Nigeria—A Real Crisis or a Distraction?

The Trump administration, following the President’s post, shared that the United States had attacked terrorists in Nigeria. To be fair, President Trump had warned Boko Haram that if they continued to carry out attacks on Christians that they would pay a heavy price. The question that should be asked is, “Are terrorist organizations in Nigeria targeting Christians in a jihad?” The answer should be easy to find in the news media. However, there has been little to no mention of a jihad against Christians in Nigeria, except in social media, blogs, and right leaning Christian media. Mainstream churches have not mentioned any concerns. Mainstream non-biased media had not covered any stories related to a Christian jihad. The Nigerian government, while struggling with political turmoil, did not report any targeted attacks on only Christians.

Questions need to be asked and researched, and the source of the reporting needs to be considered in any evaluation. I advise you to look to mainstream media that generally do not have a right or left leaning bias. To verify this check out the AllSides Media Bias Chart (allsidesmedia.com) or The Media Bias Chart (adfontsmedia.com).

Are Christians being killed? Yes, but so are Muslims and other Nigerians. Nigeria is a nation with mostly Christians in the north and Muslims in the south. There have been clashes between farmers and herders in central Nigeria, much like the former problems in our own country decades ago. The herders are primarily Muslim, while the farmers are generally Christian. Most of these disputes are over access to water and pasture. However, there is little evidence that either group is disproportionately at fault. Olajumoke Ayandele, an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in conflict studies, told the AP that the violence in Nigeria represents widespread killings rather than targeted attacks against a specific group.

What are the neutral mainstream media saying? The BBC reports that there is NO evidence that more Christians are being killed than Muslims. Al Jazeera reported that there are reports of attacks by Boko Haram and other fringe groups. However, the attacks do not target only Christians. The attacks are not about religion. The Associated Press reports that analysis does not support the idea of genocide as defined by the United Nations. There is no one group dedicated to destroying a religious group. Reports claiming “Christian genocide” hide the fact that Nigeria is having an ongoing civil conflict.

Although less known, the Armed Conflict Location and Event (ACLED) organization reports that most of the victims of Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been Muslims. Since 2009, 53,000 civilians have been killed due to internal civil conflicts. The group reports that data from right wing Christian groups claiming that 100,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, is not supported by the data. Most deaths are attributed to political power grabs, land disputes, cult affiliations, and simple banditry. (acleddata.com March 15, 2024)

The issues in Nigeria are not about Christian genocide. The U.S. involvement appears to be another distraction from the political turmoil in Washington.

Donald Trump and the International Criminal Court

Historical Background

It has been 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court, to prosecute crimes such as genocide. On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly, “Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states (countries) or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council.

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.” — Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

The Roman Statute (named for its introduction in Rome, Italy) establishing the ICC was signed by 125 countries. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, but according to official documentation, the U.S. government under the Bush administration, requested the country’s removal from the treaty before ratification. Other non-signers included China, Russia, and Israel. The United States did not sign the Rome Statute for several reasons, primarily related to concerns over the jurisdiction and effectiveness of the ICC. The U.S. government also expressed fears that the court’s jurisdiction cold be politicized and that it might not be effective in preventing unwanted scrutiny of U.S. military personnel and officials.

The ICC’s Role

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.

Today the Court has over 900 staff members from approximately 100 States. It is Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. Since 2002, there have been 34 cases before the Court, with some cases having more than one suspect. ICC judges have issued a total of 61 arrest warrants. Since 2002, thanks to cooperation from member countries, 22 people have been detained in the ICC detention center and have appeared before the Court. Thirty-two people remain at large. Charges have been dropped against 8 people due to their deaths. ICC judges have also issued 9 summons to appear. The judges have issued 13 convictions and 4 acquittals.

The Office of the Prosecutor is an independent organ of the Court. The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations and investigations, and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court. Defendants are entitled to public, fair proceedings that they can follow in a language they fully understand. Victims’ voices are heard in the Courtroom, as the Rome Statute grants victims unprecedented rights to participate in ICC proceedings. The ICC has a victim and witness protection program that uses both operational and procedural protective measures.

The Court engages in two-way dialogue directly with communities that have suffered from crimes under its jurisdiction, so that they can communicate directly with the Court and gain a sense of ownership in the judicial process. By supporting the Court, the countries that have joined the Rome Statute system have taken a stand against those perpetrators who, in the past, would have had no one to answer to after committing widespread, systematic international crimes. The ICC calls on all countries to join the fight against impunity, so that perpetrators of such crimes are punished, and to help prevent future occurrences of these crimes. (UN International Criminal Court)

The Trump Administration’s Attack

The Trump administration’s dislike of the court goes back to his first term. The ICC was investigating possible war crimes committed by the United States, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result, in 2020, The Trump administration imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court’s work.

During his second term, on August 20, 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration again imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the ICC over its targeting of Israeli leaders. Washington designated sanctions against Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the U.S. Treasury and State Department. The designations freeze any U.S. assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the U.S. financial system. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court “a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare” against the United States and Israel. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. The ICC also has high-profile war crimes investigations under way in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. (Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch, Reuters, August 20, 2025)

“The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,” Rubio said. “I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution.” Countering Rubio’s call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. “The Court calls upon States Parties [countries] and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes,”

Both France and the United Nations said the judges’ work is crucial for international justice. “Their role is essential in the fight against impunity,” a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The U.S. sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: “The (U.S.) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor.” Netanyahu’s office issued a statement welcoming the U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s Pressure Campaign Against the ICC Reaches New Heights

On December 10, 2025, a U.S. official told Reuters that the White House pressured the International Criminal Court (ICC) to alter its founding document to prevent it from investigating U.S. President Donald Trump and his senior officials. These threats mark a significant escalation in Trump’s long-time campaign against the world’s war crimes tribunal at a time when legal experts are suggesting that the administration may have violated international law with U.S. military operations against alleged drug boats near Latin America.

The White House wants the court to alter the Rome Statute so Trump and his officials can’t be prosecuted. The anonymous U.S. official did not specify which issues the Trump administration fears could become subject to an ICC investigation. However, the official said there was growing concern that “in 2029, the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them,” referring to Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The timing of the renewed pressure campaign comes as the White House faces growing congressional pressure to release the full, unedited video of a Sept. 2 double-tap strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, in which a second strike killed two survivors of an initial U.S. attack. According to the U.S. official, the Trump administration wants the ICC to also formally end its probe into U.S. military actions in Afghanistan as well as to drop its investigations of senior Israeli officials related to the war in Gaza.

The Trump administration has threatened to penalize more ICC officials and potentially sanction the court itself if its three demands are not met. (Alexandra Sharp, the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy)

The Trump Hegseth War on Drugs

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem. Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.” Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States. Nothing new! The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers. I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases. I saw people die from overdosing! I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs. Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand. The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction. “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source. In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes. The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S. Could Secretary Hegseth be right? Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States? Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law. Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists. No need to make an arrest. There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial. Justice would be served on the street. Speedy and final. The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers! Kill the foot soldiers. These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption. Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits. The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed. Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential.

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved. Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message.

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States. Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage. Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family. Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war! We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.

The Trump Economy: An Opinion

How healthy is the Trump economy? According to President Trump, the economy is healthy, the best in recent years. But given the media reports over the past several months, I find his claim hard to believe.

I am not an economist. My most difficult courses in college were my two economic classes. However, I have recently spent days evaluating what is considered a neutral analysis on the American economy. Economic evaluations by Purdue University, the Federal Reserve, Deloitte, and Ernst and Young Parthenon report that in 2025, the U.S. economy experienced slower growth, increased inflation, and potential challenges in consumer spending as compared to 2024. In 2025, the expected economic growth rate of around 1.5% is less than it was in 2024 (2.8%). This reduced growth rate is likely due to President Trump’s high tariffs and overall reduced consumer spending (although the recent pre-Christmas shopping has set records).

The Simple Data

The unemployment rate rose slightly in 2025, reaching 4.8%, as compared to 4% in 2024. The risks surrounding the labor market have sharply increased. The increase is linked to the cooling labor market and higher costs due to tariffs. At the same time, business investment has decreased due to economic uncertainty and higher costs. This is partially due to the increased tariffs.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer Inflation in 2024 was historically low at 2.9%. However, the 2025 annual rate is estimated to be 4.1%. While the Federal Reserve has been cautious in lowering its prime lending rate, a further cut in December could bring the target range for inflation to +3.5% – +3.75% by year-end.

These trends indicate that American businesses and citizens are having a difficult time navigating the changing federal economic policies. In addition, the uncertainty in U.S. economic policies has had an international impact. European markets are more competitive. EY Parthenon forecasts that the dollar will continue to depreciate against the Euro. The same is projected for the dollar against the yen.

How Does America Compare with Other Major World Economies?

CHINA

In 2024, China’s economic growth stood at 5.3%, but slowed to 4.8% by the end of the third quarter of 2025. The annual growth is projected to be 5%. The strengthening of private consumption is a key priority for the Chinese authorities. Despite US tariffs, manufacturing activity has been driven by export growth in other trade partnerships. However, export growth is expected to lose momentum in the coming months as the export sector suffers from the rise in protectionism and the weakening of global demand.

EUROZONE

The planned increase in military spending in Europe, and significant budgetary support in Germany, have provided a boost to the Eurozone in 2025. This trend will likely continue into 2026 if support for Ukraine remains strong. However, economic growth will be limited in the short term by trade tensions between the United States and China. Inflation is expected to remain stable around the 2% target.

FRANCE

France has a low GDP rate of 0.5%. The inflation rate continues to decline. The low GDP may be the result of significant political uncertainty and its impact on household confidence. But German economic growth recovery should push the French rate up to 1.2%.

UNITED KINGDOM

Economic activity in the United Kingdom strengthened slightly in 2025, rising to 1.3%. According to EY Parthenon, it will continue to slow to 1.0% in 2026. However, increased defense spending in the United Kingdom and Europe may support an increased GDP. Downside risks have been mitigated by the trade agreements with the United States. In 2025, inflation remained well above 2%, supported by wage growth and persistent supply-side pressures. The Bank of England cut its key interest rates again in November which may further reduce inflation.

JAPAN

Japanese growth has been increasing throughout most of 2025. However, due to the US trade policy, the negative consequences for export businesses have resulted in muting this growth. Household consumption is facing inflation. The Bank of Japan has started a cautious monetary tightening cycle, bringing the key rate to +0.5%. In December, the rate was raised again to deal with persistent inflationary pressures.

Final Observations

In summary, the United States economic policies under President Trump have eroded the gains achieved during previous years. For example, President Biden had inherited a troubled economy due to the COVID outbreak and the Trump administration’s “American Economic Revival” plans. (See Trump’s 2016 speech in Time, September 15, 2016.)

When President Joe Biden left the White House economics reported a strong economy, historic gains in the job market, a foundation for future manufacturing growth, and having brought down decades-highinflation without triggering a recession. Those feats, economists say, are even more impressive considering the nation was deep in the throes of a deadly, economy-scarring pandemic

Post Trump administration analysis of his American Economic Revival plan found that the plan did not work. Economist Justin Wolfers wrote in February 2019: “I’ve reviewed surveys of about 50 leading economists – liberals and conservatives – run by the University of Chicago. What is startling is that the economists are nearly unanimous in concluding that Mr. Trump’s policies are destructive.”

In my opinion, the second term Trump policies are no better than those of his first term. President Trump has placed the country in an economic position that is less than favorable in the world economy, and more importantly, domestically. Inflation is still high. The unemployment rate is static. Trump tariffs have increased prices domestically and alienated many nations. In early 2025, the Yale Budget Lab estimated that consumer prices would rise by 1.4% to 5.1%, with an average cost per household of $1,900 to $7,600. In a Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted Nov. 21-24, 49% of respondents said Trump’s actions, since taking office for his second term in January, have raised prices instead of cutting them. Only 24% said he’s lowered costs.

Did Slotkin, Kelly, Houlahan, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Crow Say Anything Illegal?

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed. He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed. Did they cross the line? Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel. And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material. A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders. The question is, what is an illegal order? Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders. The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful? To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives. However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media. The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal? The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles. The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.” The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities. The issue has met with stalled legal action.

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable. In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war. In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options.

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason? Absolutely NOT! They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.

What Can I Do?

Whether it is climate change, animal rights, pollution, civil rights, or other political problems, I am often asked, “What Can I Do? I’m just one person!” That’s true. As one person, you have little power to influence the direction of policy. But one person can influence another person, who might influence another person, and so on. As an individual you need to share your voice with others. When you become a small group, you have power, and the larger the group, the more power.

We have all seen the media coverage on the “No Kings” march. That is a group action that cannot be ignored. If you are concerned about recent government efforts to minimize the fact that there is global warming, you should be focusing on COP30. World leader from almost all the nations of the world have pushed back against the Trump administration’s dismantling of our nation’s environmental protection plans. The world is moving ahead with efforts to reduce global warming. And while the Trump administration did not have any representatives present, there were many American mayors, governors, business owners, and individuals who did attend.

Do NOT sit on the sidelines asking, “What can I do?” Talk with those who may agree with you. Have civil conversations with those who have differing opinions. Work to organize small groups, write letters, send emails, and send texts. Get involved. The more the average American becomes an advocate for a cause, the more likely some action will eventually come about.

It can take only one person to start a movement. Consider Candy Lightner, Rosa Parks, Harvey Milkman, Margaret Sanger, David Hogg, Ross Pero, Lydia Marie Child, Ida B. Wells, and many others too numerous to name. Smaller movements on the local level can also reap benefits. For example, in McDonough County, the Macomb Woman’s Club worked for years to bring glass recycling to the county. Now over 12 tons of glass has been recycled since June 26, 2025. You can make a difference! Get involved whether it be at the local, regional, state or national levels!

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”

The Supreme Court and the Shadow Docket

Introduction

In the past months the media has occasionally mentioned the Supreme Court and its Shadow Docket. This tool has become important to the Trump administration as it attempts to deal with lower court decisions that hamper the President’s agenda. Examples include the deployment of federal troops to support ICE operations, and the court ordered payments for the SNAP program.

The Merit Docket

The Supreme Court has used two approaches to hearing cases. The first is the merit docket. This traditional docket involves a Court review to determine on merit the 60 to 70 cases that the Court will consider during any given year. In making this decision, the Court hears briefs and holds oral arguments. If the case is heard, the Court then issues its opinion explaining its reasoning, usually with dissents and concurrences. The process involved transparency and shows informed decision-making.

The Shadow Docket

The second track is the shadow docket. The traditional view of the shadow docket is simple. The Supreme Court rules on procedural matters such as scheduling and injunctions. Most of the time these cases, as noted above, deal with due dates for briefs, or a request to halt a lower court’s orders. These cases are not under intensive review and do not require oral arguments. Generally, the decisions have no explanation and often lead to questions about the rationale for the decision. As noted by Stephen Vladeck in his testimony before Congress, “Owing to their unpredictable time, their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these ruling come both literally and figurative in the shadows.”

The Growing Problem with the Shadow Docket

The term “shadow docket” was first used by University of Chicago law professor Will Baude in 2015. He used it to refer to the docket of work at the Supreme Court that almost no one noticed. This work consists of thousands of decisions usually handed down as an “order” by a single judge, usually the Circuit Judge for a particular district. Sometimes, the order reflects the opinion of the entire Court. Of course, routine decisions can be made without all of the justices hearing all the arguments. The current issue is that the justices are sometimes granting relief in contentious cases. The problem is that cases which had been determined as significant are now being decided in the “shadows.”

Significant Issues Decided or Blocked by the Shadow Docket

The shadow docket decisions have included gerrymandering, environmental regulations, and abortion. And in many cases, the administration has filed an emergency motion where the administration seeks to suspend or reverse lower court decisions, even while the case is ongoing! Emergency actions are supposed to be rare. They are considered by the Supreme Court when the lower court ruling could cause irreparable harm. Justice Elena Kaga has said that the court has gone “astra” making the “Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all …… only another place for merits determination—except made without full briefing and argument.”

Why is This Change a Problem?

Use of the shadow docket process runs against the historic record of transparency and rule of law generally associated with the Supreme Court. The Court has historically allowed the lower courts to establish facts and make determinations on cases. The Court then receives full briefings on the lower court case, holds oral arguments from both sides of the issue, and decides on an outcome, providing details of the decision-making process (including dissenting and supporting opinions). This process has been the backbone of the Court’s legitimacy with the American people.

It is no wonder that the American public is beginning to question the Court’s objectivity. Shadow docket decisions do not have the transparent look of the merit docket. Decisions are being rendered with little or no reasoning given. This has fed the believe that the Court has become more political in its decision making.

In addition, the concept of case law, which has guided lower courts in their decision making, has become difficult to follow. Federal judges often cannot agree on what weight to give shadow docket decisions. This has played out in the confusion over Trump’s immigration policies and his use of the military to support ICE.

The Consequences

District Judges are not only having problems applying case law or knowing the Supreme Court’s message, but they are also resigning out of frustration. One example is Judge Mark Wolf, U.S. District Judge for the Massachusetts District, who has resigned after many years on the bench. He has expressed his frustration with the erosion of prosecutorial independence, attacks on the Constitution, and rule of law by the current administration. Wolf was appointed by President Reagan in 1989 and was a major jurist in the Watergate Affair.

Conclusion

The shadow docket is likely being misused as a matter of political expedience. It is up to the Justices to reign in this practice and recognize that matters which the administration views as emergencies should be allowed to play out through the normal appeals process.

Is President Trump Mentally Capable of Making Presidential Decisions?

Introduction

Over the past several years I have written about President Trump, expressing my opinions regarding his policies, politics, and character. I will repeat my opinion that some of President Trump’s policy initiatives are worthy of consideration. However, the political dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties often fail to look for ways to move forward with these ideas.

Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government are instruments of the People. We should not feel compelled to accept their lack of work in finding compromise to the budget crisis. Likewise, we have an obligation to protect America’s interests both domestically and internationally. It is my view that the legislative and judicial branches of government have been coopted by President Trump. Our “face” to the world, despite his own self-aggrandizement, is making America look dysfunctional. On the home front, the government is shut down, price inflation continues to be a problem, major initiatives to combat global warming have been shut down, and other significant government departments have been gutted. In my opinion, supported by numerous mental health professions, our president has mental and cognitive problems and should NOT be making policy decisions. While the policies may have sound foundations to build upon, President Trump’s egotistic “I have the answers” approach has far too often failed to consider the outcomes of his decisions.

President Trump is content to ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights when they do not fit his vision. Blowing up boats in the Caribbean and Atlantic in international waters is a violation of International Maritime Law. It is also a violation of our Constitution. The increased use of ICE to control immigration may have been a good idea, but in Trump’s wisdom he has deployed the National Guard and Marines to support ICE officers under the manufactured idea that cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and New York are “hotbeds of crime”!

Are these the actions of a stable genius as President Trump claims? In my lifetime, I have lived under ten presidents. While history may have found that each of these presidents had human failings, there have never been any that measure up to Trump’s poor decision making abilities! Richard Nixon may come close with his illegal efforts to control the Presidential election, resulting in the Watergate Scandal.

President Trump’s Character and Mental Status

Multiple mental health professionals have publicly raised concerns about President Trump’s mental health and cognitive functioning. These concerns are often expressed through collective publications and structured assessments, rather than formal diagnoses, due to ethical guidelines that prohibit diagnosing public figures without direct examination. Notable efforts include the 2017/2018 book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, where 27 psychiatrists and mental-health experts argued that Trump’s behavior presented dangerous traits, such as patterns resembling narcissism and paranoia. They emphasized the need for public warning, despite the ethical convention against remote diagnosis. The voter didn’t listen!

However, in 2024 and 2025, some mental health experts have expressed alarm over Trump’s cognitive faculties, suggesting signs of cognitive decline. Observations include rambling speeches, erratic debate performances, and incoherent tangents during public appearances. Analyses of Trump’s public persona often highlight traits associated with narcissistic leadership, authoritarian tendencies, and transactional logic. As noted earlier in this piece, his behavior aligns with grandiose self-image, moral disengagement, and strategic aggression, which have shaped his presidency’s most controversial policies.

Despite extensive public discussion and expert commentary, Donald Trump has not received an official public psychiatric diagnosis. Formal diagnosis requires direct clinical evaluation, which has not occurred. Trump has recently reportedly passed cognitive screening tests (such as the MoCA), Still, some experts remain concerned about potential cognitive decline, citing speech patterns and memory lapses. Recent media reports have highlighted Trump’s MRI scans and increased scrutiny of his mental fitness, especially following public statements and social media activity that some interpret as signs of confusion or possible dementia. However, these claims remain speculative and are not supported by official medical documentation.

The 2024 stud, mentioned earlier, used a structured Psychodiagnostic Chart to compare leaders and reported that Trump’s scores fell into a severe mental illness and dangerousness range across multiple mental functions, alongside Vladimir Putin, and contrasted with a psychologically healthy Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The study presents quantitative profiling to support its conclusions. The methodology and the authors’ selection criteria a important considerations for interpreting the strength of this comparison.

Conclusion

Multiple medical experts have raised concerns about Trump’s mental health and cognitive abilities through published collections and structured assessments, and these works consistently highlight public-safety concerns. However, differences in methods, ethical debates about remote diagnosis, and potential political motives indicate that these warnings should be treated as serious signals warranting further, standardized evaluation rather than conclusive clinical proof. My readers must assess whether clinical concerns are amplified by political objectives.

The Trump Administration and The Bill of Rights

The Future is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

One of the most important written documents in American history is the Constitution. And within the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments spell out the limitations of our government by the people as well as the rights of the people. Has the Trump administration adhered to our founding father’s vision of a nation ruled by the people and for the people? A look at how well the administration has followed the tenants of the Bill of Rights gives a clear picture of an administration that has no interest in these important rights and limitations! It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine just how far the administration can push the letter of the law!

The First Amendment relates to religion, free speech, and assemblage. The government should make no laws establishing a preferred religion or prohibiting the exercise of religion. Today, Christian Nationalism fails to allow for the exercise of religion other than that of Christians. Laws requiring Christian references have been passed in several states. Usually, they are found unconstitutional when reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Free speech is guaranteed. However, under the current administration, speech which does not conform to the standards set by the President has been under attack. Comedians making jokes about the administration are regularly attacked by the President and his surrogates. Colbert, Kimel, and O’Fallon are just a few who have had to pay a price for making jokes about the President and his administration. The President has even issued an executive order that prohibits flag burning, despite a previous Supreme Court decision that makes it a form of free speech. In the last few days, he has reiterated that anyone burning the flag should be in jail for one year! Furthermore, the press is being stifled with threats from the Federal Communications Commission following our President’s disapproval of news coverage. ABC recently settled a lawsuit regarding free speech rather than paying the price to defend the corporation and jeopardize a pending multi-million-dollar merger with Nexstar.

Freedom of assemblage is being taken away as the President sends national guard and/or federal troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and other cities where demonstrations around Immigration Customs Enforcement protest the government’s attack on immigration. As of this writing, federal judges have blocked the deployment pending hearing legal responses from the federal government.

The Second Amendment concerns the Militia (National Guard). The “Guard” is highly regarded and regulated by law and decades of precedents. Our President is using powers granted to him to control insurrections or enforce federal laws to create unrest where there are no insurrections and the enforcement of federal laws are not being forcefully ignored. The right to bear arms is not under attack by the administration.

The Third Amendment concerns quartering of troops. It has little application in today’s world. The administration, so far, has not tried to place troops in private homes or businesses. Although, ICE has trespassed on private property in the pursuit of illegals.

The Fourth Amendment provides for the security of people against unreasonable search and seizure. Probable cause is needed for searches and warrants. The amendment requires that warrants give a description of the place, persons, and things that can be seized. The ICE crackdown on immigrants has often failed to follow the simplest rules set forth in this amendment. People are arrested without probable cause as defined by our courts over many years. People are arrested because they do not look like “Americans”. Even children are being detained (arrested)!

The Fifth Amendment addresses the requirement for an indictment for crimes. A person must be indicted by a grand jury. In modern times, the prosecuting attorney can present the indictment. In 2025, individuals are being arrested without being indicted. There is no trial. This amendment also addresses double jeopardy; a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This amendment also provides for the right to not be a witness against oneself. It also requires due process before private property can be taken for public use. These three areas seem to be left alone.

The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers. This is the habeas corpus amendment. It provides for the right to call and confront witnesses. It also provides for the right to have an attorney. Many of the alleged illegal immigrants are not provided these basic rights. Many have been arrested and removed from this country without any formal hearing!

The Seventh Amendment is the double jeopardy rule. At this point this amendment is not being attacked.

The Eighth Amendment concerns bail. It cannot be excessive. It also says that the punishment cannot be cruel or unusual. In the case of ICE deportations, the charged crime of being an illegal immigrant has resulted in deportees being incarcerated in prisons in other countries or detained in deplorable detention centers here. Think Alligator Alley.

The Ninth Amendment reflects a deep philosophical commitment to the idea that liberty is not confined to what’s written in law. The rights of the people are not limited by the Constitution. The interpretation of this amendment may have bearing on current situations.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Current actions regarding the use of national guard and federal troops are beyond what the founding fathers likely believed. Their creation of posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act have limited the use of our military. While there are exceptions to both, the current situations as viewed by our president go beyond what the rationale person would accept as insurrections or a need to enforce federal law.

In conclusion, the decisions made by the Trump administration need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that justice prevails over political pressures!