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.

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.

What Can You Do About an Unpopular President?

(Written August 24, 2025)

Recent polls show President Trump underwater with the American public. Reports show that voters believe the top three most important issues Americans are currently facing are inflation/prices, jobs and the economy, and health care. These issues are creating uncertainty in many people. In fact, Trump’s approval rating in a Pew poll shows a nine-point drop, giving him an approval rating that has dropped to a near-record low this month. The Pew Research Center poll, released Aug. 14, shows Trump with a 38% approval rating, down nine points since Pew’s February survey at the start of his second term. Sixty percent of respondents said they disapprove of his job performance. Pew attributes the decline to falling support from his 2024 voters and among adults who didn’t vote in November. Other recent polls show less dramatic but still concerning shifts. For example, The Economist’s latest poll shows a slight increase in approval, suggesting mixed public sentiment.

Presidential approval ratings were first conducted by the founder of the American Institute of Public Opinion, George Gallup, around 1935 to gauge public support for the president of the United States during their term. While Gallup has tracked presidential approval for 70 years, other organizations also conduct and release their own polls. A president’s approval rating reflects the percentage of Americans polled who approve of the president’s performance. Anything can impact a president’s rating, such as legislation passed, actions and elections. According to ABC News, an approval rating doesn’t just represent how well the administration is faring for the general public but could factor into the outcome of an upcoming election or how much they accomplish while in office. The following are the latest polls from numerous sources:

The Economist (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 42%
Unfavorable: 54%
Not sure: 4%

Morning Consult (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 45%
Unfavorable: 51%

Silver Bulletin (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Rasmussen (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 49%
Unfavorable: 49%

New York Times (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Pew Research Center (Aug. 14, 2025)

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 60%

Quantus Insights (Aug. 14, 2025):

Favorable: 47%
Unfavorable: 49%
Not sure: 4%

CNBC (Aug. 7, 2025):

Favorable: 47%
Unfavorable: 51%

Real Clear Politics (July 28, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 52%

Reuters/Ipsos (July 25-27, 2025):

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 56%

Navigator Research (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 43%
Unfavorable: 54%

Emerson College (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 47%

Gallup (July 7-21, 2025):

Favorable: 37%
Unfavorable: 59%
No opinion: 4%

Quinnipiac University (July 16, 2025):

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 54%

How does Trump’s approval rating compare to previous presidents at this point in their term?

Joe Biden (June 2021) – 56% approve
Donald Trump (June 2017) – 38% approve
Barack Obama (June 2009) – 61% approve
George W. Bush (June 2001) – 54% approve
Bill Clinton (June 1993) – 41% approve
George H.W. Bush (June 1989) – 70% approve
Ronald Reagan (June 1981) – 59% approve
Jimmy Carter (June 1977) – 63% approve
Richard Nixon (June 1969) – 63% approve
Lyndon Johnson (June 1964) – 55% approve
John F. Kennedy (June 1961) – 73% approve

It is worth noting that President Trump’s current 38% approval polls place him almost as low as his rating during his first term. President Trump’s rating during both terms is the lowest of any of the presidents listed above. (Freile, Victoria E., and Barnes, Emily, USA Today)

Other Ways to Evaluate a President

Although the polls indicate that the president is unpopular, other ways of viewing his presidency must also be considered. Trump’s net approval rating remains above water in 27 states. And Trump has a positive net approval rating in three 2024 swing states — Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina — and has an even rating in Arizona. The idea that he still has such support is troubling but not unexpected. These states supported the Trump candidacy and are larger MAGA strongholds. Trump is underwater in two states set to host big gubernatorial races this fall. In Virginia, 45% of voters approve of his job performance, while 52% disapprove. And in New Jersey, 44% approve of Trump, while 53% disapprove. Trump’s approval rating is underwater in Arizona, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In areas of the country where Trump still maintains a positive approval rating, his popularity has still slipped. For instance, in Oklahoma, it was +34 percentage points in January but has since fallen by 7 points. In Utah, his popularity has declined by 10 percentage points—from a +21-approval rating to +11.

What to do When a President is not performing?

It can be argued that when a majority of voters find an elected official following a path that is not desired, that elected official should be removed from office. The options to remove President Trump from office are limited, and three of them would likely fail. One option is impeachment. We have been there twice and failed both times. It is doubtful that another impeachment would succeed. The 25^th Amendment is a second option but would require the majority of his cabinet to declare him unfit. Since his cabinet has been selected for their personal loyalty, it is also doubtful that this option would be used. The third option would require Congress to step forward and bring President Trump’s abuse of the Constitution under control. This option should have been the first choice. However, the Republican controlled Congress has not stepped into the controversy. Instead, Republicans have supported Trump’s often unconstitutional moves. And while the Supreme Court could stop much of the abuse of Constitutional and legal rights, they have chosen to either send the cases back to lower courts for further adjudication, or when a decision has been made, it often reflects Donald Trump’s conservative majority view. The fourth option is an election. If a popular vote or vote of confidence were to be held today, Donald Trump would likely lose. However, there is no law allowing for a recall election for a president. Therefore, the earliest that the third option is available would be in November 2028.

If the majority who disapprove of President Trump speak with one voice, it is possible that in November 2026, Congress could be flipped from Republican control to the Democratic control. This change in control of the legislative branch could bring President Trump’s agenda to a quick halt. I am suggesting that whether you are Democrat, Independent, Socialist, Libertarian, other minority party, or even a disgruntled Republican, a vote for someone other than the current Republican holding office would allow for a change in support for President Trump. While demonstrations, emails, letters, blogs and other instruments are options, the most powerful option is the ballot box. Elon Musk recognizes this. Whether he follows through with his American Party candidates in key races waits to be seen. If he does as he suggests several critical Congressional seats could be removed from Republican Control.

Donald Trump’s Use of the Court System as a Tool to Implement His Objectives

It should come as no surprise that President Trump has been counting on his use of the court system to allow his administration to pursue his objectives despite legal challenges. Donald Trump and his businesses are not novices when it comes to using the court system to their advantage. Since 1973, Donald Trump’s businesses have been involved in over 4,000 federal and state legal cases. The cases run the gamut from real estate issues to personal defamation. His businesses have been involved in over 100 tax cases. In 2022 the Trump Organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges. (Jacobs, Shayna, “Trump Organization Convicted in N.Y. Criminal Tax Fraud Trial,” Washington Post, December 6, 2022). Donald Trump has been to court for accusations of sexual harassment and assault. The E. Jean Carrol case decision founds him guilty and fined him $80 million. (Stempel, Jonathan, “US Judge Upholds 83.3 Million Defamation Loss, Rejects New Trial,” Reuters, April 25, 2024). In January 2023, he was fined nearly $1 million because the judge found him to be “a prolific and sophisticated litigant who repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. Haberman, Maggie (January 31, 2023) “Trump’s Well-Worm Legal Playbook Starts to Look Frayed,” Vanity Fair.

While many MAGA supporters would say that the Democrats have used the justice system to persecute Donald Trump, his record of problems with the government, other businesses, and people precede his interest in politics by several decades. Most cases in which Donald Trump has been involved were before he announced his candidacy for President.

Still, since January 2025, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the current Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions taken by the administration, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. The courts have blocked the administration in several cases, and many of these cases are currently under appeal.

A litigation tracker by Just Security has recorded a total of 378 cases against the Trump administration’s actions. Out of these, 25 actions have been blocked, 77 temporarily blocked, and 17 blocked pending appeal. Additionally, 146 cases are still awaiting court rulings.

One notable case is Taylor v. Trump, where a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden are challenging an executive order by President Trump. This order directed the Attorney General to evaluate their imprisonment conditions and resulted in their indefinite incarceration at a federal supermax prison. Other significant cases where his efforts have been blocked include a legal challenge to a birthright citizenship executive order and challenges to suspending his asylum executive order. Immigration advocacy groups argue that the executive order violates the Constitution. Other cases where bans on executive orders are in place include challenges to suspending the Refugee Program. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled in March that Trump can partially enforce the refugee ban. And another case fights the Deportation of the Boulder, Colorado attack suspect’s family. A federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, who is facing a hate crime charge in the wake of a firebombing attack in Colorado. The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing. While President Trump has had his actions challenged and blocked, he has also had success with the Supreme Courts decision on Executive Immunity and most recently in the civil judgement in New York where the fine of $50 million for fraud was overturned by the appellate court.

Summary of Total number of cases currently tracked by Just Security: 381.

Case Status Summary:
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 1
Blocked: 25 (When a case is described as “blocked,” it means that a court has issued an order preventing the enforcement or implementation of a specific action or policy. This can happen for various reasons, such as the court finding that the action or policy is likely to be unconstitutional, violates existing laws, or causes irreparable harm.)
Temporarily Blocked: 77
Blocked Pending Appeal: 17
Temporarily Blocked in Part or Temporary Block Denied in Part: 11
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked, Pending Appeal: 34
Awaiting Court Ruling: 147
Case Closed: 22
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7

The End Game

For over 50 years, Donald Trump has used the courts, mostly to his advantage. When a court finds against his position, he appeals. If the appeal fails, he appeals to the next higher court. This is a delaying tactic that often results in a settlement where Donald Trump can claim a victory even if it costs him. The tactic has allowed him time to proceed with his agenda while the legality plays out in court. To improve his chances of favorable outcomes, he has discovered a tactic to appoint judges who are loyal to him to positions where he may have cases heard. In an Augst 19, 2025 article in Politico, Erica Orden notes that President Trump is circumventing the Senate to install top federal prosecutors who are loyalists. According to Orden, when Trump’s nominees can’t be confirmed by the Senate, he temporarily installs an interim US Attorney. This person can serve for 120 days (4 months). When the term ends, District Judges can reject the appointment. The Trump administration has chosen to ignore the District Judges and reappoint his selected federal attorney for an additional 120 days (Orden, Erica, “Trump Bypasses the Senate—and the Courts—to install loyal US Attorneys,” Politico, August 19, 2025).

One of the most recent cases involved New Jersey, where Alina Habba, one of Trumps personal lawyers was appointed to serve and then nominated for the permanent position of federal prosecutor. Habba was the attorney involved in the detention of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Representative LaMonica McIver when they attempted to visit an immigration detention center (Catalini, Mike, “Judge Says Former Trump Lawyer Alina Habba has been Unlawfully Serving as US Attorney in New Jersey,” Associated Press, August 19, 2025). On August 20, 2025, US District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that Habba was acting Illegally as the US attorney for New Jersey. President Trump’s illegal effort to bypass Congress was noted by the Judge. Cases overseen by Habba after her illegal appointment are now being appealed by defendants in those cases (Rivard, Ry, “The Fallout from the Alina Habba Ruling has Begun” Politico, August 22, 2025).

Conclusion

How the battle for the courts will play out is anyone’s guess. However, it is worth noting that President Trump’s team, even with its delaying tactics is losing more often than winning. The issue to be considered is the damage done to the system and the agencies impacted by the administration actions while the courts decide whether the actions are Constitutional!

What Does Being an American Mean to Me?

Robert Fischer

Considering the current situation in America, I am very concerned with the direction of leadership shown by the Trump administration. While 2025 isn’t the first time there has been controversy and conflict, it is the first time that an administration has deliberately flaunted the Constitution and court precedents that have been the foundation of this country for 250 years. For example, in the 1950s America recovered from WWII. Republicans were focusing on building a strong economy, whereas Democrats were looking to expand human rights. But the two goals were not in exclusion from each other. People argued but generally got along. Issues of civil rights, a woman’s place in society, and social mobility were concerns.

The issues of the 1950s eventually resulted in turmoil in the 1960s and 70s. I lived through the Vietnam conflict on the police front lines, protecting property and the rights of protesters, who on occasion resorted to violence. I was also working as a police officer during the end of the Civil Rights Movement. I worked with racist officers who still did their job despite their prejudices.

There were social problems that sometimes resulted in violence. Still, I believed in the rule of the law and the stability of our government with its Constitution and the belief that “We the People” ultimately controlled the nation’s future. I didn’t agree with all the choices that were made by those representing the majority. There were policies on women’s rights, affirmative action, drug control, and laws that I felt encroached on individual rights. I and others voiced our concerns. Demonstrations on these issues were commonplace. However, I was among the minority.

By 2000, as I reached middle age, many of the social issues that the nation faced in the 1960s and 70s were being addressed. Again, while I didn’t agree with all the positions that were taken by those that won the elections, I knew that I would have an opportunity to sway others’ opinions and perhaps eventually see my own opinion dominate policy. LBGTQ rights, women’s rights, continued advancement in civil rights, and DEI, all of which I supported, were being written into law and policies. However, what I failed to see was the growing discontent of some friends and relatives, who saw changes supported by people like me, as destructive to their view of the American life. What I saw as positive, inclusive policies that made it possible for disadvantaged people to aspire to the “American Dream,” others saw as destructive policy chipping away at the America that they knew.

I was happy when Hillary Clinton was the first woman to run for President. I was not a major supporter of her campaign, but the fact that a major party would present a woman for the position of President was, in my opinion, a move in the right direction. I was even more enthusiastic when Barack Obama was nominated for the Presidency and won. I was surprised when so many people that I knew well were upset over Obama’s election. I hadn’t realized that racism, which I knew still existed, was so deeply engrained in so many Americans. Despite the disconnect, I was still willing to believe that our institutions, laws, and Constitution would allow for the continuation of all free expression. My belief was bolstered when the “Black Lives Matter” movement, along with “Me Too” and other minority and social issues, were making headlines. The people were free to express opinions and attempt to change government policies and law.

When the 2016 election cycle began, I was pleased to see a diverse Republican field of candidates. The Democratic field was seemingly focused on Hillary Clinton. However, I was disappointed when Donald Trump, a political unknown, began to gain a large following. I couldn’t believe the progression of his candidacy to nomination. What I again failed to note was the depth of frustration that many Americans were feeling toward our government and toward both major political parties. Traditional Republicans were not getting the job done and Democrats were not representing the interests of a growing group of individuals who believed that our country was heading in the wrong direction. Although I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, I believed that America’s majority was heard. I knew that many of his ideas were not ones that I could support. Still, he was President and until I and others could elect someone with a platform that we could support, I would voice my opinion and hope for a change in leadership. That change occurred in the 2020 election; the voting majority moved the agenda back to socially progressive policies.

While I should have seen it coming, President Trump didn’t walk away from 2020 with a congratulations and we’ll see you in 2024! Instead, he chose to create a perception that the election had been stolen. This shouldn’t have surprised me as his entire platform in 2016 had been filled with “make believe” problems, that supported the beliefs of Americans who are afraid the America that they knew was fading away. Candidate Trump convinced many Americans that there were too many criminal immigrants, terrible crime waves in our big cities, transgender individuals who would steal wins from our women athletes, DEI programs that disadvantaged traditional Americans, a fake climate crisis, and others. His actions should have been a warning. However, his actions were not taken seriously by many.

In 2025, we now see that those who believed Trump’s make-believe version of America were able to return him to office where he can fix all these ills. But so far, I don’t see much real progress since the things he is trying to fix don’t need fixing. They are not the big problems that President Trump has sold to MAGA! Some are issues that do need addressing. However, what is a concern is his approach. His administration is ignoring our courts, laws, traditions, and the Constitution. While I have observed that many Americans have voiced disapproval, many court decisions have pushed back on his executive orders. Even some of his own party objects to his policies. I am concerned that his administration is working to make it difficult for the people to continue to have a voice. For the first time, I am concerned that the America that has allowed me to dissent is in danger of being lost. We the People need to continue to voice our concerns. This can be done through protest, discussions with people we know, letters to the editor, letters (email, text) to representatives, and most importantly, casting an informed vote.

Trump’s Twenty Campaign Promises:

An Evaluation

1 Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion– For the most part this promise has been fulfilled. The use of the military as support for ICE has worked. Daily arrests have decreased from 5,100 per day under the previous administration to about 230 per day. If a migrant invasion was a problem, President Trump has solved it. The question is, “Were migrants seeking a better life in America a problem?” Based on national crime and work data, most migrants were not a problem, did not contribute disproportionately to crime, did not displace American workers, and were not provided with Medicaid benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer. A majority of Americans support inclusive immigration policies, such as pathways to citizenship, and recognizing the economic and social contributions of immigrants. (USC Equity Research Institute, April 29, 2025) But the false perception promoted by Donald Trump, allowed the MAGA movement to make this an issue when it wasn’t! There was no national emergency. Undocumented immigrant arrivals had already started falling in 2023, when the Biden administration introduced the CBP One app which allowed migrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry to apply for asylum. President Trump changed the purpose of the app to allow undocumented immigrants to receive $1,000 if they would voluntarily sign up to leave America.

2 Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history—This effort is currently underway. ICE has removed 61,630 alleged illegals since January 2025. The biggest issues here are currently under scrutiny by the courts. Is the use of executive power, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Alien Enemies Alien Act constitutional? The deportation of people without due process (the 5^th Amendment) is also a major issue. It seems that President Trump has overstepped his executive power by claiming powers that were not granted under the Constitution or through the use of the before mentioned acts.

3 End inflation and make America affordable again– President Trump had promised to bring prices down during the first days in office. It has now been over 100 days and instead, price hikes for food have accelerated. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that food costs have increased by 2.4% since January. The big increase in egg prices may soon end with the cost of wholesale eggs now dropping. When that drop will be passed on to the consumer is unknown. To be fair, some products like pasta, rice, potatoes and lettuce have declined in cost. And despite the President’s claim of $1.98 gas, prices have remained static. The nationwide average is $3.18. The lowest price is in Mississippi at $2.66. His implementation of tariffs worldwide have forced many businesses to pass the costs associated with the tariffs on to their customers. Inflation has declined from 3% in January to 2.4% but is predicted to increase over the next few months.

4 Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far! The problem with this promise is that it is misleading. America has been and continues to be the number two energy producer behind China. Given the disparity of populations between the two nations, this is not surprising. With the world’s tenth largest oil reserves and environmentally friendly means of production of alternative energy, America is already a leader. It appears that President Trump’s gambit here was to allow for greater production for the oil and coal producers when it is not needed.

5 Stop Outsourcing and Turn the United States into a Manufacturing Superpower– While many Americans wish for the days when industrial manufacturing was dominate, those days have passed. The Rust Belt in the Midwest has been in recovery mode for decades. Some cities have made significant strides while others continue to struggle. Efforts to revitalize the Midwest and other manufacturing hubs have included investments in infrastructure, education, and new industries. Cities like Buffalo, NY, and Madison, WI, have seen improvements in unemployment rates, poverty reduction, and real estate growth. However, the recovery is uneven, with some former manufacturing hubs still facing economic challenges.

The loss of coal mining, due to the transfer of steel production overseas and environmental concerns, will likely not return. President Donald Trump’s administration has made changes to support the coal industry, including allowing mining on federal land and allowing older coal-fired power plants to continue producing electricity. However, the industry still faces challenges due to environmental concerns and declining demand. Instead, the dominate industries in America are intellectual and technological, including real estate, and healthcare. We need to recognize our strengths in technology and intellectual development and allow other nations to provide manufacturing at lower costs to us.

6 Large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips! Who wouldn’t like this idea! The middle class and working poor need tax relief. However, the “Nice Big Bill” being proposed cuts all tax categories. Upper middle class, upper class, billionaires, and corporations do not need a tax cut. There is plenty of money to live a decent lifestyle, invest in new ventures and build corporate profits. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have it right. We need to increase tax on the upper income levels and lower taxes on the middle- and lower-income families. America will prosper. Our national debt can be reduced. Our $36.2 trillion debt could be paid off in a few decades. But for that to happen, the government would have to balance the budget and raise taxes on millionaires to the President Johnson era rate of 70%. The money generated would go directly to paying down the debt.

7 Defend our constitution, bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms– Again, who can complain about this? We should all want to maintain the rights that our founding fathers fought so hard to achieve 250 years ago. President Trump took and oath to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn in as President. Yet, in an interview with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, when Welker asked him if he would uphold the Constitution he said, “I’m not sure.” You don’t have to look hard to find social media and news outlets that are questioning whether our fundamental freedoms are being limited!

8 Prevent World War three, restore peace in Europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country — all made in America– While the first part of this goal should be supported by all, the last section makes little sense. Preventing wars is a world goal. So far, President Trump’s bold prediction that he would end the Ukrainian conflict on his first days in office, has not even resulted in a real ceasefire. The Israeli/Hamas conflict continues. However, to be fair, in the last few days the Trump administration has announced tentative cease fire agreements between India and Pakistan, as well as a possible 30-day cease fire between Ukraine and Russia. Yet, threats to take over Greenland and perhaps Canada by force are counterintuitive to world peace. The threats against Iran regarding nuclear weapons does little to reduce tension in the middle east. A missile dome over the United States sounds like a great idea if war were to happen. However, think about the total cost of developing Trump’s “Golden Dome.” The cost of developing and maintaining Israel’s Iron Dome is $1 billion, and that system is much smaller with less complicated missiles than America would require.

9 End the weaponization of government against the American people—I think this goal was a joke. While President Trump declared that the government was victimizing him, I see no proof! Now that he is once again President, I believe that he has weaponized his government against those who have opposed him or might criticize what he has done. Consider the following actions. Some notable figures reportedly pursued by the Justice Department includeLetitia James, the New York Attorney General who won a civil fraud case against Trump, is now facing a criminal fraud probe led by the FBI. Also, former Rep. Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and John Bolton, among others, have been targeted through various government actions because of perceived anti-Trump opinions.

10 Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders—This all sounds great! However, there is not a migrant crime epidemic! Research consistently shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, tend to commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Studies have found that as the immigrant share of the U.S. population has increased, crime rates have declined. Additionally, historical data suggests that first-generation immigrants have been less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals for over a century. Demolishing foreign drug cartels is a problem for the countries where they originate. American needs to focus on the market demand side of the equation. Reduce or eliminate the demand and the cartels will need to find other markets. Gang violence is a problem that impacts other gangs. The spill over to the general population is tragic, but not significant. The statistics support the reality that convicted violent offenders are locked up

11 Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again—This is another misleading statement. Our cities are not hotbeds of crime and decay. All cities have problems with the homeless, under-employed and under-educated. These are social problems that can best be solved by providing better opportunities for jobs and education. Our largest cities do have increased crime problems, but most, like New York, have found strategies to reduce crime. According to the National Crime statistics, American crime is down across most categories. The national murder rate has dropped significantly—about 16% from its 2020 peak. Violent crime and property crime are approaching historic lows, though some regions have seen increases in specific types of crime

12 Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world- Another misleading statement. America has by far the most modernized and powerful military in the world, according to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings. The ranking considers over 60 factors, including troop numbers, military equipment, financial stability, geographic location, and available resources. The U.S. leads in technological advancements, with a large fleet of aircraft, tanks, and naval assets. Following the U.S., Russia and China rank second and third, respectively.

13 Keep the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency—A worthy goal. However, President Trump’s recent support for crypto currency has many doubting whether this is a real goal. The Trump family has become increasingly involved in cryptocurrency. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. co-founded American Bitcoin, a crypto mining firm merging with Gryphon Digital Mining. The company aims to mine Bitcoin at a lower cost and accumulate reserves of the cryptocurrency. Additionally, the Trump family has backed World Liberty Financial, a crypto exchange that recently secured a multi-billion-dollar investment from an Abu Dhabi-based firm. Donald Trump himself has launched a meme coin called $TRUMP, which has seen significant fluctuations in value since its release. These ventures have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, with some lawmakers calling for investigations into the family’s crypto dealings.

14 Fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age– A wonderful promise. We will need to see what the House of Representatives cuts from the “Big Beautiful Budget”. Recent drafts of the proposed budget bill show significant cuts and changes to Medicaid and support for SNAP.

15 Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations—This is a difficult topic. It concerns environmental issues versus regulation, and the real contribution of fossil fuel to global warming. The facts make it clear that global warming is real. The debate over how much is natural and how much human activity contributes to the problem, weighs heavily toward a major impact from human developments. However, it does not matter when humanity can reduce its contribution, whether significant or not. There is no reason not to cut our pollution of the environment. Costs might be a factor, but then improving our overall standard of living by not taxing middle income and working poor households could make up the difference. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to eliminate the so-called “electric vehicle mandate.” This mandate was an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new vehicles, effectively pushing for more electric vehicle production. Trump’s order also aimed to remove regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access and terminate state emissions waivers that limited the sale of gasoline-powered cars

16 Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children– This again is an issue that really is not an issue! Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in American schools existed long before Donald Trump’s presidency. The foundations of DEI can be traced back to civil rights movements and legislation such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. By the 1990s and 2000s, DEI initiatives expanded beyond race to include gender, disability rights, and LGBTQ+ inclusion in education. Schools and universities implemented diversity training, multicultural curricula, and affirmative action policies to promote equitable access to education. While DEI became a more widely discussed topic in recent years, its roots in American education go back decades. Some schools incorporate discussions on these subjects, while others face restrictions on teaching them. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 56% of teachers reported that topics related to racism and racial inequality came up in their classrooms at least sometimes, while 29% said the same about sexual orientation and gender identity. The survey also found that these discussions are more common in urban and suburban schools than in rural areas. Sixty percent of teachers believe parents should not be able to opt their children out of discussions on racism and racial inequality. Schools are not pushing critical race theory or promoting gender decisions.

17 Keep men out of women’s sports—There are so few men who are transgender. Only 1.4% of youth aged 13-17 identify as transgender. Only about 33% report as males. Of the transgender group few compete in sports events. Transgender youth make up a small fraction of all athletes. For example, NCAA President Charlie Baker testified in December 2024 that fewer than ten transgender college student-athletes were among a total 510,000 athletes. Research also suggests that states allowing transgender participation tend to have more girls participating in sports than states with bans.

18 Deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again– This goal flies in the face of all that America stands for. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Many may not like those who do not agree with their personal position or that of the government, but our Bill of Rights guarantees those individuals the right to speak out. Our universities and college campuses have always been a place where this right exists without fear of retaliation. We recently noted the heartbreak when President Nixon attempted to curb the right to peaceful anti-war demonstration at Kent State. These types of demonstrations and sometimes violent ones are not the rule, but rather the exception.

19 Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship—Again, another false issue! Our elections have been secure. It has only been since President Trump’s claims of a stolen election that the issue has been raised. The facts have shown that Trump’s claims have no merit. Under the Trump administration, the government is making it more difficult for many to vote. Just the opposite of what Is needed! While instances of voter fraud do occur, multiple studies and investigations have found that widespread fraud is rare. Election officials and experts generally agree that the election system has safeguards, such as voter registration requirements, identification checks, and audits of results in place to prevent fraud.

20 Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success—What a joke! From the very beginning President Trump through his rhetoric has increased divisions in our country. However, there is hope that through its own policies, the nation may be uniting against his agenda. Consider the most recent polls which show mixed approval ratings for the president and his policies. In various surveys, his overall approval rating has hovered around 40-45%. Some of his policies, such as tariff increases and government cuts, have faced majority disapproval, with 59% opposing tariffs and 55% disapproving of federal department reductions.

Suggestions to Save America from Itself

One person’s opinion

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad. Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction. Should we focus on humanitarian issues, or should we focus 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 room 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 appear to be on the horizon for those who believe in the MAGA movement. Yet, after only one hundred days in office, the prospect of a better America seems dim. Official statistics are not totally doom and gloom. Still, many middle- and lower-class Americans have a perception of food and everyday living costs soaring. The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself. The Secretary of Treasury and the head of DOGE are reportedly less than civil with each other. Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues. 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 state’s 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 mire due to lack of staff. Even the polls are turning against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control. This weekend’s polls (Ipsos, ABC, Washington Post, etc.) report that 55 percent of voters do not support President Trump’s leadership.

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 the 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 is a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government 9which arguably does need serious reform).

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 state’s 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.

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 and access to federal medical benefits. 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 should be stripped away. Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituent, 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 current situation, 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 the 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 comparison to what is factual. We need to understand what opinion is and what is news.

While that would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans are hurt by the policies of the current administration. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history. This great nation deserves more than most have given it. All Americans need to get involved by putting pressure on their senators and representatives. Americans need to become the government of “We the People!”

It is Time to Decide

The current political and social climate has made me very concerned. I am a “boomer” who has lived through the healing process following WWII, and the turmoil created during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the civil rights movement, Watergate, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, 9/11, and other events. I was involved in the Vietnam protests, first as a student observer and later as a police officer on the front lines. In all my years living through these events, I never felt like our democracy was threatened as much as it is today. No matter what crisis the American people faced, there was always a sense that the law would prevail. In today’s Trump world, courts are defied or manipulated; many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have failed to represent their constituents; long established safeguards have been removed; and executive power has increased to a level never seen in our 250-year history.

I have previously written about executive orders, restructuring our government, our president, education, and other issues. There are no simple answers to the situation that we find ourselves in today. However, it is money and the power that it yields which have contributed to the problem. While I am not a sociologist, my view of humankind is that there is a continuum of human caring (empathy). On one end are those who are so empathetic that they would easily sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the whole. On the other end of the spectrum are those who crave power and have no empathy. Our political structure mirrors this continuum with very liberal Democrats on one end and extremely conservative Republicans on the other. The difference is in the organization of the political parties and the membership loyalty to core values. Over the years I have maintained an independent attitude toward politics, although many would say I have a liberal bias. I understand the core principles that the Republican party held in the 1950s and 60s. But I also relate to the central Democratic base. So obviously, I do not subscribe to the far right MAGA philosophy. I am also wary of too much government involvement in social and personal issues.

With that said, I do believe that empathy should rule our society, not the money and the power that it brings to the political arena. Every human being should have the right to feel secure. When someone needs assistance, society should step up and help. I have been there as a young married college student, who would not have been able to survive without food stamps. On the other hand, I had the expectation that I would someday be able to support the family based on my wife’s and my income. To achieve security, a person needs to have an adequate income! As a highly educated individual, I have been fortunate to have achieved a sense of security. Do I need to earn more money? No. I really don’t know what my wife and I would do with it except to donate it to causes that we deem worthy. But for the Musks and Trumps of this world, how much is enough? I know it is not security that they crave. Rather, it is the power to control all that surrounds them.

I hope that America survives the current administration. MAGA and Donald Trump are not the Republican party of ideals that I can support on many issues. However, party loyalty for many is the only thing that counts. Why? Because Donald Trump has been able to convince roughly 33% of the American voting public that he has the answers to problems that he has either created or exaggerated. America does not need to be great again. We are great! That is until January 2025, when the Trump administration started to turn world opinion against America. Trump represents the desire to have it all. His supporters want to return to an America that no longer exists. Humanism has been on the increase for decades. Racism, gender discrimination, disproportionate distribution of resources should not be tolerated. If the 33% who sat out the election had spoken up, perhaps America would have continued to find a balance between the power that economic superiority brings and humanism. It is obvious to me, and many others (including those from other nations), that the money/power side of the continuum is currently trying to dominate. If successful, America will be much like feudal Europe– a king, princes, vassals, and peasants.

On March 31, 2025, Corey Booker began a Senate speech which lasted 25 hours, until April 1. Senator Booker took a stand for American values and the power of the people. On April 5, 2025, many across this nation took a stand for humanity over power and money. We must continue to fight the good fight. We must overcome the harm created by Trump and his followers.