Trump Claims that Democrats are the Enemy!

There is NO factual basis for saying that Democrats—or for that matter, any mainstream American political group—are “America’s enemy.” Trump’s claim is political rhetoric, not an evidence‑based assessment of national security threats. It reflects a pattern in which Donald Trump labels political opponents as internal enemies.

Democrats are a constitutionally recognized political party representing tens of millions of Americans. They participate in elections, hold office, and operate within the same constitutional framework as Republicans. Disagreement over policy is normal in a democracy. It does not make one side an “enemy.”

Trump has increasingly described political opponents as “the enemy from within,” even calling them more dangerous than foreign adversaries. This is a rhetorical strategy, not a factual assessment. It’s meant to mobilize supporters and delegitimize critics.

This kind of language serves several political functions. It creates an “us vs. them” narrative, and it frames politics as a battle between patriots and traitors rather than a difference of ideas. By calling investigators, journalists, or opponents “enemies,” Trump casts any scrutiny of his actions as sabotage. His allegations heighten polarization, encouraging supporters to see compromise as betrayal. This is not unique to Trump, but he uses the tactic much more aggressively and more frequently than most modern presidents.

Historically, labeling fellow Americans as “enemies” is a warning sign. Democracies weaken when political opponents are treated as existential threats rather than competitors within the same system. When a political leader labels a domestic opponent as an “enemy,” it’s rarely about literal national security. It’s about reframing politics as existential conflict rather than policy disagreement. Trump is mobilizing supporters by creating a sense of threat—stolen elections, criminal immigrants, nuclear threats, WOKE, and DEI. According to Trump, critics are bad actors, particularly the “fake” media. He implies that his actions are normal and those opposed are anti-American. Political scientists call this antagonistic populism—a style that divides the nation into “the people” and “the enemies of the people.”

This tactic isn’t new in American history. For example, McCarthyism labeled political opponents (Socialists/Communists) as internal threats. Nixon framed critics as part of a “silent war” against him. Trump’s version is more direct and more personal. The “enemy” is not an ideology or a faction—it’s the opposing party itself. And to him, Democrats do not represent the core values of Americans. Make America Great Again!

One thing that stands out in Trump’s post‑2025 communication style is how his political rhetoric has become part of his governing posture. In his first term, the boundary between campaign language and governing language was porous; now, it’s almost nonexistent. That’s why statements like “Democrats are the enemy” aren’t just rhetorical flourishes—they’re signals about how he intends to wield power. When he labels Democrats as enemies, it’s often paired with threats of executive action, or accusations of sabotage and claims that the opposition is illegitimate. That pairing is what turns rhetoric into a governing tool. It’s not just messaging—it’s groundwork for policy justification.

When a president frames one party as an “enemy,” institutions that try to act independently get pulled into the conflict. They’re either “with him,” or “with the enemy.” That binary framing is powerful because it pressures institutions to choose sides. Consider the Supreme Court immunity debates or the almost blind loyalty of Congressional Republicans.

The more he escalates the language, the more his supporters expect confrontation. And the more they expect confrontation, the more he escalates. This loop is part of why his rhetoric has grown sharper since returning to office.

When setbacks occur—legal, bureaucratic, or geopolitical—he can immediately attribute them to “the enemy,” which protects his image of dominance, reframes failures as sabotage, and keeps his narrative intact. For example, Trump tried to bully a New York Times reporter. Donald Trump attacked NYT chief Washington correspondent David Sanger when he reported that Trump was backing away from his own goals in Iran, using Trump’s own words to prove it. Trump lashed out, “NYT’s lightweight analyst, David Sanger, says that I haven’t met my own goals. Yes, I have, and weeks ahead of schedule!” The Times could have let it slide. But they saw the pattern. It builds, and builds… until journalists lose all credibility. And they decided to break it.

Charlie Stadtlander, ED of Communications responded. “David Sanger brings more than 40 years of experience as a foreign and Washington correspondent for The Times — and a reputation for non-partisanship — to his work. His piece is a fair and thorough analysis of what the US military and American diplomats have and have not accomplished so far, and helps the country understand the state of the war and the president’s choices going forward. It’s exactly the type of analysis an independent journalist is supposed to be doing.”

Trump had an opportunity to respond. He didn’t. THIS is how you do it. Bullies only win when people give in. The New York Times did not give in! American need to support every news organization that stands up to Trump’s attacks on journalists. Demand the truth.

Funding Homeland Security: What’s the Problem?

Democrats have made it clear that they wish to fund Homeland Security programs but not Customs Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). Democrats have made multiple attempts—at least four distinct legislative pushes in early 2026—to fund most Homeland Security programs while excluding ICE and CBP, but every attempt was blocked by Republicans. These efforts centered on funding Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Coast Guard, and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components while holding back ICE/CBP funding until reforms were negotiated.

For example, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) introduced a Funding Bill (February 11, 2026) which would have provided a full‑year of DHS funding covering every agency except ICE, CBP, and the Secretary’s office. The billExplicitly withheld all ICE/CBP funding until reforms were enacted. While it passed the House, the Senate voted 51- 46 against the measure. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted “no” for procedural reasons, which allows him to bring the motion back up at a later date.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (March 6, 2026), said “This isn’t complicated: if Republicans won’t agree to rein in ICE and Border Patrol, they should at minimum work with us to pay TSA agents and fund disaster relief. But they won’t. Right now, Republicans are holding TSA agents’ paychecks hostage because they want to provide more money to ICE, without basic reforms to protect Americans’ rights and safety. Democrats will keep fighting to get TSA workers paid and fund FEMA and the Coast Guard, and we’ll keep pushing to enact common-sense steps to prevent more Americans from being hurt, or even killed, by masked federal agents.” Murray sought to fund TSA, FEMA, CISA, Coast Guard, and other DHS agencies, but explicitly excluded ICE and CBP. The request was blocked by Sen. Katie Britt (R‑AL).

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virgina) later made a public push for partial DHS funding (March 8, 2026) where democrats proposed passing funding for four DHS agencies (TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, CISA) while continuing reform negotiations for ICE and CBP. Republicans rejected these partial‑funding attempts.

Senator Patty Murray again pushed her modified bill funding TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA while excluding ICE and the Secretary’s office (March 2026). Again,Republicans blocked it.

Democrats argued that ICE and CBP already had sufficient funding from the previous summer. After incidents in various cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Democrats believe that reforms are needed for judicial warrants, body cameras, bans on masks, limits on roving patrols, better training, etc., before additional funding is a given.

Why did Republicans block the efforts to fund all the other agencies in the Homeland Security Bill as offered by Democrats? The Republicans framed Democrat actions as attempts to “defund” immigration enforcement and refused to allow partial DHS funding. This is a political move aimed at making the Democrats the bad actors, keeping funding from TSA workers, and other needed service agencies. The actions of Representative DeLauro, Senators Murray and Kaine make this narrative false. Democrats believe in supporting all DHS initiatives except for CBP and ICE. Senate Majority Leader Thune knows this. That is why he cast his “no” for allowing him to bring the bill back for a future vote. It is time he did so! Republican Senators need to focus on the good of the people and less on political maneuvers!

Trump’s Presidency and Behavior:

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson was one of those presidents who didn’t just tweak the traditions he inherited—he bulldozed several of them and replaced them with a new model of executive power. If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison built the early presidency, Jackson re‑engineered it into something far more assertive and personal. There are some similarities between Jackson and Trump. However, Jackson did not use the presidency for his own benefit.

Before Jackson, presidents generally saw themselves as stewards of the constitutional system, not as tribunes of the people. Jackson claimed he alone represented the entire nation, not Congress or the courts. Jackson used popular support as a political weapon, something earlier presidents avoided. And he treated the presidency as an independent power base rather than a modest executive office. This shift laid the groundwork for the modern, personality‑driven presidency.

Jackson asserted that the president’s interpretation of the Constitution was equal to Congress’s and the Court’s. This was a major break from the Founders’ vision of a restrained executive.

He introduced the “spoils system” on a national scale. Before Jackson, presidents generally kept existing civil servants unless there was a clear reason to remove them. Jackson replaced large numbers of federal officeholders with political loyalists. He treated government jobs as rewards for party service. This helped create the modern party machine.

Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court. Earlier presidents sometimes disagreed with the Court, but they did not openly undermine its authority. He famously refused to enforce Worcester v. Georgia, which protected Cherokee sovereignty. He asserted that each branch could interpret the Constitution independently. Using this argument, he used executive power to pursue Indian removal despite legal and moral objections. This was a dramatic break from the tradition of respecting judicial authority.

Jackson broke with tradition by expanding presidential power, using the veto as a political tool, rewarding loyalists with government jobs, challenging the Supreme Court, treating the presidency as a direct democratic mandate, and building a mass political party around himself.

Despite Jackson’s abuse of his presidential power, he is remembered as a great president. While his personality was based on personal confidence, he did not use the office for his personal betterment. While in hindsight his policies may be questionable, his goals were viewed by him and his followers as best for the nation.

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

Richard Nixon and Donald Trump share controversial presidencies. Both are marked with scandal, impeachment, and divisive leadership. The similarities end there. Nixon was secretive and manipulative, using operatives. Trump is brash, outspoken, and confrontational. He uses social media to connect directly with his base and his critics. Trump likes to be in the news, whereas Nixon operated behind the scenes.

Nixon had to deal with the Watergate scandal where a criminal conspiracy, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice eventually came to light. This scandal ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and his 1974 resignation. Trump has been the subject of two impeachment proceedings and ongoing criminal indictments related to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C. He is also a convicted felon regarding his business practices, and the loser in a sexual assault civil case. Trump’s legal challenges are broader than Nixon’s. Nixon’s problems were contained within his manipulation of government offices to cover up the president’s involvement in the Watergate burglary.

Nixon was able to achieve détente with the Soviet Union, opened relation with China and managed domestic unrest without military intervention. Trump has focused on “America First” using trade tariffs to gain deals with other nations. He has withdrawn from international agreements, alienating many traditional allies. Nixon’s approach to foreign affairs was strategic and secretive. Trump’s approach is direct and transactional.

Both Nixon and Trump experienced historically low approval ratings. Just before his resignation, Nixon’s approval rating fell to 36%. Trump’s approval ratings have recently dropped to under 40%.

While Nixon and Trump share scandals, impeachment proceedings, and polarization, they are very different in style, context, and legal resolution. Although Nixon resigned in disgrace, his presidency was marked by many foreign policy achievements. While Trump claims to have resolved numerous wars, and views himself as the “peace president” the state of America’s involvement in national conflicts makes his claims questionable. Like Jackson, Nixon may have been a flawed person, but his interests as president served America.

Joe Biden

Since the Republican leadership has questioned the ethics of the Biden administration, a comparison between the two presents stark differences. Did Joe Biden use his political clout for family benefit? This claim has been investigated several times and will be examined later in this article.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are very different people and ran very different presidencies. Biden expanded the Affordable Care Act (ACA), increased subsidies, and proposed a public option to improve accessibility to healthcare. Donald Trump has sought to repeal and then replace the ACA. He has introduced the American Health Care Act, which reduces federal involvement and increases state control of health policies. He has proposed direct payment to Americans in lieu of supporting insurance programs.

Trump has pulled back from environmental activism by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promoted fossil fuels such as coal, and one of his favorite sayings is, “Drill baby drill.” He has also decimated the Environmental Protection Agency. Biden, on the other hand, invested in renewable energy and implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

Donald Trump has reduced the size and influence of the Department of Education. His policies favor school choice and local controls. Biden increased federal funding for public schools, expanded access to pre-school programs, and worked for student debt relief.

Donald Trump’s immigration policies have created significant backlash, as protesters focus on ICE enforcement tactics. Trump’s stricter border enforcement has by all measures been successful in reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Biden tried to bring about progressive immigration reform but was blocked by the Republican controlled legislature.

There are so many issues where Trump and Biden were opposites on policy and on governance strategies. Biden emphasized unity, bipartisan cooperation, progressive social reform, multilateral foreign diplomacy, and post COVID economic recovery. Trump has focused on removing government from regulatory practices, tax cuts, and America First. Biden’s approach to economic recovery was just beginning as he ended his presidency. The data supports the contention that the nation was doing better in job creation and GDP under Biden than under Trump. Trump has done better in promoting wage growth, but the public has shown a lack of confidence in his ability to bring down the cost of living.

The claims that President Biden used his office to enrich his family started prior to 2019. Investigations into these claims have been ongoing. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating foreign business activities of Hunter Biden, James Biden and the involvement of Twitter in the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory. In August 2024, the House Committees released a report alleging impeachable conduct.

The story presented is that James and Hunter Biden owned Paradigm a major hedge fund. Hunter accepted a consulting job with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. Joe Biden was Vice President at this time. At the same time, Hunter also co-founded BHR Partner, based in China. When Biden became the presidential candidate in 2019 the Trump re-election committee, lead by Rudy Giulini, alleged financial impropriety and influence peddling. A subsequent investigation by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, could not substantiate Giulini’s claims.

Then in late 2020, the New York Post reported that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden had emails that referred to President Joe Biden. There was much speculation and conspiracy mongering following the Post report. To date, nothing was found that would implicate President Biden in Hunter’s business affairs. To complicate matters, it was alleged by Alex Vindman that President Trump had tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenski into announcing that the Ukrainian government was investigating Hunter Biden. The Post story was investigated. Former Twitter employees testified contradicting the claim.

In June 2023, James Comer, head of the House Investigation Committee, released the committee findings on the Biden investigations. The report did NOT find any evidence of wrongdoing or money directed from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Furthermore, Comer said he could not name any specific official policy decision by Biden that may have been directly influenced by foreign payments. However, during this same period, the Justice Department accepted a plea deal where Hunter Biden pled guilty to federal tax offenses. Many Republicans viewed the reduced plea as a “sweetheart” deal, claiming presidential interference with the Garland Department of Justice. The final report of the committee found that the Justice Department had followed procedure.

Critics later focused on Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s partner and fellow Burisma board member, to show that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s Burisma business interests. During testimony, Archer acknowledged that Hunter had talked with his father over the phone a dozen times while in meetings with business associates. However, Archer said that Joe Biden “never once spoke about any business dealings.” He characterized the calls as casual niceties.

With all of the allegations, but no proof, the committee nevertheless held an impeachment hearing in September 2023. The committee claimed to have ‘uncovered a mountain of evidence,” but could not present any as the inquiry continued. In November, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated that there was insufficient evidence to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. Despite Johnson’s comments, in December, House Republicans unanimously approved a resolution to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. All Democrats voted against the resolution. On December 12, the key witness, Alexander Smirnov, admitted that he had fabricated the Burisma story about Joe and Hunter Biden (New York Times, Associated Press, CBS News).

Claims of financial gain by the President regarding Hunter Biden’s Chinese business contacts have also been investigated and found unsubstantiated. There appears to be no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. Whether investigations into President Trump’s alleged illegal activities surrounding the January 6 riots or his retaining top secret documents would have resulted in convictions is unknown. As recently as this week Judge Alien Cannon (a Trump appointee, whose decisions have been overturned by the Florida federal appeals court) has sealed the Jack Smith top secret documents investigation records.

How has the Trump Trust and Family Benefited from the Presidency?

There have been multiple investigations and reports that estimate the Trump family earned billions of dollars during Trump’s first presidency and during the first year of his second presidency. That is far beyond what previous presidents or their families have ever accrued while in office. The New Yorker analysis reported that the family made approximately $3.4 billion across Trump’s tenure. This includes billions of dollars from cryptocurrency ventures, $339.6 million from financial ventures, $270.8 million from hospitality, $116 million from media, and $277.7 million from other sources such as private jet rentals, legal fees, and merchandise. These figures reflect a dramatic expansion of the Trump brand’s monetization during his time in office.

Reports from the Associated Press describe Trump’s second term as marked by unprecedented use of presidential power to generate profits for family enterprises. For example, cryptocurrency ventures tied to Trump or his family pulled in hundreds of millions. Foreign governments, billionaires, and crypto tycoons with interests being considered by the U.S. government, funneled money into Trump‑linked businesses. Trump’s children pursued global development deals, including projects in the Middle East and Albania. And Melania Trump secured a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon. Experts quoted in the reporting describe this as a level of self‑enrichment “totally not normal” for a U.S. president.

A detailed breakdown from The Hill shows how Trump’s children (even grandchildren) capitalized on the presidency. Kia Trump (Don Jr’s daughter) launched a high‑priced fashion line using the Trump brand. Barron Trump earned $150 million through the family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, and is positioned for future corporate influence (e.g., a potential TikTok board seat). Eric Trump became a major crypto figure, co‑founding World Liberty Financial and helping generate over $1 billion in crypto‑related revenue for the family. Forbes estimated Trump’s personal net worth of over $7.1 billion, grew from $2.3 billion (2024). This reflects a presidency intertwined with private business in ways not seen in modern U.S. history.

Although Trump placed his assets into a trust during his first term, the trust was revocable (meaning Trump could withdraw funds at any time). The trust is managed by his sons, who were simultaneously expanding Trump organization ventures. The trust is nota blind trust, whichallows Trump to remain aware of and benefit from business activities. The trust structure did not prevent Trump or his family from profiting from presidential influence.

The scale and openness of the Trump family’s financial gains during the presidency represent an historic departure from traditional presidential ethics norms. The practice blurs the lines between public office and private enrichment. The practices establish a model of governance where policy, branding, and business interests are deeply intertwined. Whether one views this as savvy entrepreneurship or a profound conflict of interest depends on political perspective, but the financial outcomes are well‑documented.

The most dramatic shift in Trump‑family enrichment came from the crypto system, which expanded rapidly during Trump’s second term. Trump publicly championed crypto, earning the nickname “Crypto President.” Trump urged Congress to pass the GENIUS Act, which eases U.S. restrictions on stablecoin (crypto) operations. After advocating for the bill, the Trump family’s crypto company began issuing its own stablecoin, becoming one of the largest issuers globally. This created a direct conflict: presidential advocacy, then regulatory change, followed by private profit.

Stablecoins are extremely profitable because issuers invest in customer deposits and keep the yield. This meant the Trump family captured the interest generated on billions in deposits. Trump’s second term saw the resumption of foreign licensing deals, including in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Qatar and Vietnam. These deals involved sovereign wealth funds and state-linked developers, raising renewed emoluments concerns.

Trump properties — hotels, golf clubs, resorts — became centers of political activity, generating revenue from political committees, lobbyists, foreign delegations, administration officials, and Republican donors. The presidency turned Trump hotels into pay-to-be-seen venues, where spending money at a Trump property became a way to signal loyalty or seek influence. This was a continuation of first-term patterns but on a larger scale.

The Trump brand became a commercial engine, with revenue from merchandise, media ventures, paid appearances, licensing deals, private jet rentals, and digital products (NFTs, tokens, etc.). The presidency amplified the Trump brand’s reach, enabling the family to monetize political identity at unprecedented scale. Various media sources including the New Yorker, CNN, and Public Citizen have described this as the “merchandise machine” in varying printed words.

The most striking theme is the collapse of boundaries between public offices and private business. The presidency itself became a marketing tool with executive actions, public statements, legislative advocacy, and regulatory positions. All serve to increase the value of Trump-owned assets, especially in crypto and media. This is described as the “conspicuous integration of federal power, personal branding, and private profit.”

Across all sources, the pattern is consistent. Presidential power amplified the Trump brand, and the Trump brand generated unprecedented private profit. The mechanisms were not subtle: they were structural, intentional, and integrated into governance itself. In summary, the Trump presidency has gone far beyond institution norms and ethical guardrails.

Save America

One person’s opinion

Updated from an earlier post

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad. The recent events in Minneapolis have resulted in two deaths. The Trump administration is blaming Democrats. The mass of protesting people blame the harsh tactics of the Trump administration in enforcing immigration laws. Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction. Should we focus on humanitarian issues such as right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and other Constitutional rights, or should we focus on making America great by removing immigrants who, some believe, threaten the American way of life. Should we work on building our economic strength and hope for the trickle-down effect that Reaganomics promised? Unfortunately, too many Americans fall into this dichotomy, failing to recognize all the options that exists between these two extremes. The most unfortunate result of the focus on this dichotomy is that the real issues that Americans face are not debated.

In 2025, with the success of the MAGA movement in gaining political control, the promises of greater opportunity, prosperity, and a return to “true” American values appeared to be on the horizon for those who believed in the MAGA movement. Yet, after only one year in office for President Trump, the prospect of a better America that he promised seems elusive. Many middle- and lower-class Americans have experienced the cost of food and everyday living soaring. The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself. The Secretary of Homeland Security and Steven Miller are at odds over the Minneapolis shootings. Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues, including the “arrest” in Venezuela. The courts are being attacked for their stand on issues that many Americans see as Constitutional guarantees. The Senate, which was established to represent the states, seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing interference of the federal government with states’ rights. Minnesota is currently in the firing line. California and Illinois also had to deal with the attack on states’ rights. It also appears that the federal government is attempting to impose the administration’s values on all Americans. Attacks on private schools, using monetary blackmail, is not in America’s interest. Cutting federal services with a “chainsaw” has not brought about savings. Rather, various agencies seem to be falling into an ineffective quagmire due to lack of staff. Even the polls have turned against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control. Today’s polling shows a 56% disapproval rating for the President.

If it were up to me, how would I go about fixing our now very dysfunctional government? I would advocate for Impeachment of President Trump. While not likely to happen given the lack of courage by Republicans in our House of Representatives, I believe an organization’s success or failure starts with the person at the top of the chain of command. In the case of President Trump, I believe he has failed to show good leadership. His picks for cabinet members showed little thought for professional competence, instead focusing on personal loyalty. His attack on the economy has been a disaster. His establishment of DOGE was a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government (which arguably does need serious reform).

But since Impeachment is unlikely, and other Constitutional remedies are also out of the picture, I would suggest that the Senate start to focus on doing its job. It was created as the voice of the states, just as the House was created to be the voice of the American people. The Senate has, in my opinion, lost sight of this responsibility! Too often state governors are left with the responsibility of maintaining the states’ rights. Perhaps it is time to undo the 1913 legislation (17^th Amendment) that moved the selection of state senators from the hands of the state legislature to a popular vote, in essence creating another tier of legislators who are now concerned about popular votes rather than the welfare of the states they represent. In the original design, state legislatures picked their senators.

The people’s chamber is also failing. Members of the House seem to be more focused on their parties rather than on the concerns of their voters. There was a time when representatives were picked by their neighbors and served the community. Many gave up lucrative jobs to serve. Today many representatives view the position as a job, not a service to their voters. As such, they are often focused on getting reelected to a position that guarantees a good pension after five years. Campaigning has become a full-time business. I would suggest that representatives serve at least three years. Salaries should be commensurate with other local business leaders. (The Current salary is $147,000.) The guarantees of a retirement salary after five years of service should be stripped away. Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituents, not monied interests and their political party.

While I have criticized our President and Congress, perhaps the greatest failure has been the apathy of most Americans. Until the ICE occupations, most Americans have not participated in governing the country that was created as a nation of “We the People.” When only 2/3 of eligible voters bother to vote in presidential elections, there is a problem. Worse yet, only 20 – 30% of eligible voters turn out for state and local elections. To aggravate this problem, most Americans are not casting an “informed” ballot. Of those that vote, many cast party ballots without careful consideration of the candidates. It takes effort to know what the issues are and where candidates stand. Complicating the issue is the problem of knowing which information is accurate! I believe American education needs to instill a sense of government responsibility in our youth. In addition, we all need to learn how to recognize “fake news” in contrast to what is factual. We need to understand what is opinion and what is news.

While it would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans hurt by the policies of the current administration get involved. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history. This great nation deserves more effort than most have given it. All Americans need to get involved by calling, emailing or writing their senators and representatives. The power of the vote might get some Republicans to reconsider their support of President Trump. Americans need to recover the government of “We the People!”

President Donald Trump’s Record of Achievements in 2025

There is a list of more than 100 promises President Trump made for his second term. His MAGA supporters (approximately 36% of those polled) must be happy. Many of his promises have been kept, but at what cost? The following narrative will be broken into ten separate articles. There is too much to say in just one article.

Immigration

Trump’s promise– Carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. He had failed to achieve this goal during his 2016 to 2020 presidency due to established guardrails and costs associated with such a massive undertaking. In January 2025, he said he would begin by deporting criminals and use local law enforcement and the National Guard to help. He indicated that they would build mass deportation camps and did not rule out the use of the military. As of January 2026, he has in fact initiated what will be the largest deportation operation in American history. The guardrails have been diminished by Supreme Court decisions, while Congress appropriated $29.85 billion to hire 10,000 additional ICE officers. This is just a portion of the $170 billion appropriated for enhancing immigration deportation efforts. President Trump is keeping his promise to MAGA.

However, what is the impact of this program on Americans? While the administration focuses on numbers, it is a fact that more illegal immigrants were deported in a single year by President Obama than were deported in 2025. But under President Obama, there were no deportation camps, there was no surge in ICE agents, there was no call-up of the national guard, and citizens were not illegally detained or searched. There were no headlines regarding citizen pushbacks or ICE killings of protesters.

The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony. In the United States, illegal immigration is a federal offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. But the maximum punishment, six months’ prison term for the first offense, is a misdemeanor. And United States citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. (But they do not have a right to obstruct an arrest.)

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions. Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited as about 70%), while independent analyses of ICE and detention data find that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Build a border wall

During his first presidency, Trump built approximately 450 miles of border barriers along the southern U.S. border, many of which replaced old, dilapidated barriers. He redoubled his promise to build the wall in 2025. But large portions of the U.S. southern border are on privately owned or federally protected land, where barriers can’t be placed unless the federal government buys the land or seizes it through eminent domain. During this past year, over 80 more miles of border wall (and water barriers) have been completed. And additional wall construction is supported by a Congressional appropriation of $46.5 billion. To date there are now 776 miles of border protection on the 1,954-mile border.

No single dataset proves that the wall alone caused net reductions; the truth rests in a tangle of sector-specific outcomes, enforcement changes, and external factors. The money spent building a border could be used for so many other programs to support American citizens.

End birthright citizenship

During his first presidency, President Trump failed to fulfill his promise to end the people’s right to become U.S citizens if they’re born in the U.S.. This is regardless of their parents’ immigration status. He promised to do this during his second term, issuing executive orders to that effect. However, legal experts note that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether President Trump’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil is unconstitutional. The justices recently announced that they will take up the issue, with arguments likely in April of 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Restore and expand the travel ban

During his first presidency, President Trump signed executive orders to ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. He faced numerous legal challenges requiring rewrites of the orders. The travel ban’s third and final version restricted U.S. entry to people from these seven countries, plus Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld this travel ban.

During his second term, President Trump issued an executive order ending visa processing for 75 nations. The order took effect on January 21, 2026. There are currently 175 countries in the world. Thus, this order blocks entry to the U.S. for 43% of the world’s countries.

Suspend refugee resettlement

President Trump has suspended refugee resettlement. As defined by U.S. law, refugees, are people outside of the U.S. who fled their home countries because of persecution related to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. They have received refugee protections from the U.S. before they enter the country. Asylum seekers must also meet the refugee definition, but they must be physically in the U.S. to seek protections.

In addition, Trump made a promise to Cap Refugee Admissions. The cap for 2026 is 7,500, the lowest since the implementation of the program in 1980. The groups selected are more prioritized, with a focus on white South Africans.

Terminate the Customs and Border Protection’s “CBP One” app

Even though his administration launched the tool in 2020, Trump ended a mobile phone application that migrants use to access Customs and Border Protection services. His reason was that the Biden administration had expanded its use, allowing immigrants to make appointments at official ports of entry to begin the asylum-seeking process. It is easy to speculate that he ended the program to curb migrant applications for asylum.

Revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at colleges and universities.

Federal officials were already checking applicants’ backgrounds, including the monitoring of social media. Trump hasn’t said what the additional ideological screening entails, its purpose, or method. Expanded backgrounding has introduced privacy concerns and discouraged visa applications.

Give college graduates, including those from junior colleges, a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S.

Changes in eligibility for permanent resident status, also known as receiving a green card, requires congressional action. Congress had not passed reforms to the immigration system in decades.

In 2025, Congress passed new stricter green card rules. These stricter rules do not make it easier for college graduates to stay legally in the United States as promised by President Trump. The new rules are as follows:

These changes are designed to strengthen immigration enforcement and ensure that green card holders meet their legal obligations. Trump’s promise to give college graduates (including those from junior colleges) a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S. has not been fulfilled. In reality, it has become more difficult to obtain a green card!

Terminate work permits for immigrants in the U.S. illegally

During his first term, President Trump tried to end a program that protects certain people (people who crossed the border illegally as children) from deportation and gives them work permits. The Supreme Court ruled against him, but its legality is unsettled; the case is expected to again reach the Supreme Court in 2026.

Make it illegal to distribute welfare benefits to illegal immigrants

Most immigrants living illegally in the country are ineligible for benefits from federal programs. A valid Social Security number is needed to receive most federal benefits and immigrants in the country illegally are not issued Social Security numbers. Trump has separately pledged to make immigrants in the U.S. ineligible for public housing assistance. But noncitizen eligibility for housing has generally be prohibited since 1996 under Title IV, or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

It is easy to promise something that has already been established!

Invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members

This 1798 law was created when the U.S. feared an impending war with France. It allows the president to arrest, detain and deport people without due process under certain circumstances. But legal experts said Trump faces legal obstacles in this endeavor.

Designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

As president in 2019, Trump said he would designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. According to the Wilson Center, this legal designation is used to identify foreign groups that “engage in premeditated, politically motivated acts of terrorism against noncombatant targets.” However, Trump said he would temporarily hold off on the designation at the request of Mexico’s president. Now that Trump is again President, he has followed through on his earlier promise. His attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, along with his invasion of Venezuela to arrest President Maduro, have been premised on his definition of narcoterrorism.

International and counterterrorism experts have questioned his actions which have hurt diplomatic relations with Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime”

Trump announced on Oct. 29, 2024, that he would create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime” — crime purportedly committed by immigrants who are in the country illegally. “We will be seizing the assets of the criminal gangs and drug cartels, and we will use those assets to create a compensation fund to provide restitution for the victims of migrant crime, and the government will help in the restoration.” It is interesting to note that immigrant crime contributes little to the violent crime statistics.

So far, nothing tangible has been done in this area. Most of the revenue from Venezuelan oil (from an alleged drug cartel kingpin) is currently sitting in banks in Qatar.

Revoke the Temporary Protected Status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio

Trump and his Vice President, JD Vance, targeted Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, including the accusation that they are eating their neighbors’ pets. Trump revoked their legal status and said, “bring them back to their country [sic].” That involved ending their Temporary Protected Status, which protects them from deportation because they are from a country experiencing war, environmental disasters, or epidemics.

The administration has not only revoked the protected status for Haitians, but also for other foreign nationals, including Cuban and Burmese (Myanmar).

Other Immigration Changes

The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States. The H-1B visa now has an added $100,000 fee on certain new petitions, making the cost associated with the visa prohibitive for many potential educated and skilled applicants and their perspective employer.

Refugee Admissions Cap

Work Authorization and Employment Extension Document (EAD) Changes

Fees for work authorization and employment extensions are being adjusted upward. Automatic extensions for employee authorization documents are being rescinded for some employment categories. For example, work authorization for asylum applicants and green card applicants has been reduced from five years to eighteen months.

Gold Card Visa

President Trump announced a $1 million “Gold Card” visa for high-net-worth investors. The program allows a pathway to permanent residence for foreign nationals. Buy your way into the USA!

Summary

Immigration policy has seen many changes under President Trump. Most have occurred through executive order or policy changes in Customs Immigration Services policies. There has been no Congressional approval sought. But Congress has not taken any steps to intervene. Applicants, employers, and immigration advocates are required to navigate these changing policies where the benefits seem to change quickly.

The “foreseen” consequences of this paradigm shift in immigration policy are many. There is a reason that the Statue of Liberty has a plaque that says, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” America was built by immigrants. The success of this nation is the result of people who came here with a dream. Some achieved greatness in various endeavors. Most have lived productive and rewarding lives.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated the country’s total population is projected to stop growing in 2056. But according to the report, in 2030, without immigration, the population would begin to shrink as deaths start to exceed births, making immigrants an increasingly important source of population growth. This has important implications for our workforce and economy.

Congress for Sale

“We the People” are supposed to be the government. Our founding fathers made it clear that a democratic republic needed educated and involved people. The earliest members of Congress were chosen by the people. However, these early leaders also understood the temptations that power brought to various individuals and groups. George Washington, in this farewell address, cautioned against political parties. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and others cautioned against the influence of monied interests. As designed, the system would work only if “guard rails” were established.

Washington’s concern was soon disregarded, as the founding fathers themselves could not agree on whether to have a strong central government or a system of states represented in a republican nation. This basic difference of opinion continues under our present political two-party system, with smaller parties playing only a tangential role.

The concerns of John Adams and the others were also ignored. While early representation was likely to be influenced by those already in local power and those with financial influence, at least the elected representatives did represent the districts that they served. In today’s political environment, these same influences continue but have been distorted by the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen’s United and a lack of strong rules regarding lobbying efforts. Large corporations now have a political voice. Lobbyists represent not only individual monied interest, but large corporations with unlimited funds that are used to sway representative views.

The founding fathers created a democratic republic where the people were to be decision makers. However, monied interests were soon influencing elected officials. While the problem of money in politics is not new, today’s PACs, and dark money operations, have eroded the power of the people in favor of those who can influence our political leaders with money and other opportunities, such as paid vacations, and personal favors.

Who (or what) has the greatest impact on legislation and our elected representative? Companies, labor unions, trade associations, social and political groups, and other influential organizations spend billions each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Last year over 4.5 billion dollars was spent by 13,000 lobbyists. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. How can the average voter compete?

Organized spending by PACs and special interests have a great deal of influence. In 2024 the biggest spender was Future Forward USA, spending over $510 million dollars. This organization leans democratic and worked to elect Kamala Harris. The next biggest spender was MAGA at $377 million. Other major groups leading the list are political action organizations supporting both democrats and republicans. America PAC (Texas), a group primarily funded by Elon Musk, supports President Trump with $196 million. Americans for Prosperity spent $138 million, with funding by the Koch family supporting Libertarian causes. Fairshare PAC is funded by Cryto, Coinbase, Ripple (cryto firm), and Andreessen/Horowitz (capital investment firm) at $112 million. The most altruistic group is Preserve America, founded by G. W. Bush, to support American culture and nature spending at $112 million.

Individual companies spending large sums include SpaceX with contributions of $289 million, followed by Adelson Clinic spending $147 million. Adelson Clinic was established to study drug use and abuse issues following the Opioid epidemic. Third is Uline funded by Robert Uihien, a prominent ultra conservative, at $146 million.

National Associations also spend large sums lobbying for their organizations. At the top of the list is the National Association of Realtors spending $86 million. They are followed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $76 million. The next grouping, which includes pharma, hospitals, Blue Cross, and the AMA, spends a combined total of $113 million.

There are many others that spend millions of dollars to influence legislation. If the government was truly of the people, should these special interest groups be allowed to have such a massive impact on elected officials? There is a reason that so many in Congress are millionaires. Consider our key legislators. Mike Johnson received over $618,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2023. and Lockheed Martin added another $60,000 in donations. Hakeem Jefferies received $866,000 from the AIPAC, and $64,000 from Lockheed. Chuck Shumer is supported by Blackstone (investment firm) with $281,000 and an additional $235,000 from NextEra Energy. John Thume received $122,000 from AIPAC and $96,000 from Sanford Health. Dick Durbin is supported by Power Rodgers LLP (Chicago law firm) with $102,000 and Simmon Hanly Conroy (law firm) for $80,000. For more information about specific legislators go to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org).

Perhaps the answer to why so many Congressional initiatives that might help the average American don’t get passed lies with the undue influence of big money! We need to support efforts to get big money and excessive lobbying out of Congress!

Venezuela: A Legitimate Action or Something Else?

Following yesterday’s arrest of Maduro, politicians and pundits are debating the legality of the arrest and looking for an explanation of the actions taken by the Trump administration. While I have my personal opinions, the following is a look at legal arguments for and against Donald Trump’s decision to order the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supported by U.S. military operation used to assure the success and safety of the arresting team. I have attempted to present the information as it has been reported by the media, legal experts, and the Trump administration.

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

1. Violation of International Law- Many experts argue that the operation was an illegal use of force inside a sovereign nation without its consent. Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, said the operation was a “clear violation of international law.” (Lisa Mascaro, Joshua Goodman and Ben Finley, “Capture of Maduro and U.S. claim it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions,” The Associated Press) The military strikes inside Caracas typically require either UN authorization, self‑defense justification, or host‑nation consent—none of which were present.

2. No Congressional Authorization–The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Trump’s own chief of staff previously said that. Congress was not notified before the operation, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Tom Hals and Andrew Goudsward,“Was the US capture of Venezuela’s president legal?” Reuters, January 3, 2026)

3. Inconsistent Legal Justification—Experts note the administration blurred the line betweena law enforcement action (arresting an indicted individual), anda military regime‑change operation (Trump’s statements about “running” Venezuela and taking its oil). Jeremy Paul of Northeastern University said:“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.” (Hals, Goudsward)

4. No Extradition Treaty or Legal Basis for Seizure–The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Venezuela.Mark Nevitt, former Navy attorney, said “I see no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.” (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

5. Precedent of Unlawful Targeted Killings/Strikes–The U.S. had already conducted 35 boat strikes, killing more than 115 people since September. Many experts say this likely violated U.S. and international law. (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

Legal Arguments for Arrest (These are the justifications the Trump administration or its defenders have offered.)

1. Maduro Was Under U.S. Indictment—Maduro had been indicted in New York on narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges in 2020. The Justice Department requested military assistance to apprehend him. (Hals, Goudsward) Attorney General Pam Bondi said the defendants would “face the full wrath of American justice.” (Hall, Goudsword) This frames the operation as a law enforcement action, not an act of war.

2. National Security Justification–The administration claimed Maduro supported drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths from illegal drug use. (Hall, Goudsword)Under this theory, the president can act to protect U.S. national security without prior congressional approval.

3. Precedent for Limited Military Actions Without Congress— Presidents of both parties have used military force without congressional authorization whenthe action was limited in scope andtied to national interests. Examples that are often cited includeReagan in Grenada, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya and George H. W. Bush in Panama. The administration may argue this operation fits that pattern.

4. Maduro’s Status as an “Illegitimate Leader” —Some international actors and the U.S. government had previously recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. If Maduro is not recognized as head of state, the argument goes, the U.S. did not violate sovereignty by seizing him.

Other Factors

President Trump has been clear that the United States will run the country and rebuild the oil industry in Venezuela. How can this be accomplished? Who benefits the most from this plan?

China and Cuba have been major importers of Venezuelan oil. How will the United States deal with the complications in oil trade?

The United States entered a foreign county and arrested its leader. Does this mean that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia can be justified? Can China reclaim Tawain? Can Netanyahu be arrested by another country and presented to the United Nations since he is currently wanted for war crimes by the World Court? Can a country be justified in kidnapping President Trump if they don’t like him?

Summary

There are so many questions that this incident has raised. How will Congress react? Should Americans allow their government to act as the sole authority on issues that impact our nation? There are many opinions. As is apparent from the above arguments for and against the legality of Maduro’s arrest, the weight of the legal arguments makes it apparent that the arrest, supported by the military, was illegal. The arguments supporting the administration are justifications, not legal interpretations.

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.

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.