Save America

One person’s opinion

Updated from an earlier post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Well Are ICE Officers Screened and Trained?

Training

ICE officers receive training that prepares them for various roles within the agency. There are differences in training length and focus depending on specific duties. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) officers receive more training than the Enforcement Removal Operations officers (ERO). Both receive less than Homeland Security Investigators (HIS). Officers receive a mix of classroom instruction, practical skills training, and ongoing field education, with training durations varying significantly between different roles within the agency.

Prior to January 2025, most ICE recruits attended training at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The enforcement and Removal operations officers (ERO) had a training program just short of 8 weeks, which focused on operational tasks and safety in high-contact situations. Most of the training focused on locating, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) candidates had a 90-day (12 week) academy experience. Specifically, these officers received training in firearms, driving skills, defensive tactics, and use of force. The training also included de-escalation techniques. There was heavy emphasis on immigration law, the Constitution, and criminal investigations. Officers were required to take a basic Spanish course or test out of the offering.

Unfortunately, the training for the new recruits has been substantially reduced to 47 hours due to the hiring surge needed to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. This reduction of hours for ERO officers from 320 to 47 creates an important question regarding officer readiness and public safety, especially in high stakes situations. The Spanish course was dropped from the curriculum.

Screening

Prior to 2025, background checks and psychological screening were consistent with hiring practices in most municipal departments. The process generally included a combination of clinical interviews and standardized psychological tests.

Of concern is the impact of the hiring surge on the level of background and psychological screening. Top of Form

According to multiple sources, ICErecruits are showing up for training with disqualifying criminal backgrounds. New hires are reportedly failing background checks, drug tests, and open-book tests (Alex Woodward, New York Times). Often times, new recruits are reportedly failing physical fitness requirements. Some new recruits are entering training programs before the agency performs background checks or finishes a screening process. ICE officials have discovered that some recruits failed drug testing or had disqualifying criminal backgrounds while they were already enrolled in training. At least one recruit at the agency’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, had been previously charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, according to a Homeland Security official. Some recruits had not submitted fingerprints or gone through any background checks at all before entering the six-week training course (NBC News).

“The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct — similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He continued, “Exacerbating our concerns, DHS has gutted offices responsible for overseeing ICE officers and ensuring accountability for use-of-force incidents. Given these developments, greater congressional oversight of ICE’s hiring is essential.”

To boost recruitment, Homeland Security offers a “maximum $50,000 signing bonus” and student loan forgiveness. DHS also dropped age limit requirements, allowing people as young as 18 years old to apply and opening ICE to recruits older than 40 years old (The Atlantic). Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that many new recruits are former law enforcement officers who go through a different hiring process. McLaughlin said the figures in above cited NBC’s report “reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes.”

How does the training of ICE officers compare to that provided by most police departments in America?

For all municipal police departments, the average duration of training for municipal officers ranges from 4 to 5 months, with an average of 672 hours. State Police Officer Standards and Training Boards (POST) require anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks. After graduation from the POST academy, most officer complete months of supervised training by a field training officer.

Most POST academies include the following in their core curriculum:

Constitutional & criminal law
Arrest/search/seizure procedures
Firearms training
Defensive tactics
Emergency vehicle operations
Report writing & courtroom testimony
Community policing principles
Use of technology (body cameras, digital evidence, databases)

The curriculum is updated regularly to include new laws, changes in technology, and changing police strategies. The academies also stress training in the use of force, and de-escalation techniques.

ICE Training Compared to Municipal Departments

Prior to January 2025, the training received by ICE ERO officers was closer to that received by municipal police recruits. However, 320 hours of training, which included instruction on Spanish, was still far below the municipal average of 672 hours. CBP training was 480 hours at the low end of the municipal training spectrum. Given the new 47-hour standard for ERO officers, is it any wonder that ICE officers are not performing well?

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

While the training of ICE ERO officers is far below the US municipal average, consider the fact that American police receive far less training than many countries where police training lasts 2–3 years (e.g., Finland, Norway, Germany). In 1994, an effort by the federal government attempted to increase the training to 2 years by incorporating traditional academy experiences with more classroom study. However, due to concerns over federal involvement in local police training, the program ended in 2009. The shorter training period for American police is often cited in debates about police professionalism, use‑of‑force outcomes, and public trust.

Conclusions

ICE ERO officers and CBP officers are NOT trained to deal with police situations or the public when they receive only 47 hours of training. Even the pre 2025 curriculum for CBP officers (480 hours) does not begin to properly prepare these officers for the job. The training of the ERO officers is not much more than a citizen in Illinois who gets a firearms permit. In Illinois, individuals must complete a 16-hour course from an Illinois State Police approved instructor. The course covers firearm safety, marksmanship, and Illinois firearms laws.

The ERO officers are not qualified to enforce customs laws and certainly not prepared to handle police situations. The training needs to be improved. Hiring practices need to be restored to pre-2025 levels. The current threat to defund ICE operations should be taken as a wakeup call. The entire organization needs to be reformed. Officers need more training than they currently receive.

A Hard Look at ICE

Over the past year I have written about immigration, ICE, and other politically charged issues. I have attempted to keep my opinions to a minimum by looking for the facts. My life has been shaped by the idea that the truth is only discoverable when you ask questions and look for accurate information. That’s difficult today where there are so many instant sources, many with less than Walter Cronkite honesty!

The shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents yesterday clearly points out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration. Watch the videos and look at the stills. The story fabricated by Noem, Bondi, and Bovino can’t begin to defend the actions of these ICE officers. It is clear that Pretti was observing and recording the actions of ICE agents. He had his cell phone in his hand. It is clear that an ICE agent pushed a woman into a snow pile. It is clear that Pretti was attempting to help her up. It is also clear that as he helped this woman, an ICE agent dispensed spray at Pretti, followed by additional officers taking him to the ground. Pretti was doing nothing wrong! He was shot because an overly excited and poorly trained officer likely informed his peers that there was a gun. There was a gun. However, the gun was not visible in his hand as claimed by ICE, but in his holster.

The shooting of Alex Pretti is the fifth deadly shooting by ICE since January. The killing of Renee Nicole Good was not the first time that federal officers have killed civilians. Federal officers have fatally shot at least three other people in the last five months. In September, Silverio Villegas González, a father originally from Mexico who worked as a cook, was killed while reportedly trying to flee from officers in a Chicago suburb (WBEZ). In December, a border patrol agent killed a 31-year-old Mexican citizen while trying to detain him in Rio Grande City, Texas. And on New Year’s Eve, an off-duty ICE agent used his service weapon to shoot a man in Los Angeles, California. Authorities mistakenly said the man had raised a rifle at the officer (CBS News). Agents have also shot other people. The Trace, the nonprofit news organization covering gun violence, has counted more than a dozen such shootings. In some cases, the victims survived, including a woman who suffered multiple bullet wounds in an incident in Chicago in October (Marshall Project).

My examination of media reports points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. In a prior post, I noted that the training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during this Minneapolis confrontation. While at least some of the officers involved had received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, the training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants– not police tactics. The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS. Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training. DE-ESCALATE THE TENSION in any given situation. This recent ICE citizen interaction shows ICE escalating the situation, not de-escalating!

To be clear, the entire ICE operation is based on fabricated stories about immigrants. Immigrants are invading America. “There are many rapists, killers, and gang members among our immigrants.” The Trump administration is increasing deportation of these “dangerous” criminals. The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations. It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor punishable with no more than a six-month jail term for the first offense. Citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. They have a right to life!

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

Indeed, relative to native-born citizens and legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants have the lowest felony arrest rates across all crime types. In fact, the gaps between native-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are substantial. US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes (National Institute of Health study). Trump used a false narrative to instill fear in his MAGA base.

Immigration reform has been a topic of debate for decades. During the end of the Biden administration, a bipartisan immigration reform bill was finally on its way through Congress. The bill, a $118 billion package, was introduced by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona. It included $20.23 billion to strengthen border security and stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics through the border into the United States. The package gave the secretary of Homeland Security the power to close the border if more than 4,000 encounters with migrants occurred during a period of seven consecutive days. The immigration overhaul also included: raising the bar for migrants claiming asylum; clarification of the White House’s use of parole authority to grant temporary protections to migrants; and no longer allowing migrants to live in the U.S. while waiting for their case to be heard by an immigration judge. It didn’t get passed because candidate Trump wanted the immigration issue to remain as a campaign issue (Associated Press, February 2024).

It is also worth noting that under President Obama deportation figures were the highest of any president. During his tenure, 2.7 to 3 million people were deported. The daily average ranged from a high of 1,000 to a low of 800. All of this was accomplished without a surge in ICE arrests. In contrast, to date, Trump’s ICE is averaging 810 arrests per day with pending deportation. Most of these individuals are being held in detention centers on a misdemeanor charge.

Why do we need an ICE force that is now 22,000 strong and growing? This number is double that of the 10,000 officers in the organization under past administrations. Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion. But ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, at $85 billion. And why does the operating budget include bonuses for arrests? Do we really want this type of federal immigration enforcement? Do we support ICE officers who receive only 47 hours of training?

Minneapolis and prior ICE operations in Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other cities are a harbinger of possible things to come. There was no crisis that required the surge in ICE operations! This was perhaps only a political ploy. While most MAGAs likely support this move, the majority of Americans are appalled. A recent FOX News report found that only 35% of those polled support ICE actions in Minneapolis. When thousands of demonstrators take to the streets to protect the immigrants in their communities, that should tell us that there is something wrong with the administration’s policies. Americans must make their voices heard when the protection that the Trump administration says it is providing becomes a greater threat than the fabricated problem!

We deserve to know why so many ICE officers are being hired. We should demand that all federal officers receive at least a minimum of 400 hours of training, the minimum required by our states for police officers, not 47 hours as currently for ICE officers. Also, consider the fact that ICE officers are not subject to the stringent pre-employment screening which most police department applicants face. ICE officers not only lack training in police tactics, such as de-escalation, but some may even have tendencies toward violence. Contact your legislators (specifically Republicans) and tell them not to support the funding of ICE operations until Americans get answers to questions regarding Trump’s false narrative on immigration.

President Donald Trump’s Record of Achievements in 2025

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

Build a border wall

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

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

End birthright citizenship

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

Restore and expand the travel ban

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

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

Suspend refugee resettlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make it illegal to distribute welfare benefits to illegal immigrants

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

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

Invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members

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

Designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

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

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

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

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

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

Revoke the Temporary Protected Status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio

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

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

Other Immigration Changes

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

Refugee Admissions Cap

Work Authorization and Employment Extension Document (EAD) Changes

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

Gold Card Visa

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

Summary

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

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

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

Congress for Sale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unnecessary Killing of Renee Nicole Good

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers. Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense. The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence. Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years. As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered. A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions.

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow? For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders?

Who is Jonathan Ross? How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7? Did he position himself in a place of danger? Was deadly force his only option? How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle? Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment? If not, why not? If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7? Did she intend to block an ICE operation? Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door? Was she defiant? Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions. The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions. An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate? U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States. ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws. They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions. A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent. ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers. Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally. ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation. Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning. Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish. New recruits now receive 47 days of training. The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation. While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics. The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS. Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training. De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle. He was hospitalized with severe injuries. To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty. Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm. He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty. It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents. To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers. To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers.

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty. However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.

Venezuela: A Legitimate Action or Something Else?

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

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Factors

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

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

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

Summary

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

Nigeria—A Real Crisis or a Distraction?

The Trump administration, following the President’s post, shared that the United States had attacked terrorists in Nigeria. To be fair, President Trump had warned Boko Haram that if they continued to carry out attacks on Christians that they would pay a heavy price. The question that should be asked is, “Are terrorist organizations in Nigeria targeting Christians in a jihad?” The answer should be easy to find in the news media. However, there has been little to no mention of a jihad against Christians in Nigeria, except in social media, blogs, and right leaning Christian media. Mainstream churches have not mentioned any concerns. Mainstream non-biased media had not covered any stories related to a Christian jihad. The Nigerian government, while struggling with political turmoil, did not report any targeted attacks on only Christians.

Questions need to be asked and researched, and the source of the reporting needs to be considered in any evaluation. I advise you to look to mainstream media that generally do not have a right or left leaning bias. To verify this check out the AllSides Media Bias Chart (allsidesmedia.com) or The Media Bias Chart (adfontsmedia.com).

Are Christians being killed? Yes, but so are Muslims and other Nigerians. Nigeria is a nation with mostly Christians in the north and Muslims in the south. There have been clashes between farmers and herders in central Nigeria, much like the former problems in our own country decades ago. The herders are primarily Muslim, while the farmers are generally Christian. Most of these disputes are over access to water and pasture. However, there is little evidence that either group is disproportionately at fault. Olajumoke Ayandele, an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in conflict studies, told the AP that the violence in Nigeria represents widespread killings rather than targeted attacks against a specific group.

What are the neutral mainstream media saying? The BBC reports that there is NO evidence that more Christians are being killed than Muslims. Al Jazeera reported that there are reports of attacks by Boko Haram and other fringe groups. However, the attacks do not target only Christians. The attacks are not about religion. The Associated Press reports that analysis does not support the idea of genocide as defined by the United Nations. There is no one group dedicated to destroying a religious group. Reports claiming “Christian genocide” hide the fact that Nigeria is having an ongoing civil conflict.

Although less known, the Armed Conflict Location and Event (ACLED) organization reports that most of the victims of Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been Muslims. Since 2009, 53,000 civilians have been killed due to internal civil conflicts. The group reports that data from right wing Christian groups claiming that 100,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, is not supported by the data. Most deaths are attributed to political power grabs, land disputes, cult affiliations, and simple banditry. (acleddata.com March 15, 2024)

The issues in Nigeria are not about Christian genocide. The U.S. involvement appears to be another distraction from the political turmoil in Washington.

The Trump Hegseth War on Drugs

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem. Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.” Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States. Nothing new! The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers. I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases. I saw people die from overdosing! I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs. Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand. The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction. “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source. In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes. The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S. Could Secretary Hegseth be right? Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States? Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law. Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists. No need to make an arrest. There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial. Justice would be served on the street. Speedy and final. The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers! Kill the foot soldiers. These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption. Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits. The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed. Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential.

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved. Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message.

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States. Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage. Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family. Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war! We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.

Did Slotkin, Kelly, Houlahan, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Crow Say Anything Illegal?

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed. He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed. Did they cross the line? Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel. And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material. A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders. The question is, what is an illegal order? Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders. The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful? To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives. However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media. The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal? The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles. The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.” The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities. The issue has met with stalled legal action.

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable. In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war. In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options.

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason? Absolutely NOT! They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.