An Open Letter to the Congress of the United States

The following is an open letter to every Senator and member of the House of Representatives. I hope you take time to call, write, email or text your Congressional representatives.

I am a 78-year-old retired mid-level state administrator and professor emeritus from a Midwestern university. I was a respected member of the law enforcement and security community. I have testified before Congress on matters related to the regulation of the security industry, and am the author of a highly respected security book. More importantly, I have always been an independent voter, voting for the person, not the party.

I should not need to remind you that America was founded as a democratic, representative republic. While the right to vote has expanded over the past 250 years, the central principle remains the same: voters elect representatives to Congress to reflect the views and interests of their communities. That principle has been under attack since the early 1800s, when party affiliation increasingly became more about gaining control of government than responding to the electorate. Partisan politics has become institutionalized despite warnings from many of those founding fathers about the dangers of political factions. President Trump’s current demands for redistricting (gerrymandering) to increase Republican Party control of Congress was not part of the blueprint written by our founding fathers.

Today, partisan politics is driven not only by loyalty to a party, but by loyalty to a president. You were elected to represent your constituents, not your party, and certainly not any individual leader. For those of you who are Republicans, that responsibility should outweigh loyalty to President Trump or a gerrymandered district. There has always been tension over the direction this nation should take (e.g., state’s rights versus a strong federal government; slave versus free), but that tension has historically produced compromises that have allowed the country to prosper. Congress must return to a genuine exchange of ideas, and move away from rigid party loyalty and deference to presidential influence!

Consider the polls: President Trump is not leading the country in the direction he promised. The polls reflect the opinion of the people you were elected to represent. On the average among all polls, approximately 2/3 of those polled do not support President Trump (although 80% of Republicans continue to support him but perhaps not all his policies). Do your job by considering what your full range of constituents want and work with one another to improve the nation’s circumstances. A renewed reading of the Declaration of Independence might be worthwhile. Many of the grievances listed in that document may feel relevant to the way in which Donald Trump is leading America. He is ignoring laws, challenging judges, eliminating or limited established government agencies, establishing a paramilitary enforcement unit (ICE), and creating economic chaos with his tariffs. The grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence serve as a formal indictment of King George III’s actions, which the American colonists viewed as tyrannical. The following are just a few of the key grievances they listed:

Dissolution of legislative bodies that opposed the king’s views.
Obstruction of justice by making judges dependent on his will
Imposition of a standing army
Transportation for trial by arresting and transporting those opposed to the King’s views to England.
Interference with trade, limiting economic freedom.
Forbidding governors to pass laws unless approved by the King.

For those of you who are truly serving your voters, I offer my respect and appreciation. To those who are beholden to financial or political interests rather than to the people who elected you, I urge you to recommit yourselves to public service or else step aside! If this representative democratic republic is to remain a beacon, you must represent those who elect you to Congress. If not, this 250-year experiment will be in serious jeopardy.

Robert James Fischer, PhD, Professor Emeritus

President, Assets Protection Associates, Inc.

Gerrymandering, a Tool of Political Organizations:

What Can Be Done to Eliminate It

What is Gerrymandering?

In simple terms gerrymandering is the process of drawing political boundaries that give a particular party an advantage over the opposing party. Gerrymandering is NOT something that our founding fathers foresaw. They envisioned a representative government that is proportional to the various views of its people. For example, if 60% of the population is from the Elephant Party and 40% are from the Donkey Party, then elected representatives should be in the same proportion.

The practice is named after Governor Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts. In 1812 the governor, concerned over the growing strength of the Federalist Party, managed to pass a law that allowed for redistricting. The sole purpose of this legislation was to create voting districts that gave advantage to the Governor’s Democratic-Republicans. One of the districts was so distorted that Boston Gazette journalist Elkanah Tisdale labeled the salamander shaped district “The Gerry-mander.” This term has continued through to the present day.

Whatever their labels, both parties continued to use the practice to their advantage. The views of the people were eventually subjugated to the welfare of the party. Partisan politics has become more important than representing the people who are supposed to be represented.

In 1965, to make voting districts more representative of voter demographics, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts should reflect substantial equality of population. This measure was designed to overcome districts that might have been racially biased. However, many jurisdictions continued to create politically advantageous districts. While the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering, it has not established a clear standard. In 2018 the Court looked at cases in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maryland. According to Steve Vladeck, University of Texas Law School professor, “The common thread in the court’s gerrymandering decisions this term (2018) has been to generally make it harder for plaintiffs to bring these claims, and to generally allow states more flexibility and deference in drawing congressional and state district lines.” The issue that clouds what is blatantly political is the Constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.” In the North Carolina case, Gill v. Whitford, where on a 9-0 vote, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that “concrete and particularized” injury [racial bias] denied anyone the right to vote. (de Vogue, Ariane and Watkins, Eli, CNN, June 25, 2018).

A Simple Example

Let us consider a simple example of how gerrymandering works. Let us suppose that a state has a large minority population located in the northwest part of the state. The rest of the state is mixed race but heavily dominated by a white majority. The interests in the minority population lean toward a donkey party. In general, the rest of the state leans toward an elephant party. The districting as reflected by the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court ruling is fair. However, in a recent move to consolidate elephant power in the state, the majority elephant party decides to change the boundaries in the northwest portion of the state. They move the lines so that a portion of the minority population is moved into a district that is dominated by the elephant party. They, likewise, move a large portion of an elephant dominated district into the remaining donkey dominated minority district. In both cases, the old minority district’s donkey vote is diluted. The elephant party now controls the entire state. The process is exactly what has recently happened in Texas, Louisiana, and California. In many areas, the gerrymandered districts are extremely convoluted, appearing as thin wavy lines or distorted figures.

What should be done?

Is there a better way of defining voting districts other than Gerrymandering? There are several far better ways to design voting districts than the political gerrymander‑friendly system we use now. The most effective alternatives replace single‑member, winner‑take‑all districts with systems that either dilute the power of line‑drawing or eliminate district lines entirely.

Gerrymandering thrives because each district elects one representative. Winning requires only a plurality, not proportional support. Line‑drawing manufactures safe seats even in competitive states by drawing districts that minimize one parties voting numbers in favor of the other party.

Given the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision, jurisdictions need to be held accountable for their districting. This simple step would ensure that the vision of our founding fathers is restored. Today’s technology allows for computer programs that can create districts representative of population diversity. I fact, some state legislatures have tried other methods such as the following:

Advisory commissions – composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This is an advisory body. The legislators retain redistricting powers.
Backup commissions—composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This group provides input when an impasse on redistricting is apparent.
Politician commissions—composed of non-elected, but political officials.
Independent commissions– composed of non-legislators and non-public officials, generally prohibited from running for public office for a specified period after the completion of their term on the commission. This type of commission is viewed as being the most independent of political considerations.

The use of these non‑partisan or bipartisan bodies helps in that they remove direct self‑interest, increase transparency, and produce more compact and competitive districts.

However, any reform that keeps single‑member districts can reduce gerrymandering, but it can’t eliminate the incentive. This approach is still constrained by the single‑member district model. Commissions can be captured or influenced. And “Fairness” criteria can conflict (compactness vs. minority representation). States like California, Arizona, Michigan, and Colorado have adopted this approach. But as is evident from the recent California redistricting vote, it too can be manipulated.

Algorithmic or “Computational” Redistricting

Algorithmic Redistricting is an open‑source algorithm generated map based on neutral criteria (population equality, compactness, contiguity). It is transparent and reproducible, removes human bias, and allows courts to compare enacted maps to a neutral baseline.

However, as with all algorithms, the program simplyreflects the criteria chosen — and choosing criteria is political. In the end, there are still single‑member districts.

Multi‑Member Districts + Proportional Representation

The U.S. used multi‑member districts in various forms until the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act (UCDA) mandated single‑member districts.

States are divided into larger districts electing 3–5 representatives each. Seats are allocated proportionally. Voters rank the candidates. The top vote talliers are elected. Gerrymandering becomes mathematically ineffective. Minority viewpoints get representation. It reduces polarization by rewarding coalition‑building. The system could easily be introduced, since Congress could repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act without a constitutional amendment.

This may be the most powerful anti‑gerrymandering reform.

Ranked‑Choice Voting (RCV)

Voters rank candidates; votes transfer until someone reaches a majority. This approach reduces the incentive to draw “safe” districts and encourages broader appeal. The system works especially well when paired with the multi‑member districts just discussed above. On its own, RCV doesn’t eliminate gerrymandering — but it softens its effects.

At‑Large or Statewide Proportional Representation

This systemeliminates districts entirely. The entire state votes as one district, and seats are allocated proportionally. Gerrymandering becomes impossible. Representation mirrors statewide vote share. This system might require federal statutory change due to the 1967 UCDA, in that it could weaken local geographic representation.

Hybrid Systems (Used in Germany, New Zealand, Japan)

Mixed‑Member Proportional: Voters cast two ballots: one for a district representative, one for a party.
Party seats are adjusted to ensure proportionality.

This system preserves local representation, ensures proportional outcomes, and makes gerrymandering largely irrelevant.

Which System Is Most Effective?

Multi‑member districts with proportional representation are the strongest reform. This is the model recommended by political scientists across the ideological spectrum and endorsed by the 2022 American Academy of Arts & Sciences report on democratic reform. Independent commissions are the most politically feasible. Multi‑member districts + PR are the most transformative and legally possible via congressional statute. Algorithmic redistricting is a strong intermediate step.

Conclusions

Gerrymandered districting was never about representing people; it was designed to give a political party control of the system. Many of our founding fathers warned against the formation of political parties. Loyalty to a party platform or leader ignores the fact that our system mandates that our elected officials represent their constituents, not their party. While common ideas may be used to form coalitions, the blind loyalty to a political party is the antithesis of what this country stands for. Multi-member districts with proportional representation, as recommended by political scientists, is a relatively easy fix, if only our elected representatives had the courage to enact appropriate legislation!

A summary of the JCPOA agreement: What Did President Trump Walk Away From?

On November 24, 2013, Iran and the United Nations Security Council (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany) signed an interim deal, the Joint Commission Plan of Action (JCPOA), to freeze parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief. The agreement was signed by all parties on January 20, 2014, following an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification of Iranian compliance. Through 2014 and early 2015, negotiations continued on additional nuclear limitations and the limiting of sanctions on Iran. A final agreement was reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015.

However, it was not until October 18, 2015, that the party signers began to implement the agreement. Iran reduced its Uranium enrichment capacity (production capability and enriched uranium stockpiles) while the U.S./EU began limiting sanctions. On January 16, 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran had met its initial obligations. The UN, EU, and U.S. nuclear-related sanctions were lifted. However, the U.S. labeling of Iran for supporting terrorism, human rights violations, and the continued development of ballistic missiles continued.

On May 8, 2018, less than two years later, following the change of administration (Obama to Trump), the U.S.withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions. President Trump claimed the agreement was “bad” and that he would negotiate a new deal. Iran remained in the deal with other signatories but began to gradually reduce compliance. By early 2019 Iran exceeded limits on its enriched uranium stockpile, enrichment levels, and centrifuge use. Then in January 2020 (following the change in administration from Biden to back to Trump), Iran announced it would no longer observe operational limits set by the JCPOA. However, they agreed to continue cooperating with the IAEA.

Negotiations had resumed under the Biden administration. However, talks stalled repeatedly over sanctions relief, IAEA investigations, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorism designation. Iran continued to enrich its uranium stockpile. The IAEA reported that monitoring access was being limited. Relying on Israeli intelligence and a few U.S. intelligence reports of splinter groups trying to speed up uranium enrichment capabilities, Isael and the U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear sites. Following the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of designated nuclear sites in October 2025, Iran announced the termination of the JCPOA. This ended the agreement and closed the UN Security Council’s nuclear file on Iran.

What went wrong? An agreement was reached for limiting Iran’s nuclear program to power generation monitored by the IAEA in 2015. Sanctions were lifted and Iran’s economy began to recover. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the agreement by President Trump in 2018, saw a return to increased distrust on the parts of Iran and the U.S. President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA because his administration believed the agreement was too lenient, failed to address Iran’s broader behavior, and provided economic benefits without permanently preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. The JCPOA agreement did not address Iran’s support for Islamic fundamental revolutionary groups. Iran continued to distrust the U.S., which was viewed by Iran as exploiting middle east interest.

The IAEA issued 11 consecutive verification reports (2016–2018) confirming that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Director General Yukiya Amano publicly stated that the deal’s monitoring provisions were the most intrusive ever negotiated and that Iran was meeting its commitments. Incidentally, the IAEA is the single most authoritative technical body on nuclear compliance. Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, repeatedly said the JCPOA was “delivering” and “working,” emphasizing that Iran was in verified compliance. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany issued joint statements affirming that:Iran was complying with the agreement; the JCPOA was achieving its purpose; and the deal was essential for regional and global security. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres stated that the JCPOA was a “major achievement” and that Iran was complying with its nuclear commitments, urging all parties to preserve the agreement. To support Guterres, UN Security Council Reportsrepeatedly affirmed that the JCPOA was functioning as intended. Even the Israeli Security Establishment (not the Government), composed of Israeli intelligence and military officials publicly stated that the JCPOA was working to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, even if they disliked other aspects of the deal.

Independent Nuclear Experts from the Arms Control Association, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Brookings Institution published analyses concluding that the JCPOA was effective, verifiable, and significantly limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These assessments were based on data, not political preference.

President Trump could not negotiate a “better deal!” Israeli and U.S. intelligence reports were likely biased, focusing on what the administrations wanted to hear. While Iran continues to be labeled a “bad actor,” the actions of Israel and the U.S. are rightfully questionable considering the evidence that the 2015 JCPOA was working!

“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Again?

Iran and Its Quest for Nuclear Power

Evidence presented before the June 2025 and February 2026 strikes on Iran showed Iran possessed enriched uranium stocks near weapons-relevant levels and advanced centrifuge capability. It is these facts that U.S. and allied officials used to argue Tehran was nearing a bomb threshold. Yet multiple expert analyses and intelligence assessments concluded there was no clear, corroborated evidence that Iran had decided to build a weapon or was operating a structured, ongoing weapons program immediately prior to the strikes (Fact Check, March 3, 2026; House of Commons Library, June 24, 2025).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documented that by mid‑2025, Iran had accumulated significant quantities of uranium enriched to 60 percent as a worrying short technical step toward weapons‑grade material. The IAEA‑estimated that Iran possessed roughly 440.9 kg of 60% uranium on the eve of the June 2025 strikes. Other tallies also put the pre‑strike total in similar ranges (CBS, February 28, 2026; Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, March 16, 2026). Technical briefs emphasized that enrichment to 60 percent is “near” weapons levels. With further technological development, Iran’s theoretical time for conversion to weapon’s grade product was less than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated under the Obama administration had allowed (Arms Association, March 2025).

On the other hand, U.S. intelligence assessments presented a mixed picture. Some U.S. sources warned of a covert team pursuing cruder, faster weapon designs and estimated reduced timelines for producing weapons grade materials. Formal judgments stopped short of saying Tehran had restarted a structured weapons program or made a political decision to weaponize (Congress.gov, March 6, 2026; Congress.gov May 24, 2025). The 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment and later public analyses noted Iran had capabilities that could shorten the production timelines if a political decision were made. However, these reports also stressed that Iran had not clearly undertaken all activities necessary to field test a device (Arms Control Association March 2026; Congress.gov May 24, 2025).

Non‑governmental experts and analytic centers publicly challenged claims that Iran was “very close” to a bomb, arguing that available evidence did not demonstrate active weaponization or an authoritative decision to build one. Prominent analysts told reporters there was “no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon.” These reports highlighted IAEA language which indicated a lack of credible signs of an ongoing weapons construction program (FactCheck.org, March 3, 2026; Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, March 11, 2026). Scientific and policy commentators cautioned that quantities of 60% material are serious but not proof that Iran had completed the work necessary to develop weapons grade materials. The necessary developments for building a nuclear bomb include design, machining, and testing of various bomb components. These steps are required to have a deliverable warhead (Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, March 16, 2026).

Still, the IAEA repeatedly flagged serious concerns over safeguards. It documented high levels of enrichment and identified undeclared sites tied to past weaponization activities. And, in mid‑2025, they formally found Iran in non‑compliance with safeguards obligations. Proponents of strikes used this information to argue an urgency to confront Iran. On the other hand, the agency’s director later said it had no evidence of a structured current program to manufacture weapons (Quincy; House of Commons; Congress.gov; Center for Arms Control …).

U.S. and Israeli leaders framed the 2025 and 2026 bombings as pre‑emptive responses to an imminent threat, citing reduced breakout estimates from some intelligence elements, and the large 60% stockpile. Critics responded that public claims often lacked transparent underlying evidence, and that some senior intelligence officials and independent experts disputed the U.S. and Israeli assertions of immediacy. Independent reporters noted potential political incentives to emphasize worst‑case trajectories, and that open-source public reporting could not fully verify classified judgments.

In conclusion, an analysis of the pre‑war-strikes record supports a restrained conclusion. Iran had advanced technical capacity and sizeable near‑weapons‑grade material that could shorten breakout timelines under a political decision to weaponize. However, authoritative public assessments and technical experts found no incontrovertible evidence that Iran had resumed or completed a structured program to build deliverable nuclear weapons immediately before the 2025–2026 strikes. The public record is thin! While there is classified operational intelligence and internal decision memos, claims of imminence by Israel and the U.S. relied on contested judgments rather than open, incontrovertible proof.

Trump Claims that Democrats are the Enemy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Homeland Security: What’s the Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Presidency and Behavior:

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Promises Continued:

Social Services

Ban urban camping and arrest violators

President Trump did not need to do much on this promise since the U.S. Supreme Court’sCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling of June 2024 allowed localities to ban outdoor camping even if there is no homeless shelter space available. Roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such ordinances. Another 40 local bans on outdoor camping are pending, according to data by the National Homelessness Law Center. The measures vary in detail, but they typically include prohibitions on camping, sleeping, or storing property on public land. Many also include buffer zones near schools, parks or businesses.

Bans often allow for steep fines and jail time. In Indio, California, for example, people caught camping illegally could face a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail. The ordinance in Fresno, California, bans sitting, lying, sleeping, or camping on public property anytime, anywhere, with a penalty of up to a year in jail. Elmira, New York, includes sleeping in vehicles in its camping ban.

Create “tent cities” where the homeless can be moved

President Trump campaigned on a promise to create large, federally supported “tent cities” for people experiencing homelessness on inexpensive land, staffed with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug rehabilitation experts. Instead, Trump has made significant shifts in federal homelessness policy, but his administration has so far not moved on a “tent city” program with accompanying services. The administration’s most consequential actions on homelessness to date involve proposed changes to homelessness funding, an executive order emphasizing enforcement, and efforts to restructure or eliminate federal homelessness coordination agencies.

End veteran homelessness

A Veterans Affairs Department census in January 2023 found more than 35,000 veterans experiencing homelessness, up 7.4% compared to 2022, but down by more than half since 2010. “The American veteran is one of our greats,” Trump declared. “These are great, great people. We have to take care of them.”

President Trump sketched out a highly ambitious agenda to end veteran homelessness in America. His plan solidified in May 2025 via an executive order in which Trump pledged to swiftly build a sprawling housing and social serves complex at the West Los Angles VA complex, a 388-acre campus originally deeded to house veterans that has since been scarred by systematic neglect, slow redevelopment, and a long trail of broken promises.

Trump’s bold rhetoric does not match his policy actions and legislative reversals. These include cuts by the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that caused many veterans to lose their jobs, and the One Big Beautiful Act’s work requirements for people (including veterans) participating in programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which can complicate their efforts to stay housed.

A clear example of the administration’s policy reversal involves the fittingly titled End Veteran Homelessness Act, which was first introduced in June 2024, during the Biden presidency. The legislation proposed to dispense with eligibility hurdles in the HUD-VASH program, an interagency rental assistance initiative that would provide housing vouchers to homeless veterans.

Various housing-related VA contracts have been axed as part of Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE initiatives. Among other things, VA cancelled a contract used to ensure housing for formerly homeless veterans meet all relevant safety standards, including lead-based paint.

Conclusions

President Trump made some great promises to improve the situation of the homeless, in particular homeless veterans. The ban on urban camping was already being considered when he took office. The plan to create “tent cities” was replaced with a better plan. However, the new plan requires changes to HUD programs. These changes seem to conflict with his veteran housing initiatives. The HUD-VASH program was cut during the DOGE phase in controlling government spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Promises Continued:

Foreign Policy and the Military

Another area where President Trump promised big changes was in foreign policy and our military. His goal was to make the world safe from foreign powers who are seeking to exploit our nation. He has said, “We need to protect our national interests around the globe.”

End the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours

Trump has been less supportive than the Biden-Harris administration in backing Ukraine against Russia (which launched an invasion in 2022). Trump did not detail his plan, but even Russian officials expressed skepticism that this could be achieved. As of this writing, a year has passed and the war continues. There have been moments where the Trump administration has suggested that a peace agreement or temporary truce was in the offing. So far, neither has occurred. The latest initiative has come from the Russians, proposing that Zelinski travel to Moscow for peace talks. Trilateral peace talks continue as this article is posted. Meanwhile, drone attacks continue and on the ground fighting in the east has not lessened.

Target Chinese ownership of U.S. vital infrastructures

As reported by AP in December 2025, the Trump administration may have softened its language on China in order to maintain a fragile truce in their trade war. However, Congress has moved ahead with more restrictions in a defense authorization bill that would deny Beijing investments in highly sensitive sectors and reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese biotechnology companies. The December 2025 bill, as amended by the Senate, also prohibited government money from being used for equipment and services from blacklisted Chinese biotechnology companies. The compromise bill authorizing $900 billion for military programs was released two days after the White House unveiled its national security strategy.

The Trump administration dropped Biden-era language that cast China as a strategic threat. An administration spokesperson said the U.S. “will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China.” This is an indication that President Trump is more interested in a mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing than in long-term competition. For example, Trump has allowed Nvidia (a computer chip manufacturer) to sell an advanced type of computer chip to China Those more hawkish Congressman are concerned that this will help Beijing boost the country’s artificial intelligence. “Whatever the White House says about limiting Chinese investments in our infrastructure, Capitol Hill is locking in a hard-edged, long-term competition with Beijing,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.

Hold China financially responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic

While there was a great deal of talk about holding China responsible for the COVID pandemic, there has been little action on this 2025 promise. Repeated investigations have failed to show any Chinese culpability.

Partner with businesses and universities to help them protect against Chinese surveillance and cyber-attacks

Instead, President Trump has done the opposite of partnering with universities. He has attacked many Ivy League and top universities for DEI initiatives, threatening to withhold federal dollars or even legal actions. His work with businesses is presented in the earlier discussion on China ownership.

Construct an Iron Dome-like missile defense system for the U.S.

The U.S. has been a leader in creating anti-missile technology. The 2011 Iron Dome has protected Israel from airborne attacks on numerous occasions. But experts say the threats to Israel are different than those facing the United States, making the Iron Dome a less obvious solution for the U.S. The president vowed to build a Golden Dome missile defense shield for the country in three years. It’s nowhere close to being done. One year and billions of appropriated dollars later, his “Golden Dome” dream is no closer to reality. The Pentagon hasn’t started rolling out the vast network of sensors and interceptors due to the project’s complexity. According to two industry insiders and two former defense officials, the White House has yet to release the billions Congress appropriated to build the architecture. And that means the defense industry hasn’t been able to start working in earnest.

Provide record-breaking military funding

Although Trump has touted that he did not launch a war during his first term, this promise expresses support for generous military funding. President Trump declared that he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in 2027, a massive $500 billion increase from this year’s Pentagon budget.

The huge boost reflects how expensive some of Trump’s military ambitions are, from the Golden Dome air defense effort to his call for a new battleship design. Neither of those programs could be fully funded under current spending levels. While finding a half trillion dollars in new spending would prove difficult, Trump and some congressional Republicans appeared confident they could do so. The budget reached $1 trillion this year, thanks to $150 billion in new money Congress voted to pour into Pentagon coffers, via a reconciliation bill.

Withdraw from the World Health Organization

Trump criticized the WHO for its perceived closeness to China, which he said compromised its advice on the coronavirus and its investigations of the pandemic. In January 2026, the United States completed the legal withdrawal process, thus ending its membership, governance participation, and funding contributions. Experts are raising concerns about the short- and long-term implications for public health in the U.S. and abroad. “The WHO continues to serve as a very critical traffic control and public health response organization for the world,” says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “We in the U.S. don’t experience many of the infectious diseases we see around the world, in large part because they are stopped in these countries, oftentimes through the support and coordination of the WHO. Funding the WHO is about investing in our own health here in this country.” (Time)

Summary/Conclusion

President Trump did increase military spending in his One Big Beautiful Bill and has asked for double that budgeted amount for 2027. His support for renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War has many Americans concerned. His “arrest” of President Maduro of Venezuela has increased tensions in the Caribbean. Cuba and Columbia are in his sights. He has made remarks about sending troops into Mexico and making Canada the 51^st state. His rhetoric regarding acquiring Greenland has fractured our relationship with Denmark and other NATO nations.

He has successfully withdrawn America from WHO, but at what cost to world health? His ability to deliver on his other promises is questionable. The Golden Dome project is not on schedule. He has not been able to hold China accountable for the COVID pandemic. He could not end the Ukraine Russian war in 24 hours. His policy toward Chinese investments in America is “rebalancing.” He has failed to fulfill 5 out of 7 promises. Not only has he failed to deliver on 5 of his promises, he has not protected our global interests. Instead, America has fewer friends!