemplate each of the principles in order to follow King’s idea of nonviolent resistance.
Why am I bringing this up? Clearly, there are many ways to protest against something that is unjust, and nonviolence is just one of those tactics. However, in this case, in terms of real power, Trump holds all of the cards. Not only is he the president, but the Congress is controlled by Republicans who appear to be unwilling or unable to control Trump’s excesses, and the courts are still a mystery as to how much backbone they will end up showing.
Trump is waiting for any violent dimension of protest as an excuse to send in troops. What happened in Los Angeles was mostly genuine protest, but there were some violent moments; it was the latter (not the former) that Trump used as a pretext for his first attempt at a military takeover. (It is worth noting that the first judge to decide on Newsom v. Trump indicated that what happened in L.A. did not even qualify as a rebellion, and therefore Trump had no right to federalize National Guard troops.) Further violence as a part of otherwise well-intentioned protests will only give Trump more pretexts to take over more of the freedoms that at least used to be so magical about the U.S.
It is not about who is right and who is wrong in these protests. Rather, it is about who can consistently take the moral high ground. Any moment of violence in protests opens the door for Trump to take another step towards normalizing dictatorial behavior. I’m just saying…
TD16: I'M FIRED!
10 June 2025
Early in his second term as president, Donald Trump named Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., son of the revered Senator and Attorney General by the same name, to be the 26th U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. was originally an environmental lawyer, but is mostly known as a conspiracy theorist, presidential candidate and anti-vaccine activist, who has benefitted enormously from the visibility accorded him by the Kennedy family name. Since the early 2000s, in particular, RFK Jr. has spouted misinformation about vaccines and other misguided ideas about public health in abundance.
RFK Jr.’s recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci, is advertised thus:
During more than a year of painstaking and meticulous research on his laptop and through interviews, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unearthed a shocking story that obliterates media spin on Dr. Fauci . . . and that will alarm every American—Democrat or Republican—who cares about democracy, our Constitution, and the future of our children’s health.
The lies and ugly spin in the book about Anthony Fauci are not the subject of this commentary. Rather, I focus on the emphasis on the careful scholarship that RFK Jr. allegedly does “on his laptop.” Such must be the basis of a cogent, evidence-based book, right? And we would expect similar thorough scholarship from him in his new role as HHS Secretary, right?
On 22 May 2025, RFK Jr’s agency issued a major report entitled, The MAHA Report (that stands for “Make America Healthy Again,” by the way). The report was announced with language similar to that announcing RFK Jr.’s book… “MAHA Commission Unveils Landmark Report Exposing Root Causes of Childhood Chronic Disease Crisis.” The report begins with typical RFK Jr. rhetoric:
This report—Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment—is a call to action. It presents the stark reality of American children’s declining health, backed by compelling data and long-term trends. More importantly, it seeks to unpack the potential dietary, behavioral, medical, and environmental drivers behind this crisis. By examining the root causes of deteriorating child health, this assessment establishes a clear, evidence-based foundation for the policy interventions, institutional reforms, and societal shifts needed to reverse course.
Note, in particular, the focus on establishing a “clear, evidence-based foundation” for the changes that RFK Jr. wants to see in our society.
[Indeed, I agree with many of the recommendations that the report makes, as general routes to improving the health of people in this country. However, RFK Jr. links his environmental causes of poor health in America to his head-up-his-ass ideas about vaccination, with comments such as
Despite the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule, there has been limited scientific inquiry into the links between vaccines and chronic disease, the impacts of vaccine injury, and conflicts of interest in the development of the vaccine schedule.
Doubt and mistrust in vaccines pervade everything that RFK Jr. says and does. Given his current position as one of the leaders in public health for the country, that is perilous, given known, clear ties between vaccine hesitancy and disease spread.]
But let’s get back to the “clear, evidence-based foundation” for the rather radical recommendations in the MAHA report. Soon after the report was published, the Washington Post and the New York Times both reported on large numbers of invented citations and misconstrued interpretations of research results in the MAHA report’s supposed evidence-based foundation, and evidence suggesting that the report was at least in large part AI-generated. The problems were of sufficient magnitude that Stephen F. Lynch, Acting Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the US House of Representatives, wrote the following to RFK Jr.:
I write with serious concerns about the report recently released by the White House titled “The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again” (the Report). Despite the Report’s insistence on “pursuing truth” and “embracing science,” … public reporting has revealed that the Report cites scientific studies that do not exist, misrepresents the findings of certain studies, and may have used artificial intelligence (AI) to draw conclusions that are not based on actual scientific research. Given your history of promoting medical misinformation and conspiracy theories, I am concerned that the Report—which you oversaw as Chair of President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again Commission—manipulates and falsifies science to advance President Trump’s political objectives.
Jeez! That kind of says it all. The only thing that I will say is that if I did something like that, I would most likely end up getting fired. Yes, I am a professor, and I do have tenure, but tenure does and should have limits. One of those limits is proper academic conduct: inventing citations or mis-citing research as saying one thing when it does not say that thing is high on the list of examples of academic mis-conduct.
My university’s policy regarding scholarly misconduct is quite clear about this:
Each person engaged in scholarly research under the auspices of the University is expected to adhere to the highest professional standards of intellectual honesty and integrity in proposing, performing, and reviewing research, in reporting research results, and in the public exhibition, display, or performance of creative work…
A finding of research misconduct requires that:
1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
2. The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and
3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence…
Very simply, if I had done what RFK Jr.’s report… whoever the authors may be… my butt would be fired from the University of Kansas for academic misconduct. How about it, Donald, please tell RFK Jr. … You’re fired!
Read the full Trump Diaries series at https://town432.wixsite.com/peterson-lab/general-9
TD15: War on California?
8 June 2025
In the US, veterans are venerated and appreciated and thanked for their service to the nation. This national gratitude stems from the perception that the armed forces exist to protect the US, and to preserve the freedoms that we so revere in this country. The armed forces have almost always served this country in situations overseas... Yesterday, however, Trump did something very different.
The Constitution makes the president the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, but Congress was given the power to raise and support armies, declare war, and make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces. A significant nineteenth century act, Posse Comitatus, however, states:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (Note that Posse Comitatus was originally intended to make sure that the armed forces would not be used to impede the racist Jim Crow laws being enacted in the South after the Civil War; a minor further note is that it was amended in 1959 to make it fully applicable in Alaska, in 1994 to remove a limit on amounts of the fine, and in 2021 to add in the Marine Corps and the Space Force.)
However, the Insurrection Act of the late 1700s and early 1800s, states:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
In effect, the Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, enforce federal law, or protect civil rights when a state either can’t or won’t take care of the situation. Almost always, this deployment is at the request of the state concerned.
A summary by the Brennan Center listed only 30 times that the Insurrection Act has been invoked in the quarter-millennium of the US’s history. In the 1700s, presidents Washington and Adams used it to suppress revolts in Pennsylvania that arose because of federal taxes, and it was used in the early 1800s to manage border-area problems with Canada and Mexico. In 1831, Andrew Jackson used the Act to put down the famous Nat Turner slave rebellion, and Jackson again invoked it to send troops to resolve a labor dispute in Maryland.
In 1861, the Act was used by Abraham Lincoln in response to the secession of southern states from the US, and in the 1870s Ulysses S. Grant used it to put down a series of uprisings and terror campaigns by the Ku Klux Klan and others in the South. In the 1870s and 1880s, and again in the 1910s and 1920s, other presidents used the Act to put down labor disputes and resolve regional disputes, particularly in western and southwestern states. In 1932, though likely without the approval of the actual president, General Douglas MacArthur, Army Chief of Staff, led forces to clear out protest camps set up by World War I veterans who were destitute in the wake of the Great Depression.
In the middle twentieth century, presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used the Act (mostly, at least) to protect the emerging civil rights of African-Americans. Nearer the end of the twentieth century, it was used to put down a revolt by Cuban detainees in Georgia, to suppress looting in the Virgin Islands after a hurricane, and to stop riots in the wake of the acquittal of police officers who beat Rodney King brutally in Los Angeles.
And what about Donald Trump? In 2020, amid broad, but largely peaceful, protests in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by police officers, Trump issued a statement:
First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country. We will end it now. Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled… If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
Although Trump did not—in the end—formally invoke the Insurrection Act, the threat was there and it was real. (Of course, he did not make any such bold moves on 6 January 2021, when his supporters stormed the US Capitol.) And yesterday, Trump sent national guard troops to stop protests about ICE deportations—crucially, this deployment is happening over the objections of the governor of the state of California. The official White House statement yesterday read:
In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester. The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.
The idea that Donald Trump’s administration could have “zero tolerance” for criminal behavior is laughable and more than a bit hypocritical, but the situation is scary. Protests are legal, and are part of the First Amendment rights given to all in the US by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When protests involve illegal behavior, the local and state authorities enforce the law.
Trump gets involved when it is a protest against the federal government in his most-hated-state, California, by people who disagree with him. But not when it is an armed uprising threatening the lives of the entire US Congress. Very clearly, Trump has and does use the great power of the US Presidency to further his own purposes, ignoring the law and ignoring the Constitution. The message? Protest against Trump all that you want… but you may find the US Army deployed to stop your protest.
TD14: Dead fish?
6 June 2025
Recent weeks and months have seen a series of policy changes made by the Trump Administration about “foreigners” in the US. Each one has been justified in terms of assuring national security, avoiding terrorism, controlling immigration, and putting America first. But what are the real motives?
Many changes made by Trump and his people have had to do with refugee programs. First was a program called “temporary protected status” (TPS) that allowed people from a number of countries that are in conflict and poverty to live legally and safely in the US. TPS derives from the Immigration Act of 1990. That act had a component entitied “Family Unity and Temporary Protected Status,” which
Establishes a program for granting temporary protected status and work authorization to aliens in the United States who are nationals of countries designated by the Attorney General to be subject to armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary temporary conditions. Authorizes the Attorney General to grant such temporary protected status. Prohibits deportation during the period in which such status is in effect. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) authorize such alien to engage in employment in the United States; and (2) provide such alien with an employment authorized endorsement or other appropriate permit.
This 1990 act also set up special temporary protected status for Salvadorans, as a first TPS beneficiary country. Over the years, according to USCIS.gov, TPS status was extended to citizens of other countries, with the current list including Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.
TPS has been a major target from the Trump Administration since the beginnings of Trump’s first turn as president (see this link for a detailed summary). In late 2017, Trump cut off TPS status for citizens of Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, and early in 2018 added El Salvador to the list of countries removed, and then Nepal and Honduras. The justification was that those countries had improved sufficiently that TPS status was no longer merited for people from those countries.
In 2018, a coalition of different TPS holders and their children (who were US citizens) filed a civil case, Ramos v. Nielsen, that challenged TPS termination for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the TPS terminations were motivated by racism and were not in accord with the Constitution; the Trump administration apparently also did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act in changing TPS policies. Although the protections from Ramos v. Nielsen lasted through the Biden presidency, Trump and his cabinet members, now back in power, are now busy cancelling TPS protections as quickly as they are able. (I’m not going to try to summarize all of the twists and turns in this process!)
Trump’s rhetoric about ending TPS has been far from concluding that the countries in question are now better, and their citizens no longer in peril. Rather, early in 2018, President Trump told a group of members of Congress, “Why do we want all these people from ‘shithole countries’ coming here?” More curiously, he apparently added a comment that it would be better to have more people coming to the US from places like Norway. And this was not an isolated comment: six years later, in 2024, at a fundraising event in Florida, he was quoted directly as saying,
And when I said, you know, “Why can’t we allow people to come in from nice countries,” I’m trying to be nice. Nice countries, you know like Denmark, Switzerland? Do we have any people coming in from Denmark? How about Switzerland? How about Norway?”
Still, on 7 February 2025, Trump issued an executive order that actually opened up new ways for people to immigrate into the US. It was titled, Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa. In that order, Trump accused the government of the Republic of South Africa of aiming to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation, as well as
countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.
(He also pointed out that South Africa has accused Israel, and not Hamas, of genocide, and indicated that the US cannot support the government of South Africa’s “undermining United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests.”) Not only does Trump, in that executive order, stop all foreign aid or assistance to South Africa, but also
The United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation… The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take appropriate steps, consistent with law, to prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.
Wait a minute… Trump is putting “America First,” and is very generally throttling off immigration into the US. In particular, he is focused on stopping immigration from what he terms “shithole countries.” (Although I personally have great affection for South Africa, I very much suspect that Trump would add it to his shithole list if black South Africans were eager to immigrate to the US. But the Afrikaners are not black… I’m just saying…)
So Trump is putting an end to all of TPS that he has been able to stop. And it’s not just TPS … on 4 June 2025, Trump issued another executive order titled Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, restricting travel and immigration to the US by citizens of a broad swath of countries in Africa and Asia. The picture is one in which Trump is stopping immigration to the US from a multitude of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, all of which are composed in largest part of people of color. But Trump is busy opening the doors to white refugees from South Africa.
There is an old saying that if something looks like a dead fish, and if it also smells like a dead fish, then most likely it is a dead fish. So if the immigration policies of the Trump administration look racist and if they also sound racist, shouldn’t we just be honest and conclude that they are racist?
TD13: International students
28 May 2025
I have been an academic since my late 20s, and I have had the rich and enormously rewarding experience of mentoring many younger scientists in these more than thirty years. That is, as a faculty member, I have guided undergraduates, masters students, doctoral students, and postdoctoral researchers along their paths towards careers in science, most often in academia also. This mentorship process includes not just helping the students with the science, but also with myriad other decisions related to life in science and higher education.
My students have included a large number of individuals whom I deeply admire. That is, beyond being good scientists, they have also been good people, with strong, ethical, belief systems that guide their behavior and decisions. This strength of character has included expressing opinions, including some with which I have disagreed, but those opinions have always been expressed cogently, respectfully, and still firmly. In sum, I am more than proud of the young people whom I have had the honor to work over these many years. They are strong, intelligent, and firm in their beliefs. And some of them are not natural-born U.S. citizens…
I have been very proud to share aspects of the U.S. system with this group of smart young people from other countries. For instance, when I have had new international students and scholars around election day, I have had the custom of inviting my visitors to join me in voting. Although most of them come from democratic countries, many of them have enjoyed the opportunity to witness the U.S. voting system (as I have enjoyed having similar opportunities to see voting in Brazil and Mexico). I have also proudly—at least in the past—described to my international guests how speech is protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment to the Constitution, such that they are free to attend any meeting or event or protest, say what is on their mind, or write what they are thinking, while they are in the U.S.
Indeed, the First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that there is no mention of this amendment applying only to U.S. citizens, and not to foreigners. But the issue is clearly more complex than that… I found an interesting article, entitled “First Amendment Rights of Non-citizens, Aliens,” by Allison Hayward and John Vile, in 2023, and distributed via the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. That essay provided some useful details about under what circumstances non-citizens have rights more limited than those of citizens under the First Amendment; the following is a brief summary.
A 1950 case, Knauff v. Shaughnessy, before the Supreme Court, found that aliens wishing to enter the U.S. have fewer First Amendment protections because there is no particular right to enter the country. Those limitations were extended and amplified during a McCarthy Era case (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 1952), in which a legal resident alien who was a member of the Communist Party was deported. Hayward and Vile list other situations in which the government has use the political viewpoints of aliens against them: a British anarchist in 1904, deportation of communists in 1952, and denial of a travel visa to a Marxist in 1972.
However, once an individual is lawfully present in the U.S., they have full First Amendment rights. Justice Francis W. Murphy described the law in his commentary on Bridges v. Wixon in 1945 thus:
… the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.
So international students, who are present lawfully as temporary residents in the U.S., should have—and always have had up to this point—full First Amendment protections, just as I do and just as any U.S. citizen does.
With Trump’s second presidency, however, everything seems to be changing. ABC News correspondent Bill Hutchinson reported on 6 April 2025 about a series of international students who had been targeted by the government for deportation. A partial list… Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student of Palestinian descent, was arrested, even though he is a legal permanent U.S. resident and is married to an American citizen, supposedly because he was supporting Hamas. Ranjani Srinivasan, a doctoral student at Columbia University, was in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa, but was accused of supporting Hamas and self-deported on March 11, because her student visa had been revoked and she was being expelled by the university. Yunseo Chung is a junior at Columbia University, and is a lawful permanent U.S. resident who has lived in the United States since she was 7 years old; she was arrested because she had participated in what the government called a "pro-Hamas" protest but that she describes as advocating for Palestinian human rights. Rumeysa Ozturk is a doctoral student at Tufts University, and is Turkish with a valid F-1 visa, but was arrested supposedly because she was engaged in activities in support of Hamas; in reality, she published an op-ed in the school student newspaper recommending that Tufts divest from ties to Israel. Hutchinson’s report describes a number of additional examples, but the above illustrate the general gist of the situation: international students have no right to free expression, at least in the view of the Trump administration.
So what do I say to my students and colleagues who are in the U.S. as temporary, but lawful, residents? Unfortunately, and with quite a bit of regret, what I have to say to them is that U.S. is currently in a period in which our revered Constitution and the protections included in its wonderful Bill of Rights have been suspended. These documents, which provided a unique and admirable degree of freedom in the U.S., are no longer in force… it may be that the courts will set things right eventually, but right now, freedom of speech is not guaranteed, at least for international students, and perhaps for any of us.
TD12: EMOLUMENTS?
15 May 2025
President Trump recently was very excited about the Qatari government offering him the gift of a luxury plane for use as a new presidential plane. Many in the U.S., both in the government and among the general populace, have concerns about this deal that run from national security to ethics. As a result of reading the news about the Qatari gift, I got interested simply in the idea of a U.S. president accepting any gift from any foreign country. I prowled around on the Internet, and found a very interesting paper published in the Pepperdine Law Review in 2020… it’s titled “A More Perfect Union: The Emoluments Clause,” by Grant C. Rasak. What I found exciting about this paper is that Rasak summarizes “emoluments” (i.e., gifts) that have been made to U.S. presidents or the U.S. government through the history of the U.S.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause makes clear that, without the consent of Congress, federal officials shall not accept an emolument (gift) from any king, prince, or foreign state; the Domestic Emoluments Clause provides a complementary indication that, aside from salary, the President shall not receive any other emolument from the United States either. It all seems pretty clear. You get your presidential salary and nothing more, unless Congress says that it is OK. In fact, this is pretty much how it works for pretty much everyone—you get your salary, and you are expected not to get any “extras” unless your employer is aware of it (i.e., declaration of conflicts of interest) and approves of it.
So what have been the “emoluments” cases over the 250-ish years of the United States’ existence? This is where Rasak’s paper is invaluable, and I am summarizing Rasak’s summary here.
George Washington was given a painting by Marquis de Lafayette (a Frenchman who was a hero in the American Revolutionary War) without any consent of Congress. Washington said that the Emoluments Clause did not apply because the artwork was not from any king, prince, or foreign state (it was from a French citizen). Washington also argued that the gifts were not from the United States, because Marquis de Lafayette was French. Washington was so revered in the early U.S. that he was allowed to keep these gift.
After Washington’s presidency, however, Congress got more strict. Andrew Jackson, who was rightly quite a bit less trusted than Washington, was given a gold-plated medal by Simón Bolívar, a foreign leader. Congress did not allow Jackson to keep the gift, and Jackson donated the medal to the Department of State. Perhaps more comparable to the present day, The Imam of Muscat (a foreign leader) gave Martin Van Buren horses, pearls, Persian rugs, shawls, and a custom-made sword; again, Congress told the president to pass the gifts on to the Department of State and the Department of Treasury. The same Imam gifted John Tyler two prized horses, and Tyler had to auction the horses and give the resulting funds to the Department of Treasury.
Somewhat later, Abraham Lincoln as president was known for his amazing collection of top hats. Apparently, a Washington D.C. hat-maker made many of these hats for Lincoln, and his services were made in exchange for legal advice from the president. These exchanges were seen as having been made as a bargained exchange between the two men, so Congress allowed Lincoln to receive this domestic emolument.
The Statue of Liberty was a gift to the U.S. from France. President Grover Cleveland presided over the dedication ceremony of the Statue of Liberty in his home state of New York, so the impressive statue could have been considered as an emolument to the President. Congress, however, allowed this exchange of gifts between the leaders of the two countries because the statue symbolized America’s rich history and strengthened diplomatic relations between the U.S. and France.
In 1880, Queen Victoria gifted the Resolute desk, made from oak from the British ship HMS Resolute, to Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes, in view of the importance of the desk as a symbol of the U.S. presidency, preserved it for his successors, and Congress consented to the emolument because it serves as a lasting symbol of the presidency.
Theodore Roosevelt, with a deep love for the American West, was instrumental in creating and expanding the National Park Service. In the early days of the Service, during Roosevelt’s presidency, it appears that land to be set aside as national parks was gifted directly to Roosevelt to be under control of the office of the President. The specific case in point was Bear Lodge Butte, later to be declared as the first U.S. national monument (Devil’s Tower National Monument). Congress explicitly approved this domestic emolument via passing the Antiquities Act in 1906.
Some of the examples are genuinely trivial… Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of Great Britain) gifted cigars from one to the other, with at least implicit approval of Congress. In a different example, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had led the Allied forces in World War II, was to be knighted by Denmark; although Eisenhower was appreciative of the ceremony, he did not accept the foreign title. Going back to cigars, John F. Kennedy apparently enjoyed handrolled cigars—given that Cuban cigars are considered the very best in the world, the day before signing the Cuban Embargo, Kennedy directed his press secretary to order freshly imported Cuban cigars; because, as agreed between the two men, Kennedy compensated his press secretary with the fair market value for the cigars, Congress allowed the domestic emolument because it was an agreed-upon exchange between the two men.
Ronald Reagan apparently adored jelly beans, and would exchange jelly bean packages with leaders of other countries; Reagan was allowed to interchange these gifts and to purchase the jelly beans from the producer because these were bargained-for exchanges, and because they strengthened U.S. diplomatic relations. George W. Bush was given a Bulgarian shepherd puppy by the president of Bulgaria, but because Bush compensated his Bulgarian counterpart for the fair market value of the puppy, it did not require Congress’ consent. Saudi Arabia’s royal family presented Barack Obama with rare jewels, but Obama proactively made arrangements for the gifts to be preserved in the U.S. National Archives.
That, thanks to the careful scholarship of Rasak, is a summary of emoluments that have been given and taken through the history of the U.S. presidency.
As with many things, however, things changed rather radically with the Trump presidencies. Trump was a businessman, but refused to divest himself entirely of business interests back at the beginning of his first presidency. One major nexus of concerns was the Trump International Hotel in the Old Post Office in Washington D.C.: as President, Trump was in effect both the landlord and tenant for the building, which created a vast array of potential conflicts of interest. Foreign and domestic leaders would visit the hotel, and the visits were often quite public and did enrich Trump and his business interests. Although Trump resigned from The Trump Organization and transferred company control to his relatives, avenues of direct monetary benefit to Trump remained quite clear.
That, of course, was just the first round of Trump, so the stakes were small (i.e., only a few millions of dollars); the second Trump presidency is quite different, and not in a good way… The Qatari airplane gift is worth $400 million. The $TRUMP meme coin is currently worth $2-3 billion. The deals that Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr. are making around the world are massive: the Executive Branch (a half-million-dollar-each-to-join club in Washington D.C.), an 80-story Trump International Hotel and Tower in Dubai (with units to sell at $20 million each), a Trump development in Qatar for luxury residences, and more and more. In effect, the Trumps are raking in billions, all thanks to the influences of Donald.
Compare Trump's emoluments with all of the previous examples over the past 2-3 centuries, which were invariably trivial in value. Maybe someday Trump will write his memoirs. He could title it “The Art of the Steal,” with the subtitle, “How I Bilked America for Billions” or “Making Emoluments Great Again” [Note the fantastic acronym from this latter subtitle … MEGA!] or “How to Use the Republican Party and Make a Fortune.”
TD11: President Grifter
12 May 2025
Considerable recent attention has focused on “goings on” about Washington, D.C., and whether President Trump may be using his office to make large sums of money. During Trump’s first administration, there was considerable outcry about the arrangements that he made (or rather did not make) to divest from his own business interests. And there was a big fuss about the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads “… no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”), particularly as regards foreign governments booking large numbers of rooms at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C.
And it was pretty shady. Trump is clearly a man who is accustomed to taking any opportunity to make money in any way that he sees an opportunity. Was he “grifting” when his various business interests may have gained a bit of an advantage, or he made a few hundred thousand dollars extra from his hotel? Did he really charge the Secret Service rent for space that they needed in order to provide personal protection for Trump himself and his family? Sure, but, in the big scheme of things, it was not all that much money.
So the idea of having a Grifter President is pretty interesting. I got to thinking about this, and decided to play around a bit with other presidential scandals. Not ones of influence or politics (like, for instance, Watergate and Richard Nixon), but ones that are about grift… just good old money-making schemes. I had heard about Teapot Dome and Whitewater and scandals like those, so I decided to jump in and explore … This Trump Diaries entry is not a comprehensive list of all of the relatively few financial scandals around U.S. presidents, but rather just a sampling, trying to hit the high points.
So here are four examples of grifting around the U.S. presidency. They are at least among the most famous such scandals…
Belknap Impeachment
William Belknap served as Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant in the late 1800s. Although a lawyer by training, he was apparently a natural soldier, and by the end of the Civil War he had been promoted to the rank of brigadier general. President Grant asked Belknap to serve as Secretary of War in Grant’s administration. In 1875, however, Belknap and others in the Grant administration (likely including Grant himself) removed U.S. troops who had been shielding the Black Hills region of South Dakota from white mining and settlement. Gold had been found there, and so as soon as the troops were gone, miners rushed in. When the Native Americans in that region were unwilling to sell their land, the U.S. occupied the region.
Belknap, as Secretary of War, however, had the power to grant trading licenses at U.S. military outposts in the West, which were apparently worth a ton of money. Belknap set up an extremely shady scheme regarding the trading license at Ft. Sill, in which a man named John Evans would make payments to an intermediary, who in turn would give part of the funds to Belknap's wife (or rather one of Belknap’s wives!). A Congressional investigation eventually revealed how the profits from the Fort Sill license went out to Belknap and his wives, Carita and Amanda (he married Carita in 1869 but she died in 1870; he married Carita’s sister Amanda in 1873). As the scandal unwound, Belknap resigned in 1876; notwithstanding the fact that he had already resigned, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach him, but the Senate could not assemble the two-thirds majority needed to impeach, apparently in largest part because Belknap was by then out of government service and many senators thought that it was therefore beyond the purview of the Senate.
Teapot Dome
In the course of World War I, it became very clear that the U.S. military would need petroleum reserves under its control to avoid shortages in the event of world conflicts and necessary military mobilizations. The U.S. Navy had major oil fields allotted to it in Wyoming and California, among other areas. In 1921, President Warren Harding used an executive order to transfer control of two such oilfields from the Navy to the U.S. Department of the Interior. These areas included the “Teapot Dome” Oil Field in Wyoming, and two areas in California. Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, later leased the Teapot Dome site to Sinclair Oil Corporation. This deal was done without any competitive bidding (which was not illegal at the time). However, the oil company then gave loans and gifts to Fall that amounted to a rather impressive amount of money—that part was illegal.
Although Fall tried to be discreet about his newfound wealth, he did manage to pay up his property taxes, which were pretty far out of date on payments, and people apparently noticed his changed financial fortunes. Worried about getting caught, he asked a friend to say that the friend (not the oil company!) had loaned Fall a large sum of money; the friend eventually confessed to investigators that he had not made the loan. After a long sequence of investigations, reporting in the media, and trials, Fall went to prison; he served a one-year sentence, and was eventually released. He lived another ten years or so in relative poverty and obscurity. The Teapot Dome Scandal led the Supreme Court to rule that Congress had the power to compel testimony, and to Congress’s passing of laws to enable investigations of corruption.
Spiro Agnew and Bribery
Spiro T. Agnew was Vice President in the Richard Nixon Administration in the 1960s and 1970s. A Greek-American, he studied law, and eventually entered politics and supposed “public service.” He became an important executive in the Baltimore regional government, and later governor of Maryland. In 1968, Richard Nixon invited Agnew to be his running-mate. Agnew served one full term with Nixon, but in the second term was forced to resign, pleading “no contest” to one felony charge of tax evasion. OK, tax evasion is pretty light, right? Well, actually, it was way worse than that…
Agnew had been requesting and receiving kickbacks from contractors in his various positions in Maryland. Agnew’s misdeeds in Baltimore County could not be the basis of criminal accusations because so much time had passed that the statute of limitations had passed. However, a man named Lester Matz was granted immunity if he cooperated with the authorities, and eventually indicated that he had been giving Agnew a part of the value of contracts that he secured with Agnew’s help. Most intriguingly, Matz testified that he had met with Agnew, and had given him $10,000 during his time as Vice President. Eventually, an investigation ensued, and Agnew resigned formally on 10 October 1973. After twenty-some years in a series of intrigues and sketchy schemes for making money, along with a big of anti-Semitic racism, in 1996, Agnew died, apparently of leukemia.
[In a curious twist in a particularly corrupt period in the U.S. presidency, note that Agnew resigned on 10 October 1973, and President Nixon himself was forced to resign on 9 August 1974. The Watergate Scandal, which eventually led to Nixon’s resignation, began in 1972, and clearly had the potential to topple Nixon from the outset of the investigation. In effect, both the President and the Vice-President each had to resign, though for different corrupt reasons… if Nixon had not appointed Gerald Ford to replace Agnew as Vice-President before he himself had to resign, then the Presidency—then owned by the Republicans—would have passed to the Speaker of the House, who was Carl Albert, a Democrat.]
The Whitewater Affair
The so-called Whitewater Affair was about some real estate investments made by the Whitewater Development Corporation, with which Bill and Hillary Clinton were associated. Whitewater was an investment scheme regarding developing land for weekenders and vacationers on the White River in Arkansas. An investigator looking into how a savings and loan company owned by other investors in the Whitewater Development Corporation had failed became interested in possible connections to the Clintons, and reported the situation to the FBI. Eventually, Congress caught wind of the possible scandal, and the same investigator ended up testifying to the Senate Whitewater Committee about the situation.
The key point was an individual named David Hale, who claimed that Bill Clinton had convinced him to make an illegal loan to one of the partners in the Whitewater Development Corporation (though Hale’s veracity in his claims was not 100% clear). Other Whitewater Development Corporation people were convicted in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, an Arkansas governor ended up convicted of fraud, and one of the Whitewater Development Corporation investors ended up in prison for contempt of court. The Clintons were never accused formally, and three investigations were unable to uncover enough evidence of any criminal conduct by them, but the cloud of scandal dogged the Clintons throughout Bill’s presidency and Hillary’s candidacy (which failed tragically, leading to “Trump, Part I.”
Trump, Part II
So we come up to the present, and the number and magnitude of presidential “grifts” in the news are astounding. The President’s grown sons are roaming around the world, making real-estate deals as fast as they can, sometimes just days before “Dad” comes on an official state visit. The Trumps have begun marketing a $TRUMP “meme coin” to investors, with prizes like in-person time with the President and Oval Office tours to the biggest investors. One scheme after another—one grift after another—emerges in the news, causes an uproar, and then blends into the ocean of Trump grift.
However, consider the relative magnitude of the funds involved in the historical schemes and scandals discussed above, compared to what the Trump grift is doing. The meme coin scheme alone has a current value of $2,800,000,000. The real estate deals are about huge sums of money, much of it from foreign investors. And then there are all the other grifting schemes… so maybe Trump is the greatest of all time. Not the greatest president of all time, but the greatest president-grifter of all time. He’s damn good at that.
TD10: English Only?
2 May 2025
This one is a bit personal for me, so I will ask you to forgive me in advance. My grandparents never spoke much English; my parents each learned English when they got to grade school, having been raised in households where Greek (my father) and Armenian (my mother) were the “official” languages. Fast forward, and my own home is primarily Spanish-speaking… everyone is fluent in English, but my wife and kids are immigrants from Mexico, and we as a family are comfortable carrying out most of our daily household business in Spanish. Simply put, for me, English is my first language, but my life is far richer for being able to speak Spanish and Portuguese with reasonable fluency, and I am working on learning Greek as well… The U.S. is a country rich in human diversity… what used to be called lovingly the “melting pot”… and part of that diversity is language.
I am not the only one… Even Trump… Not only have two of Trump’s wives been immigrants who spoke English with accents (Ivana from what was then Czechoslovakia, Melania from what was then Yugoslavia), but Trump himself is only a second-generation “American.” Trump’s paternal grandfather was born Friedrich Trump, in Bavaria, Germany. He came to the U.S. in 1885, and he got established in the northwestern part of the U.S. and in western Canada, where he ran a series of brothels. When he returned to Germany to get married, the German government revoked his citizenship, apparently because he had originally gone to the U.S. to avoid military service, so he brought his new family to the U.S. in 1905. I could not find any references to his English proficiency, but surely it was not great, at least in his first years in the country!
[If you do not like the idea of running a brothel as a respectable profession, maybe it’s better than Friedrich’s son Fred, who was the subject of a large-scale court battle with the U.S. Department of Justice because he discriminated openly against African-American and Puerto Rican-American renters in his New York properties… I’m not sure which is worse!]
Anyhow, on 1 March 2025, Trump designated English as the official language of the U.S. Highlights from this “presidential action” include:
From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language… It is therefore long past time that English is declared as the official language of the United States. A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language… To promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement, it is in America’s best interest for the Federal Government to designate one — and only one — official language.
[To be honest, I am a pretty avid news hound, even in these depressing days of 2025, but I missed this declaration entirely until last week.]
Less than two months later, another “presidential action” took the language lockdown one step farther [and this one also seems not to have gotten reported in the national news either]. In an order entitled Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers, Trump announced:
Proficiency in English… should be a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers. They should be able to read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station officers. Drivers need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English. This is common sense.
That is why Federal law requires that, to operate a commercial vehicle, a driver must “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.” Yet this requirement has not been enforced in years, and America’s roadways have become less safe.
It is unclear to me that there is any evidence behind this idea, that America’s roadways have become less safe, or that immigrants who do not speak English are to blame.
Trump’s order continues with “… a violation of the English language proficiency requirement results in the driver being placed out-of-service.” And then, the Trump commercial driver goes on to some much darker points. These parts least imply that people who do not speak English well are likely to be illegal immigrants that Trump’s ICE agents could deport:
(a) review non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) issued by relevant State agencies to identify any unusual patterns or numbers or other irregularities with respect to non-domiciled CDL issuance; and
(b) evaluate and take appropriate actions to improve the effectiveness of current protocols for verifying the authenticity and validity of both domestic and international commercial driving credentials.
English First Movements Historically
Data from the 2023 American Community Survey (run by the U.S. Census Bureau) indicate that only 245.5 million U.S. Americans over 5 years old speak only English; 43.3 million speak Spanish, of whom 17.5 million speak English “less than ‘very well.’” The list of languages spoken by hundreds of thousands or millions of U.S. Americans is enormous: French, Haitian, Italian, Portuguese, German, Yiddish, Pennsylvania Dutch, Greek, Russian, Polish, Armenian, Gujarati, etc., etc., etc. Quite simply, the U.S. is a melting pot, and U.S. culture includes the languages of the world. Trump’s executive orders are the first instance in which English (or any language) has been designated as the official language of the U.S.
These arguments, however, under the moniker of “Official English,” go back even to before the U.S. was a country. These discussions soon took on ominous tones… for instance, the 1887 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs included this recommendation: “Schools should be established, which children should be required to attend; their barbarous dialects should be blotted out and the English language substituted.”
The report goes on with:
Longer and closer consideration of the subject has only deepened my conviction that it is a matter not only of importance, but of necessity that the Indians acquire the English language as rapidly as possible. The Government has entered upon the great work of educating and citizenizing the Indians and establishing them upon homesteads. The adults are expected to assume the role of citizens, and of course the rising generation will be expected and required more nearly to fill the measure of citizenship, and the main purpose of educating them is to enable them to read, write, and speak the English language and to transact business with English-speaking people. When they take upon themselves the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship their vernacular will be of no advantage. Only through the medium of the English tongue can they acquire a knowledge of the Constitution of the country and their rights and duties thereunder.
Every nation is jealous of its own language, and no nation ought to be more so than ours, which approaches nearer than any other nationality to the perfect protection of its people. True Americans all feel that the Constitution, laws, and institutions of the United States, in their adaptation to the wants and requirements of man, are superior to those of any other country; and they should understand that by the spread of the English language will these laws and institutions be more firmly established and widely disseminated. Nothing so surely and perfectly stamps upon an individual a national characteristic as language.
And later…
To teach Indian school children in their native tongue is practically to exclude English, and to prevent them from acquiring it. This language, which is good enough for a white man and a black man, ought to be good enough for the red man. It is also believed that teaching an Indian youth in his own barbarous dialect is a positive detriment to him. The first step to be taken toward civilization, toward teaching the Indians the mischief and folly of continuing in their barbarous practices, is to teach them the English language. The impracticability, if not impossibility, of civilizing the Indians of this country in any other tongue than our own would seem to be obvious, especially in view of the fact that the number of Indian vernaculars is even greater than the number of tribes. ...
But it has been suggested that this order, being mandatory, gives a cruel blow to the sacred rights of the Indians. Is it cruelty to the Indian to force him to give up his scalping-knife and tomahawk? Is it cruelty to force him to abandon the vicious and barbarous sun dance, where he lacerates his flesh, and dances and tortures himself even unto death? Is it cruelty to the Indian to force him to have his daughters educated and married under the laws of the land, instead of selling them at a tender age for a stipulated price into concubinage to gratify the brutal lusts of ignorance and barbarism?
Enough said, perhaps—the blatant racism pervading this report is clear, and this report was part of the justification for what became a tragic forced assimilation of Native Americans into Western culture, such as via the Native American boarding schools. [It is worth noting that having Native American dialects spoken fluently served the U.S. government amply during World War II, when Navajo speakers were used as “code talkers” to communicate key messages for the U.S. and its allies.] This cultural destruction, under an “Official English” banner, was repeated in Hawaii, with similar catastrophic effects on Hawaiian culture. Indeed, it even was applied to white people… during World War I, the German language was the subject of considerable suppression across the U.S. [Even names of towns and villages were changed: “Germantown,” Kansas, was turned into Mercier, during World War I.]
Putting the Pieces of the Puzzle Together
Why does Trump care? English is the dominant language in the U.S. All immigrant families are speaking English at least by the first generation that is born in the U.S., just like my family and Trump’s family did. So why make a big deal of it?
Put it all together… contemplate the commercial truck driver English proficiency order… it is not about building unity or helping immigrants to assimilate. Rather, this is part of a Trump strategy towards what is in effect ethnic cleansing of the U.S.: the more that you make immigrants uncomfortable, and the more that you make it difficult for new immigrants to be employed (not everyone has the means to start a brothel, right???), the fewer immigrants that you will have.
I will end this essay with a prediction about one little detail... Currently, in the testing for immigrants to become naturalized as citizens, civics tests are administered in English and candidates are tested for English proficiency. “A naturalization applicant must only demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage.” However, if you are older than 50 or so years, and have been a lawful permanent resident for a given number of years, you are exempt from the English proficiency requirements, and you can take the civics part of the test via interpreter. My prediction is that this set of exemptions will not last long, and rather will be removed by the Trump administration as another way of reducing immigration into the U.S.
TD9: The Supreme Court Army?
29 April 2025
The U.S. Constitution created a government with three branches (executive, legislative, judicial), each with specific roles and powers, and each with the power to limit the power of the other branches. That is, the legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch puts them into effect, and the judicial branch checks to make sure that the laws and their execution fit with the Constitution. The legislative branch creates laws, but the executive branch (i.e., the president) can veto them. The legislative branch has the power to remove members of the executive or judicial branches from office (i.e., via impeachment); also, one part of the legislative branch approves budgets, and another approves presidential appointments to judicial and executive branch positions. The executive branch names key judicial officers (i.e., judges), and can make treaties, but only with ratification by part of the legislative branch. And the judicial branch can nullify any law or any executive action. So this system is complex, with all sorts of ways in which one branch provides a “check” on how absolute is the power of each other branch. This system was designed to avoid the country slipping into autocracy, in which any individual has too much power.
In the course of American history, this system has generally worked quite well, in that no branch has been able to dominate over the other two. Particularly interesting would be if the executive branch were to overrule or ignore the rulings of the judicial branch (specifically, the Supreme Court). Two very different points in history are interesting in this respect, the first regarding Abraham Lincoln, and the second regarding Andrew Jackson.
Lincoln and Dred Scott
Dred Scott (1799–1858) was an enslaved man who was taken by his owner from the south into Illinois and then Wisconsin, both “free” states. When Scott was taken back to Missouri, a slave state, his “owners” assumed that he was still their property. Scott attempted to recover his freedom based on two Missouri laws about slavery as it related to the complex slavery-politics-related landscape of the U.S. at that time. Eventually, the Supreme Court, in a very unfortunate decision termed Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided that Scott had no right to freedom simply because persons of African descent could not be U.S. citizens. The broader implication of the majority opinion was that Congress could not ban slavery or limit slavery in new territories or states.
Abraham Lincoln, at the time an important politician, did not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, making the following speech a few months later:
And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories... We think its [the Supreme Court’s] decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this.
Now, Lincoln was not yet president, and could do nothing to reverse (or ignore) the decision at that time. Near the close of the Civil War, and just before Lincoln’s death, the 13th Amendment was proposed, which prohibited slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment continued the progress, making all persons born in the U.S. citizens. Lincoln did not agree with Dred Scott, and argued vehemently against it, but also said “We offer no resistance to it”… he believed that the U.S. legal system would get to the right answer, as it eventually did with the 13th and 14th amendments.
Andrew Jackson and Worcester
General Andrew Jackson, since the War of 1812, had made a career out of “Indian removal,” leading campaigns across the southeastern U.S. He was president in 1832, when the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, found that Georgia laws aiming to seize Cherokee land violated treaties signed by the U.S. federal government.
Jackson supposedly commented, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it", although it is not clear that he actually said those words. Rather, what he did say was a bit less poetic: “The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” The insinuation was that the president and the state of Georgia had armies, but the Supreme Court did not, so which is likely to prevail in a difference of opinion? That approach from a very powerful president was the root of a massive-scale ramping-up of “Indian removal” efforts, including the infamous and tragic events now referred to as the Trail of Tears.
Now
Donald Trump’s administration has been deporting non-citizen U.S. residents of various types as quickly as they are able (see the 21 April 2025 Trump Diaries essay on “alien enemies”). Ostensibly, the Trump administration’s deportations have focused on criminals, but in their mad rush to deport massive numbers of people, they have been more than careless, such that many individuals who are not criminals or gang members have been deported.
One particular case in point was that of Kilmar Armando Abrego García, a Maryland man of Salvadoran origin who was under a protective court order that he not be deported to El Salvador. Trump’s people, of course, not only deported him, but deported him to El Salvador. Even worse, he was deported with no “due process,” in that he never had a hearing to establish whether he really should be deported in the first place. The case was debated in the courts, and eventually reached the Supreme Court.
On 10 April 2025, the Supreme Court published its Noem v. Abrego Garcia decision, as follows:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.
Translation: the Trump administration needs to get Abrego García back from El Salvador, and give him appropriate “due process” in consideration of his case. However, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who was the judge who issued the initial opinion in favor of Abrego García, used the more explicit terms “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego García’s return, which could be interpreted as ordering the Trump administration to change its foreign policy to secure Abrego García’s return. For this reason, the Supreme Court added some caveats:
The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
What has the Trump administration done in response? Nothing. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt summarized an interaction between Trump and the president of El Salvador:
I will tell you what the president of El Salvador told you in the Oval Office: El Salvador does not intend to smuggle a designated foreign terrorist back into the United States… He is an El Salvadoran national. That is his home country. That is where he belongs.
Trump's "border czar" Tom Homan said:
There was an oversight, there was a withholding order. But the facts surrounding the withholding order had changed. He is now a terrorist, and the gang he was fearing, from being removed from El Salvador, no longer exists.
Whether or not Abrego García is a gang member or a terrorist or a good guy or a bad guy is not the point… he deserves, as do all who live in the U.S., due process, in the form of a hearing to figure out the facts regarding his situation, rather than the “spin” that an administration official might make.
Abraham Lincoln knew that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Dred Scott decision, but concluded “We offer no resistance to it”… So why does Trump get to ignore a Supreme Court decision that he does not like? Perhaps… and perhaps that will consign him to the same shameful dustbin of U.S. history as the Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson’s role in making it possible.
TD8: Alien enemies?
21 April 2025
In the late 1700s, the United States was in the midst of many potential conflicts: the War of Independence had concluded just a decade before, and the War of 1812 would begin just a decade and a half later, both against Great Britain. In the 1790s, however, the US was close to war with France. The US government was concerned that non-citizens living in the United States, called “aliens,” might side with the French during any war that might ensue. As a result, the US Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which imposed longer residency requirements for citizenship, and allowed the US president to arrest, imprison, and deport “aliens” during wartime.
Here are relevant parts of these acts, each followed by my interpretations of each of them:
“… whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.”
[So, in times of war, or when “any invasion or predatory incursion” is even threatened, the President makes a public proclamation, and any males 14 years or older can be taken into custody and thrown out of the country. A 16 April 1918 act removed the restriction to only males. Note also that this is clearly pertains only to people “not actually naturalized,” so it cannot be applied to US citizens.]
Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.”
[So people who are not actually chargeable with hostility or other crimes should be given time to get their affairs in order… like selling or taking with them their possessions… and that the president then has discretion to establish how much time the deportees will have. The act indicates that it should be “… according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality…” but that clearly assumes that the president of the US has some humanity and wishes to show any hospitality. Note that no mention is made of deporting these “alien enemies” to countries that are not their own native countries.]
It is worth noting that the Alien Enemies Act is actually part of the broader “Alien and Sedition Acts,” all passed in 1798. The Sedition Act was a means of limiting free speech in the US, prohibiting publishing writing against the government and opposition to Congress or the president. The Sedition Act was applied to only 10 individuals… most famously was Luther Baldwin, a common laborer, who got drunk and commented loudly that he did not care if cannons were fired up President John Adams’ rear end. The Sedition Act expired at the end of Adams’ term. Clearly, it was too-powerful a tool in the hands of politically appointed presidents, as it could be used at the discretion of the president to silence any opposition.
But back to the Alien Enemies Act… It was used three times in history (see this article for much more detail). On 11 July 1812, James Madison decreed that “all the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, residing within the United States, have become alien enemies…” and required that British immigrants move at least 40 miles from the coast, which meant (of course) moving out of key eastern coastal cities. More than a century later, Woodrow Wilson invoked this law at the beginning of US participation in World War I: German immigrants had to register, and about 6000 were detained. Finally, and most famously, Franklin D. Roosevelt used the Act soon after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, which led to the US entering World War II: more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans were confined to camps across the country. The constitutionality of the Roosevelt executive order that initiated the Japanese confinement was upheld (shamefully) by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, and was not overruled until more than 70 years later.
However, during President Trump’s first term, he initiated his infamous “Muslim Travel Ban.” Hawaii and several other states challenged Trump’s order, pointing in particular to the racist anti-Muslim motivation for the ban. In 2018, the very-conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, made clear that Korematsu v. United States was decided in error. He stated: “… reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—‘has no place in law under the Constitution.’” He also indicated that “The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.” [He was referring to forced relocation to concentration camps inside of the US, but we can probably assume that he would also object to camps in other countries.]
Watching the news these days, the Alien Enemies Act, though seemingly a discarded artifact of history, is back, 80 years after the Japanese confinement fiasco. That is, on 14 March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.” Among the various points in this executive order, we find the following:
“Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States… TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States… Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens.”
[This verbiage is laid out to argue that Trump does not need a formal declaration of war by Congress, but rather is arguing that Tren de Aragua is actively invading the US, so the president has the discretion to act under the Alien Enemies Act.]
“I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.
[A key point here is that the Trump order applies to all Venezuelans in the United States other than those who are citizens, naturalized citizens, or permanent residents. Note that there is no restriction to those Venezuelans who are members of Tren de Aragua.]
I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are, by virtue of their membership in that organization, chargeable with actual hostility against the United States and are therefore ineligible for the benefits of 50 U.S.C. 22. I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are a danger to the public peace or safety of the United States.”
[Note that, here, Trump shifts the discussion, and equates being Venezuelan with being a member of Tren de Aragua. This is a clear “weasel” move: very few Venezuelans are TdA members, but Trump equates the two in this passage. The reference to 50 U.S.C. 22 is about whether the people to be deported should be given proper warning and time to put their affairs in order.
“Alien Enemies apprehended pursuant to this proclamation shall be subject to detention until removed from the United States in such place of detention as may be directed by the officers responsible for the execution of these regulations… Alien Enemies shall be subject to removal to any such location as may be directed by the officers responsible for the execution of these regulations consistent with applicable law.”
[And of course, here, the executive order is saying that the “enemies” can be sent anywhere that the US government wishes to send them. No mind that the original Alien Enemies Act made no mention of deportation to other countries, where the deportees may not be citizens.]
A plethora of questions comes to mind. What is the evidence that we are in fact in a wartime situation? There is no Congressional declaration of war, so it must be a situation in which an “invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government.” Well, what is the actual evidence that Tren de Aragua (1) is indeed invading or trying to invade the US, and (2) is that invasion an initiative of the Venezuelan government? Are the people being deported actual criminals? Is the situation so dramatic and perilous that they should not be given a reasonable period of time to put their things in order?
But the most crucial concern that comes up is about race. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear: any such punishment (confinement, deportation) that is “solely and explicitly on the basis of race” is unlawful and outside the powers of the president. On 10 April 2025, Noem v Abrego Garcia offered a first glance of what the Supreme Court will say… an apparently unanimous court ruled that the deportation of one Salvadoran native (and legal resident of the US) was illegitimate, though the decision was presented rather narrowly and without clear reference to the Alien Enemies Act. It also should be pointed out that Trump’s executive order was about Tren de Aragua (a Venezuelan gang), but the Trump administration alleges that Abrego Garcia is part of MS-13 (a Salvadoran gang). Notwithstanding a 20 January 2025 Trump executive order saying that both Tren de Aragua and MS-13 are foreign terrorist organizations, and that members of those gangs might be subject to the Alien Enemies Act, Trump’s executive order about the Alien Enemies Act was about Venezuela, and it does not appear that the act is yet applicable to Abrego Garcia.
I would like to assume, then, that the Supreme Court will speak clearly when a case about the 2025 use of the Alien Enemies Act is finally brought to the court. The Alien Enemies Act is very clearly being applied based solely on race, which the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has made clear is inappropriate. As a respectful citizen of the US, I certainly hope that the Supreme Court has the ethics and backbone required to make such a decision.
TD7: A Third Term?
8 April 2025
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President of the United States in 1932, and re-elected in 1934. He was cagey about his plans to run for a third term in 1940, but eventually he ran, despite his opponent’s making the third term a major issue of debate in the campaign. Four years later, Roosevelt had the excuse of the country being in the thick of World War II, and ran yet again. Although his new opponent also raised the issue of presidents being elected too many times, Roosevelt was successful in his fourth election bid. But, 82 days after being inaugurated for the fourth time, Roosevelt died.
Roosevelt’s passing in office, after heavy campaigning by Republicans against very-long-term presidencies, combined with complete Republican control of Congress, led to the development of what would eventually become the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The crucial portion of the text of this amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” This Amendment, however, simply codified an idea that dates back to George Washington: it is not good for the country to have presidents who spend too long in the office of President.
Fast-forward through almost eighty years since the 22nd Amendment was approved, and no president has seriously explored staying over-long in office. Until now, of course. President Trump has commented recently about the possibility of a third term in office. Very recently, in an interview with NBC News, he indicated that he was “not joking.” He said, “A lot of people want me to do it… But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.” And about how one could achieve a third term in spite of the 22nd Amendment… “There are methods which you could do it.” One approach that has been discussed in various circles is that Vice-President J.D. Vance would run for the presidency, with Trump as his vice-presidential candidate, and then—upon election—would resign and leave the office to Trump. (Trump has indicated that there are still other possible approaches.)
The most straightforward approach, of course, would be to get rid of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Constitutional amendments are difficult, though… the process is initiated via a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by request from two-thirds of state legislatures (this latter possibility has never been done). A potential amendment, however, does not become part of the Constitution until it is ratified by three-quarters of the states; that is, 38 of the 50 states would then have to approve, which is not likely to happen fast or likely not at all. (Indeed, the 27th Amendment, which places limits on Congress’s ability to raise its own salary rates, was proposed on 25 September 1789, but not ratified until 7 May 1992: that is, 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days later.) So, we can basically conclude that Trump’s third term would not come to be via amending the Constitution.
The Vance-Trump handoff approach, however, is not without antecedents. Of course, not here in the United States. Rather, it echoes the legendary 2008-2012 “tandemocracy” of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev in Russia. Putin was… get this… barred by the Russian Constitution from serving a third consecutive term as President of Russia, but of course did not want to give up power in his country, so he supported Medvedev as President. In the resulting Medvedev administration, Putin served as Medvedev’s Prime Minister. Although Prime Minister is a lower position than President in Russia, it is not clear that Putin was not actually in charge. Putin was re-elected as President in 2012, and continues in that role to this day. Given Trump’s well-known admiration for Putin, perhaps he finds this path to a third term appealing.
Could Vance and Trump pull off a tandemocracy? In theory, certainly, Vance could run for President after Trump’s current term, and there is nothing to stop him and the Republican Party from putting Trump on the ballot as Vice-President. Then, upon being elected successfully, Vance would only have to resign, and Trump would be in place for another term. Great plan? I don’t think so… Vance has to rank amongst the most ambitious humans ever to walk the Earth, so imagining him resigning the presidency voluntarily is pretty much unimaginable.
TD6: Vaccines Cause Autism?
11 March 2025
The antivax movement is going strong in the United States in 2025. The President himself has waffled and equivocated on whether vaccines are okay. His appointee to head the Department of Health and Human Services is an open antivax activist; and appointees who will head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health have both hedged and hesitated on this matter. None of these individuals has succeeded in expressing a clear view that large-scale vaccination is and should be a crucial element in public health policy in the United States (and worldwide).
Vaccination is the process by which immunity to a disease is developed via exposure to a substance that resembles a disease-causing microorganism; vaccines have been made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, or from the toxins or proteins that it produces. Vaccines have been in use at least as far back as the 16th century (in China), and maybe centuries earlier; the first vaccinations reduced vulnerability to smallpox via exposure to cowpox virus, a closely similar virus.
Vaccines have been at the root of many important successes in public health. Thanks to vaccination, smallpox was eradicated globally as of 1980. Other serious diseases, such as polio, measles, and tetanus, are now massively reduced and restricted, though they were previously major public health concerns and sources of considerable mortality and sickness. The efficacy of vaccination in reducing disease incidence can be appreciated in the abrupt declines in incidence of polio and measles in the accompanying figure (adapted from a graphic by Max Roser). Very simply, these vaccines have had an overwhelming positive effect on public health in the United States and worldwide, removing several of the most severe and most damaging diseases from the picture. (For perspective, before vaccines were developed, measles caused on the order of 2.6 million deaths worldwide each year; measles deaths are now vanishingly rare.)
A particularly concerning suite of childhood diseases was measles, mumps, and rubella (or German measles). In 1971, the MMR vaccine was introduced, which was essentially a cocktail of previously developed vaccines for the three diseases. Although this triple vaccine saw very broad adoption, in 1998, a British researcher named Andrew Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet that reported on studies of 12 children, purporting to link MMR vaccination to intestinal problems, and in turn to development of autism. Although the sample size was small, the publication seemed to present a damaging scenario by which MMR could cause permanent developmental damage to children.
But … the story is only beginning … Thanks in largest part to the persistence of a journalist named Brian Deer, Wakefield’s work began to fall apart. Major points in this story are as follows:
-
Ten of the 12 authors of the original Wakefield paper (all except Wakefield and one author who could not be contacted) later retracted the interpretation that Wakefield promulgated, with the statement, “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient.”
-
In the paper, Wakefield altered many facts about patients’ medical histories to bolster his claim that he had identified a new syndrome.
-
The Lancet formally retracted the original Wakefield publication because of problems with the study design, as well as problems with how the human-subjects permissions were obtained and documented.
-
Numerous detailed epidemiological studies based on analysis of vastly larger datasets have failed to find evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
-
The Royal Free Hospital received a grant, and Wakefield personally received more than £400,000, from the United Kingdom’s Legal Aid Board, an entity interested in legal action against the MMR vaccine manufacturers; crucially, these financial conflicts of interest were not appropriately disclosed in the publication.
-
Wakefield attempted to patent a measles vaccine and an autism cure nine months before the publication in The Lancet, pointing to considerable financial gain for Wakefield if MMR vaccines were to be discredited.
In sum, Wakefield clearly had many reasons to wish to discredit MMR vaccines, other than science and care for human well-being. Rather, he was an unscrupulous, unprincipled, and dishonest individual who was out to “make a buck.”
Now, 20-some years later, unfortunately, Wakefield’s supposed research results published in The Lancet have not faded into the infamy of academic misconduct. Rather, thanks to his own dishonesty, the “antivax” movement reveres his work as a truth that the scientists are trying to cover up. Wakefield is married to a model and lives in the United States.
Worst of all, however, thanks to the doubts cultivated by Wakefield, vaccine hesitancy is growing in the United States. At the moment, measles is spreading rampantly, simply because a lower percentage of the U.S. population is vaccinated. Wakefield was out to garner fame and make a buck, but the effect has been and will be that of vaccine hesitancy costing lives. President Trump and his health-related appointees have fallen into the trap of listening to Wakefield’s profit-driven lies, and the U.S. population may pay the price.
TD5: Jay Bhattacharya to Lead the NIH?
3 March 2025
Jay Bhattacharya is a Stanford University professor, holding both M.D. and Ph.D. (in economics) degrees. President Trump has nominated him to lead the National Institutes of Health during Trump’s second term as president. On the face of it, an academic at a leading institution of higher education, with one foot in the medical world and one foot in the world of economy, would sound like a great choice for NIH leadership. However, if one goes a bit beneath the surface, this choice may not be as good as it seems to be.
During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Bhattacharya was a very loud and controversial voice. That is, with two others, he coauthored the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued that (1) mortality from COVID-19 was generally low, but significantly higher in the elderly and infirm; (2) lockdowns as a public health measure have significant negative consequences in and of themselves; and (3) achieving so-called “herd immunity” was the best way to damp out the epidemic. (Herd immunity is the idea that if most individuals in a population get infected, recover, and thereby have some level of immunity, the epidemic will die out.) Based on very fragmentary, early evidence about COVID-19 infection rates, Bhattacharya and colleagues argued that it was much better simply to let COVID-19 sweep through the less-vulnerable sectors of the population, building immunity in the great bulk of humanity, and thereby killing off the epidemic.
Bhattacharya’s reasoning, and indeed data generated by his own research team, however, were immediately called into question, with concerns ranging from the design of the sampling, false-positive rates in the serological testing, and others. The concern is that the inference of lower public health threat from COVID-19 (e.g., that case fatality rates were not as high as one might think) is not sound.
Indeed, not only was the science questioned, but it also emerged that the study had been—in part at least—funded by David Neeleman, founder of JetBlue Airways and a loud opponent of lockdowns. This funding—in effect a conflict of interest regarding the conclusions of the research—was not declared in the scientific publication documenting the outcomes of the study, which stated only, “We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication.” In MY academic position, if I published a paper that alleged controversial results without acknowledging funding from interested parties, I would be investigated for academic misconduct, and my job would be in danger.
Bhattacharya was criticized widely for his argument, in the scientific community, by the U.S. public health leadership at the time, by the director-general of the World Health Organization, and by the media. Crucially, one of the most biting critiques of his ideas came from Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, who called him a “fringe epidemiologist.”
Although Bhattacharya says that he was just trying to spark debate about what COVID-19 policy would ideally do to eliminate the epidemic, his ideas really were—and are—fringe ideas. Hundreds of studies in public health have analyzed best approaches to damping out infectious disease outbreaks: the broad consensus is that social distancing is a crucial element to combating such outbreaks and epidemics. (Arguing to the contrary is, to be honest, a lot like doubting the reality of climate change, or the efficacy of vaccination.) Bhattacharya would argue that negative consequences of social distancing, as would manifest in a lockdown, outweigh the reductions in transmission of the disease in question, but this argument depends on COVID-19 being less dangerous, and we have seen that that conclusion is based on uncertain evidence.
So President Trump has made his choices about who will head the many government departments and agencies, and among them is Bhattacharya to head the National Institutes of Health. Bhattacharya clearly has an axe to grind with NIH over being called “fringe,” as he has indicated in numerous interviews about the subject. As NIH researchers are being fired and NIH grant budgets are being slashed, what will happen to the institution with a boss who has such a vendetta? My sincere hope is that 2025-2029 will be a period without any major public health emergencies.
TD4: How To
Kill U.S. Universities
15 February 2025
The US has long been ranked as the world leader in science. That is, for many decades, the US has dominated in terms of investment in scientific research. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranked the US in 2022 as #1 in terms of investment in research, at US$761.6B, compared to US$620.4B by China; no other country gets above one-third of those amounts. And those investments paid off in publications and insights deriving from those investments, with 2022 rankings placing the US above China; again, no other country coming close to the top two. Rankings after 2023, however, show China closing the gap, and in a number of cases now surpassing the US in terms of science prominence worldwide.
The US Government provides billions of dollars of funding to support scientific research at institutions across the country. The lion’s share of this funding goes, of course, to support the research per se, such that the fantastic insights that US university-based researchers produce derive from grants from US Government funding agencies. These grants come from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and many other US Government agencies. However, what academic researchers put into their grant budgets is what is needed directly to do the research… supplies, salaries, and equipment… which does not cover what else is needed to sustain the institution’s support for that research.
Think about it… a business might sell a TV for $500, which it purchased for $200. It does not take the $300 difference as pure profit; rather, the business needs to pay the electrical bill, the water bill, the upkeep of the building where it is located, etc. Rather, much of the $300 difference between purchase price and actual cost gets eaten up by those other expenses that must be covered in order to keep the business in business.
Universities are no different. They maintain enormous physical facilities and human resources that are not covered in the “direct” costs of a grant, and instead are covered via what is called “indirect costs” in grant budgets. Indirect cost rates are set by means of a negotiation between the US Government and the institution, and are the result of long years of experience with the costs at the university associated with carrying out the research. These indirect costs play a crucial role in “keeping the lights on” at US universities: they pay for the facilities and infrastructure that make our research production possible.
At the University of Kansas, where I work, these indirect costs amount to about one-third of the total expense of a research project, which again is at a rate negotiated with the government and which is vital to the university’s ability to function as a research institution. Universities function based on budget revenues that come from various mixtures of state appropriations, tuition, gifts, endowment, etc., but one crucial element is those indirect costs that accompany research grants. About 21% of KU’s budget comes from grants and contracts; other universities may be lower or higher.
Back during his first term, President Trump was apparently looking around the government budget, trying to find money for his “wall” along the Mexican border, and was impressed by the amount of money in the budget of the National Institutes of Health that went to indirect costs, rather than directly supporting research. Now, in his second term, those indirect costs are apparently a prime target in Trump’s cost-cutting rampage… the new Trump-era “DOGE” policy is that all NIH indirect cost rates have been cut to 15% (down from the 40-60% that is normal), although this reduction is being debated in the courts. The simple truth is that indirect costs are not waste, but rather go to pay very real expenses associated with universities supporting research: if the US is to be a leader in research worldwide, then this is a massive slash to its research budget.
What happens if President Trump’s assault on indirect costs in federal research grants continues? US universities will, quite simply, face massive budget shortfalls, on the order of 10-15% across the board. Not only will these budget cuts affect research per se, but they will also affect the universities themselves: research grants contribute significantly to fostering a rich educational environment for our students. State governments are unlikely to respond by increasing their contributions to higher education budgets, and tuition rates are already far too high, creating barriers for many promising students who would like to study. So the effect will be that US universities decline, in the short time because of budget shortfalls, which will affect the programs that they are able to offer. In the long term, as US universities decline, so also will the US’s prominence as a world leader in research.
Do we have to be #1 worldwide in terms of research? Is that so significant? Maybe not—I have many great colleagues in China and elsewhere, and I have learned an incredible amount from them. So more power to the world scientific community. But what happened to Trump’s idea that his second term would make America great again?
TD3: THE
DE LONG STRAIT?
6 February 2025
The name change from “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” seems to be a done deal now, notwithstanding the horror of geographers and historians. Shortly after taking office again, on 8 January 2025, President Trump said, in a press conference, that the name of the Gulf would be changed to the Gulf of America because “we do most of the work there and it’s ours.” On this basis, in spite of the fact that Mexico has more than 2000 miles of Gulf coastline compared with only a bit more than 1600 miles for the United States, President Trump feels that the name change is more than appropriate.
(I do need to point out that the original “Gulf of America” was a remote bay in the Russian Far East. It was named after the ship “America” that carried its Russian discoverers there in the 1850s. However, it was renamed by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the 1970s to a more appropriate, Russian, name, Zaliv Nakhodka.)
Given that President Trump has moved forward with renaming the Gulf of Mexico, we might think a bit about the set of placenames of major bodies of water that surround the United States. The Great Lakes are named Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior; we could certainly think of some reasons to dislike some of those, as all are either Native American names or of French derivation. Another target might be the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as they come from Greek mythology and a Portuguese misnomer (it apparently seemed like a peaceful sea when Ferdinand Magellan first sailed it in 1520), respectively. In this essay, however, I would like to address a particularly disturbing name for a body of water that adjoins the United States, the Bering Strait.
Vitus Bering was Danish, born in 1681 (he would die in 1741, but more about that in a bit). He was a cartographer and explorer, and became an officer in the Russian Navy early in the 1700s. In the course of two expeditions from the North Pacific Ocean northward into what is now called the Bering Strait and the Arctic Ocean beyond, Bering mapped and explored large swaths of these remote parts of Russia. However, on the second expedition, after documenting the fact that Siberia and Alaska were separate land masses, terrible conditions forced Bering to take refuge on an island in the Commander Islands group. There, Bering and quite a number of his ship’s crew died, perhaps of scurvy.
So, what to do about this body of water just west of Alaska? I think that we should take this name back from Denmark and Russia, and change it to something much more American. The “Strait of America” doesn’t work for me, though: too many U.S. Americans probably don’t know the difference between a gulf and a strait, so we have to diversify our use of names a bit, no?
I will argue for the De Long Strait as a better name. Why? A bit after Bering’s expeditions, Lieutenant Commander George W. De Long led the Jeannette Expedition of 1879–1881 in an effort to reach the North Pole via a novel route northward from the Pacific Ocean, passing between easternmost Asia and westernmost North America. Although the Jeannette got snared in ice, and eventually sank, the effort was nothing short of heroic, and achieved what success it achieved thanks to the heroism of De Long. De Long died of starvation in a remote river valley in northern Siberia.
In sum, the Bering Strait was named after a foreigner, and indeed after an officer in the Russian Navy. Worse still, President Trump has underlined on many occasions how much he dislikes “losers” of any sort, and particularly in the military. Bering was just such a loser, dying for lack of vitamin C in his diet. As such, I will advocate strenuously for renaming the Bering Strait to something more appropriate. While it is true that De Long also died a “loser” (like Bering did), at least it was to starvation rather than to scurvy. And in this age of “America First,” it is high time that we recognize the De Long Strait as a better name.
TD2: WHAT’S GOING ON WITH THE TRUMP “RESEARCH GRANT PAUSE”?
30 January 2025
The US government gives out billions of dollars in research grants to various sectors, including academia. These grants are a crucial element in how our government invests in research and development across all of science, both basic and applied. These grants, in my own case, currently range from mapping risk of tick-borne disease across the Great Plains, to cataloguing the diversity of African plants, to understanding how many viruses are “out there” hosted by mammals of the world. More generally, however, US government research grants are how the US stays a world leader in science.
The new Trump administration, however, has issued a series of executive orders, which have led the major science funding agencies to “pause” research grant activities. That is, I just got an email from the Director of the National Science Foundation to all NSF grant leaders, indicating that “all review panels, new awards, and all payments of funds under open awards will be paused as the agency conducts the required reviews and analysis.” Why? Well, later in the same message, it is indicated that “In particular, this may include, but is not limited to conferences, trainings, workshops, considerations for staffing and participant selection, and any other grant activity that uses or promotes the use of DEIA principles and frameworks or violates Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
A bit of background on how the National Science Foundation gives out grants. Proposals for funding from NSF are judged on two criteria, which are to be given equal weight in proposal evaluations. These criteria are (1) “intellectual merit,” which is whether the proposal lays out a solid case that the project proposed will do interesting, useful, and novel science, and (2) “broader impacts.” Broader impacts are all about ways in which the project can be designed to have positive effects on science more generally. A common focus of broader impacts in NSF proposals has been on opening avenues for broadening participation in science, particularly among groups of people that are underrepresented in scientific endeavors.
The sad truth is that academia has not had this focus on broadening participation in the past. As a consequence, nationwide, for example, only 43.3% of employed professors are women, while 56.7% are men. That is quite different from the balanced gender composition of the broader US population. The disparities are even stronger in terms of representation of groups such as LGBTQIA+, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Native Americans. So “diversity” is not about some crazy liberal scheme to favor immigrants or anything like that, but rather just to get the world of science and the academy to look more like how the American populace looks.
No indication is given as to how long this “research grant pause” will last: already, it has been challenged in the courts, stopped by judges’ decisions, and partially rescinded. No doubt, of course, the Trump administration will try again, and will come out with something similar (maybe slightly less problematic), and some of this anti-“diversity” thinking will infuse into how this country operates.
To me, science is a world of marvels, in which people pursue their curiosity and explore how the world works. Sharing these marvels with a broad swath of humanity seems to me to be the neatest thing possible. Maybe that’s why I became an educator in science. These ideas of stopping anything having to do with diversity (in this case in science) seem to me to be unjust, unkind, and certainly nothing that sounds Christian. How about let’s “make American great,” and let everyone into the science club?
TD1: A NEW MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
8 January 2025
President-elect Trump has been making statements about his plans or wishes to rename geographic features. First came his idea to return “Denali” to its earlier “Mount McKinley,” notwithstanding the fact that the Koyukon (a Native American group) had referred to the peak as "Denali" since well before the birth of McKinley in the 19th century. More recently, he has stated his wish to rename the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America,” regardless of the fact that Mexico was a named place bordering that water body when the southeastern parts of what is now the USA were not yet part of the USA. Trump seems to be offended by geographic features relevant to the USA having names that are not derived from good, pure American English.
Given all of these plans coming from the future President of the United States, I have a modest proposal for the USA. We have a whole bunch of state names that are also more than a bit offensive. Think about this:
Alabama is a Native American name, as are Alaska (though perhaps modified a bit by being stated in Russian!), Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For that matter, Indiana is derived from Latin for “Land of the Indians.” Given the Denali precedent, we cannot accept the continued use of these names.
And, of course, our state names should be in English. Arizona is a Spanish word, as are California, Colorado, Florida, Montana, and Nevada. Vermont is from a French word. Hawaii is (obviously) from Hawaiian, and Rhode Island is from a Dutch word. While we are at it, New Hampshire is named after the English county of Hampshire, and New Jersey after one of the British Channel Islands. New Mexico is (obviously) named after old Mexico. We cannot be honoring these varied references to other cultures or other parts of the world.
Then we get to the really bad ones. Delaware was named for a French first Governor-General of the Colony of Virginia, and Georgia was named after King George II of Great Britain. Louisiana was named in honor of King Louis XIV of France, and Maryland after Queen Henrietta Maria (wife of King Charles I) of England. New York was named after King James II of England (then the Duke of York). North and South Carolina were named after kings Charles I and II of England. Then, in a rather prurient reference, Virginia (and, of course, West Virginia) is named in honor of the virginity of Queen Elizabeth I of England, who never married.
We are down to just five states that might have acceptable names. Pennsylvania after Admiral William Penn, the father of the state’s founder—but the elder Penn was a member of the British military, so forget that one. Oregon’s name is of controversial derivation, but it was first so named by a British army officer in a petition to King George III, so forget that one too. Maine’s name might refer to the idea of being the mainland, but probably comes from the French province of Maine or the English village of Broadmayne. And the name Idaho may have been made up as a practical joke, but was supposedly from a word in a Native American language
So that leaves just Washington: George Washington, often termed the father of this country. However, Washington was originally a commander in a regiment in service of the British colony of Virginia before he went on to more American occupations. And what is more, the name Washington comes from the town of Washington in County Durham, England.
For that matter, the whole country is named the United States of America, and the name America is in honor of Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer. What is more, the first maps of America show South America and the Caribbean, so it wasn’t even “our” America that was given the name of that Italian guy.
In sum, here is my proposal for revised place names for US states. (For clarity, these are integer numbers assigned randomly to the 50 states. All historical details cited above were cribbed from various sources on the Internet, to give full credit.)
