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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One person’s opinion

Updated from an earlier post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.