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.

Does the Department of Education Need to be Eliminated?

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The order directs the department to reduce its size and transfer many of its responsibilities to states and other federal agencies. Programs like student loans, Pell Grants, and funding for students with disabilities should continue, but their administration might be shifted to other agencies over time. The move has sparked concerns about potential disruptions in federal education funding and services, especially for low-income and special-needs students.

In addition, President Trump has withheld funding for numerous federal agencies, as well as personnel cuts that Impact the operational effectiveness of those agencies. His initiatives to eliminate DEI have resulted in threats to various educational institutions that have been deemed in violation of his desire. His major targets have been high profile schools like Columbia. However, a number of regional universities are under investigation for discrimination tied to DEI programs.

While purportedly looking for a better investment, the Trump administration has lost sight of the fact that education isn’t about return on the dollar in test score numbers, but it is about children. Cuts to food and support programs should consider what happens when a child is hungry. The impact of housing support on living arrangements also impacts a student’s learning motivation. Our system of education is broken! Many children are in fact “left behind”. Education is good for the affluent, fair for the middle class, and substandard for people struggling to make ends meet. That is why 54% of Americans function a less than a 6^th grade level. With an overall literacy rate of 79%, the United States ranks 36^th. Most developed nations have literacy rates of 96% (National Literacy Institute, 2024-2025 Literacy Statistics).

Many of our competing countries, e.g., Finland, Canada, Japan, support early education with universal health and food support programs as well as support for counselors, mental health, basic human needs. Unfortunately, the United States is focused on outcomes through money spent of developing standardized tests. We often spend money to determine outcomes without providing adequate support for actual education. We don’t invest in teachers. Salaries are poor. Requirements for licensure are often costly and frequently not reimbursed by the school districts. Attracting college students to these poor paying teaching jobs has become increasingly difficult. Differences in taxing districts impact whether a school district invests in education or barely gets by. Wealthy districts can excel. Poor districts barely make their budget guidelines.

Too often, the United States has turned what should be an investment in humankind into a business venture. Spending more money doesn’t guarantee a better product. Our founding fathers stressed the need for a literate populace if their model democracy was going to survive. America has failed to maintain the gains in education achieved over the 20th century. The amount of money spent on buildings, extra-curricular activities and mandated curriculums has changed the focus from basic skills and understanding of our system of government to looking good on paper.

Downsizing with the intent to eliminate the Department of Education is as unfounded as most other downsizing initiatives underway under the Trump administration. There is no doubt that there is waste in our federal bureaucracies. This waste should be eliminated. However, the chainsaw approach offered by the Trump administration can do only what a chain saw does. The cuts are crude and dangerous. What is needed is a careful review of programs by independent experts. The recommendation then needs to be reviewed by Congress and their determination passed on to the Executive Branch.

The United States is not a business being run for profit. Although, in recent years it often looks like our elected representatives are there only to make money for themselves. The United States government is a service funded by the taxpayer for all American citizens.

Money and the VOTE

Election laws in the United States are designed to ensure fair and transparent voting processes. They cover aspects like voter registration, accessibility, campaign finance. States have the primary authority to set election rules, but federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, provide overarching protection. These election laws strictly prohibit voter buying, which refers to offering money or other incentives to influence someone’s vote. Under 18 U.S. Code § 597, it is illegal to make expenditures to influence voting, whether to encourage someone to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote for or against a specific candidate. Violations can result in fines or imprisonment.

State laws vary, but no state allows payments to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. Some states, like Wisconsin, even prohibit payments for simply turning out to vote.

There have been allegations that Elon Musk may have violated campaign finance laws by offering monetary incentives to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential election. These payments were tied to signing a petition supporting the Constitution. You could argue that such payments were intended to influence voter registration and voting behavior. If this is the case, such actions could potentially breach federal laws prohibiting payments for voter registration or voting.

In addition, Musk also has been a major donor to political campaigns, such as the current Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Here his donations and advocacy have sparked debates about the ethics of such involvement. Musk also has ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which has allowed him to amplify his political views and influence public discourse. His financial backing and public endorsements have positioned him as a key figure in certain political movements.

Musk’s interactions with senators and representatives have also sparked significant debate. Reports suggest that Musk has used his wealth and political action committees to exert pressure on lawmakers. He has reportedly threatened to fund primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose certain agendas. With his involvement in federal government restructuring, he has drawn criticism from both parties, with some senators expressing concerns about his unelected authority and its impact on their constituents.

However, it’s worth noting that legal experts are divided on whether these actions constitute outright violations or merely exploit loopholes in the law. The situation underscores the complexities of campaign finance regulations and the influence of wealth in politics.

Yet buying votes is strictly illegal. It involves offering money or resources to voters in exchange for their votes. This practice undermines democracy and as noted earlier, is punishable by fines or imprisonment under U.S. law.

The influence of money in politics has been a long-standing concern, and it raises tough questions about fairness and representation. When financial power overshadows the voices of everyday citizens, it can appear that the democratic process is being undermined. Since 2010, The Supreme Court Case, commonly referred to as Citizen’s United, has caused a major political upheaval. However, that is a topic for another blog.

But democracy is resilient. Grassroots movements, campaign finance reforms, and public awareness can all push back against these challenges. What measures do you think could help restore balance?

Where is the Pushback?

Where’s the pushback from Congress in response to President Donald Trump’s defiance of the courts and disregard for the Constitution? While actual Republican pushback has come from Elizabeth Chaney and Adam Kinzinger, and a few active Senators, most elected senators and representatives in both parties appear to have little appetite for pushback. Democrats, where are your leaders? OAC, Pete Buttigieg, a few others, and independent Bernie Sanders should be supported by more of you. Where are the real Republicans? Your party has been taken over by Trump supporters. The executive power that Trump claims is not real. His “MANDATE” is far from a mandate. A full 36 percent of eligible voters did not cast a ballot. That is a larger percentage than either Trump or Harris received. Push back!! Don’t let the judicial branch attempt to carry the load! Trump’s actions are not something new. Consider Andrew Jackson, known as the people’s president, and the pushback from his political opponents.

In 1834, Henry Clay led a revolt against President Andrew Jackson. President Jackson had started defying court directives and Congress. In 1832, Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. In this case the state of Georgia attempted to impose laws on the Cherokee Nation. The Court upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokees. Jackson did not like the decision and refused to accept its directive. Most often Jackson is quoted as saying, “Jon Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson personal stance was part of his broader Indian policy which eventually led to the Trail of Tears.

Then in 1834, Jackson opposed the Second Bank of the United States as presented by Congress. Jackson viewed the bank as unconstitutional and corrupt, favoring state banks and a decentralized financial system. His stance led to the infamous “Bank War,” where he vetoed the renewal of the Bank of the United States’ charter and redirected federal funds to state banks, often called “pet banks.” Jackson claimed that as president he could judge the constitutionality of a central bank, ignoring the 1819 Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that the Bank of the United States was legal. This was a defining moment of his presidency. Senator Henry Clay viewed Jackson’s actions as outside his executive authority. Clay moved to have Jackson censored by Congress. In 1834 the Senate formally censured Jackson. In 1837 the Senate, now dominated by Jackson supporters, voted to remove the censure from the Senate record. Although Clay’s efforts failed, his argument helped shape limits on executive powers. Jackson’s personal beliefs regarding the central bank are the likely cause of the Panic of 1837, our first major depression.

Where is the Henry Clay or Daniel Webster of our generation? Webster said, “I am committed… to the Constitution of the country…. And I am committed against everything, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it…; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government itself.” Which Senators today will protect the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution?

President Trump’s Executive Orders—Why?

Part 2

Introduction

During his first days in office President Trump signed over 50 executive orders. As of this writing there are now over 100 orders! While new presidents start their terms with executive orders, the extent and direction of President Trump’s orders is “Trumpian.” In Part 2 I will continue to discuss selected executive orders, consider why they were signed, present the positives and negatives of each order, and consider the unforeseen consequences, good and bad. With over 100 orders to choose from this will take some time!

Federal Hiring Freeze

Signed January 20, 2025, this executive order is similar to the order President Trump signed on January 23, 2017. This executive order is aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce. The order is aimed at halting the hiring of federal civilian employees across the executive branch. Agencies can hire no more than one new employee for every four who leave. Immigration enforcement, public safety, military, and law enforcement are exempt from the hiring restrictions. Agencies are directed to develop plans for large-scale reductions in force, and identify nonessential functions including diversity initiatives for cuts. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, oversees the efficiency measures and coordinates with agency heads. Federal employees have been offered incentives to resign.

The order also directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan to reduce the federal workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.

Why?

President Trump signed the 2025 hiring freeze order to reduce the size of the federal government’s workforce and cut down on government spending. Candidate Trump had regularly made statements promising to reduce government spending and waste. This order fulfills his promise to his political base. This hiring freeze is part of a broader effort to improve efficiency and reduce costs within the federal government.

Positives

The primary goal of the hiring freeze is to reduce government spending. By not filling vacant positions, the government can save on salaries and benefits. The hiring freeze could streamline government operations. The freeze may lead to better utilization of current employees and potentially uncover inefficiencies. With fewer resources, agencies may be encouraged to find innovative solutions to maintain service levels. This can lead to the adoption of new technologies and processes that improve overall efficiency.

Negatives

While these potential benefits exist, it’s important to consider the broader implications and challenges that may arise from such a policy. The freeze has had various impacts, including staffing shortages in agencies like the IRS and the National Park Service, which rely heavily on seasonal workers. Critics argue that such measures can disrupt agency operations and potentially increase costs in the long run.

The hiring freeze has also led to the rescinding of job offers for many candidates, including those who had already received offers from federal agencies like the IRS. This creates uncertainty and financial instability for those affected. Agencies like the IRS and FDIC are facing challenges in fulfilling their duties due to the hiring freeze. The IRS, for example, may struggle to process tax returns efficiently, potentially leading to delays in tax refunds. The FDIC’s ability to ensure the stability of the banking system is also compromised, increasing the risk of bank failures and weakening consumer protections.

The hiring freeze has led to a decrease in efficiency and morale among existing federal employees. With fewer staff members to handle the workload, employees may experience increased stress and burnout, which can negatively impact their performance and overall job satisfaction. The freeze may have long-term consequences for the federal workforce, including a potential loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as experienced employees retire or leave for other opportunities. This can hinder the government’s ability to effectively serve the public and address emerging challenges.

Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid

Signed January 20, 2025, this directive mandates a comprehensive review of all U.S. foreign assistance programs to ensure they align with American interests and values. The order includes a 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds while these reviews are conducted. The reviews are to be carried out by the department and agency heads responsible under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The executive order aims to assess the efficiency and consistency of foreign assistance programs with U.S. foreign policy. Based on the review recommendations, the department and agency heads responsible, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will decide whether to continue, modify, or discontinue each foreign assistance program. The Secretary of State has the authority to waive the pause for specific programs if necessary.

Why?

President Trump believes that the U.S. foreign aid programs are not aligned with American interests and values. He has argued that these programs often destabilized world peace by promoting ideas contrary to harmonious and stable relations within and among countries. The executive order aimed to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance was fully aligned with the President’s foreign policy and provided a value return for the American people. The administration emphasized the need to review and realign foreign assistance to protect America’s investment and focus on national interests.

Positives

The order is designed to ensure that foreign aid programs are aligned with American interests and values, promoting a more coherent and strategic approach to foreign assistance. By pausing new obligations and disbursements for a comprehensive review, the order aims to improve the efficiency and accountability of foreign aid programs. This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and provide a return for the American people. The order emphasizes the importance of focusing on national interests and protecting America’s investment in foreign assistance. This approach aims to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

Negatives

The 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds has caused significant disruptions to ongoing aid programs. This has affected millions of people worldwide who rely on U.S. funds for essential services such as food, healthcare, and economic development. The executive order has led to job losses for tens of thousands of Americans and non-Americans working in the international development sector. This includes employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private contractors.

Private contractors working with USAID have faced financial burdens due to unpaid invoices and the sudden halt in funding. This has affected their ability to sustain operations and fulfill commitments to subcontractors, suppliers, and employees. Contractors and organizations that rely on their proven track record of reliability to secure future government contracts face reputational risks due to the uncertainty surrounding funding and the potential cancellation of contracts.

The pause in foreign aid has had severe consequences for vulnerable populations in developing countries. The executive order has led to the cessation of programs that support the rights and well-being of these communities. The disruption of aid programs and the potential withdrawal of U.S. support from international development efforts could lead to increased instability in regions that rely on U.S. assistance for stability and development.

We the People: Our Founding Fathers—How Would They View MAGA and President Elect Trump?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

Through analysis of writings and other historical documents, it is possible to predict what historical figures might think of current events, but it is important to remember that their views were shaped by the events of their times. However, while much has changed over the past 250 years, a person’s character will likely remain unchanged. The following is a brief study of what a select number of our early historical figures may think about our soon to be Trump presidency. These suppositions are based on a review of the opinions of these historical figures. As I examined their views, I was at times surprised by their positions.

George Washington

Our first President had strong views regarding the Presidency and politics. He made a clear choice not to be elected as a king. He did not support political party affiliation. As the first President, he was not part of any political party! He believed that political parties created division. This division was detrimental to the goals of the nation, often serving party goals over national well-being. Washington believed in individual liberties and national freedom. These values would be best protected by a strong central government. It is likely that Washington would have been supportive of President elect Trump’s plans for economic growth and a reduction of government overreach. On the other hand, it is likely that Washington would have found Trump’s attempt at greater centralization of power in the executive branch as an overreach of presidential power. Washington was a strong supporter of checks and balances, as well as protection of civil liberties as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Washington would likely have been opposed to the elimination or reduction of power in the Department of Education. Washington, along with many others, believed that if democracy was to survive, the nation needed an informed electorate. Therefore, informed voters would demand accountability with a focus on real concerns. Politicians would need to be more responsive to the electorate’s concerns rather than focusing on self-preservation and the party line. A good education is about empowering voters to think critically. Education can empower citizens to make informed decisions and then hold elected officials accountable.

Benedict Arnold

While considered a traitor to the American Revolution, General Arnold was one of Washington’s top military leaders. Arnold’s betrayal was motivated by his personal feelings of a lack of recognition and personal ambition. It is likely that he would find some aspects of Trump’s nationalist and populist rhetoric appealing. Trump’s portrayal as a strong leader and outsider would likely be appealing to Arnold based on his own experiences. Still, it would be difficult to know how Arnold would view Trump’s efforts to centralize power in the presidency.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was an intellectual who valued reason, liberty and civil virtue. He was known for his pragmatic approach to governance. He had a strong belief in a balance of power to protect individual freedom. As with Washington’s view, Franklin would have supported Trump’s economic vision and desire to reduce government overreach. Both goals fit with his belief in individual enterprise and a government focused on protecting citizen’s rights. Like Washington, it is likely that Franklin would have been concerned about Trump’s possible overreach with an emphasis on centralized power. Franklin, as exhibited in his support of the Constitution, was a strong advocate of checks and balances and the protection of civil liberties. In addition, Franklin’s experience in diplomacy and international relations would probably cause him to be concerned about Trump’s America First and isolationist policies. Franklin would also have been concerned about the intense party loyalty not the interests of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s views are enshrined in what we now call Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson believed in individual rights, a limited federal government, and the agrarian community. State’s rights were paramount over the rights of the federal government. Jefferson would likely appreciate Trump’s state rights views and his focus on economic development. However, like many of his contemporaries, he would be troubled by Trump’s focus on centralized power with executive overreach. As seen in his words in the Constitution, Jefferson was a firm believer in checks and balances.

Aaron Burr

Aaron Burr is a unique figure in early American politics. He served as the third Vice President under Thomas Jefferson. Burr was ambitious and often challenged the status quo of his time. It is very likely that Burr would appreciate Trump as an outsider who has challenged the status quo. His own alleged attempt to form an army and seize control of portions of America within the new Louisiana Territory would likely provide a positive view of Trump’s January 6 demonstration.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton is considered one of the Founding Fathers and was the first Secretary of the Treasury. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton favored a strong central government with a powerful executive branch. Some of his views may have come from serving as George Washington’s chief aid. He believed that a strong government was necessary to control the nation’s finances and support its economic growth. In his view he would likely support Trump’s focus on economic growth and reduction of government restrictions on business. Still, he would also find Trump’s belief in centralized power as an executive overreach. Hamilton believed in a balanced government. He may also have been concerned with Trump’s policies that could increase national debt and undermine the government.

John Jay

Jay was a Founding Father who was responsible for much of the Bill of Rights. He was also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay believed in a strong central government, diplomacy, and the rule of law. His views on Trump would likely be mixed. Jay would probably support Trump’s nationalism and economic protectionism. However, Jay would likely have concerns for Trump’s rhetoric and the potential he has shown for undermining democratic institutions– particularly the Supreme Court.

James Monroe

Monroe was the fifth President. His presidency was known for its strong stance on American sovereignty and his efforts to limit European influence in the Western Hemisphere. His strong stance created what has become known as the Monroe Doctrine. While given Monroe’s strong feeling on national sovereignty and protectionism, he would likely support Trump’s positions in these areas. However, like his predecessors, Monroe would find Trump’s divisive language, and his statements undermining democratic institutions, a major concern. Monroe valued unity and stability of government over party.

James Madison

Madison is often called the Father of the Constitution. It is evident from his writings that he was a strong advocate of a balanced government, using checks and balances of power. He believed in individual rights and a healthy federal system. Again, Madison would likely have a concern over Trump’s rhetoric. The divisive nature of his dialog and his willingness to attack democratic institutions, would be counter to his belief in unity and stability in government.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was perhaps one of the most significant figures in America’s history. As John Adams said: “[W]ithout the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Adams was probably correct. Paine published Common Sense in 1776. Over 500,000 copies were produced in a time when the population of the British colonies was less than 2.5 million. The percentage of readers is greater than the percentage who watch our Super Bowl! It is likely that Paine would not approve of much in Trump’s proposal for governance over the next four years. He would find Trump’s desire for a leaner and less intrusive government a positive position. However, he would likely be vehemently opposed to Trump’s focus on centralized power. Every American should read Paine’s Common Sense. It is as applicable to today’s world as it was in his. This champion of liberty would view Donald Trump and MAGA as a force to be resisted.

Synthesis

As I stated in the Introduction, it is difficult to know what any historical figure might think of modern society. However, personal values probably would not change. Of the ten early American leaders, it is interesting that all ten might support Trump’s general assumptions regarding protection of American sovereignty and his economic positions. However, at least eight would all be concerned about his apparent disregard for the democratic foundations of this country. Of course, this is a logical conclusion since these men were instrumental in creating the United State of America. Burr and Arnold would more likely be supportive of Trump. However, their own ambitions were their downfall. Both were concerned about their own well-being and legacy. It is no wonder that given Trump’s personality, they would likely find much of his agenda palatable.

Conclusions

It would serve us all well if we took time to reexamine the materials left behind by our early leaders. They did not agree on many things but were able to find common values. These men wrote some of the most enduring pieces of literature in our historic time. Thomas Paine’s works were widely disseminated and read by other prominent Americans. The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights carry their message in precise language. Over the years our own institutions of government have often failed to live up to the vision that was behind the written words. America needs to focus more on providing an education that includes lessons on our early history, not just rote memorization, but an engaged dialog that allows for evaluation and individual interpretations.