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.

Is President Trump Mentally Capable of Making Presidential Decisions?

Introduction

Over the past several years I have written about President Trump, expressing my opinions regarding his policies, politics, and character. I will repeat my opinion that some of President Trump’s policy initiatives are worthy of consideration. However, the political dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties often fail to look for ways to move forward with these ideas.

Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government are instruments of the People. We should not feel compelled to accept their lack of work in finding compromise to the budget crisis. Likewise, we have an obligation to protect America’s interests both domestically and internationally. It is my view that the legislative and judicial branches of government have been coopted by President Trump. Our “face” to the world, despite his own self-aggrandizement, is making America look dysfunctional. On the home front, the government is shut down, price inflation continues to be a problem, major initiatives to combat global warming have been shut down, and other significant government departments have been gutted. In my opinion, supported by numerous mental health professions, our president has mental and cognitive problems and should NOT be making policy decisions. While the policies may have sound foundations to build upon, President Trump’s egotistic “I have the answers” approach has far too often failed to consider the outcomes of his decisions.

President Trump is content to ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights when they do not fit his vision. Blowing up boats in the Caribbean and Atlantic in international waters is a violation of International Maritime Law. It is also a violation of our Constitution. The increased use of ICE to control immigration may have been a good idea, but in Trump’s wisdom he has deployed the National Guard and Marines to support ICE officers under the manufactured idea that cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and New York are “hotbeds of crime”!

Are these the actions of a stable genius as President Trump claims? In my lifetime, I have lived under ten presidents. While history may have found that each of these presidents had human failings, there have never been any that measure up to Trump’s poor decision making abilities! Richard Nixon may come close with his illegal efforts to control the Presidential election, resulting in the Watergate Scandal.

President Trump’s Character and Mental Status

Multiple mental health professionals have publicly raised concerns about President Trump’s mental health and cognitive functioning. These concerns are often expressed through collective publications and structured assessments, rather than formal diagnoses, due to ethical guidelines that prohibit diagnosing public figures without direct examination. Notable efforts include the 2017/2018 book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, where 27 psychiatrists and mental-health experts argued that Trump’s behavior presented dangerous traits, such as patterns resembling narcissism and paranoia. They emphasized the need for public warning, despite the ethical convention against remote diagnosis. The voter didn’t listen!

However, in 2024 and 2025, some mental health experts have expressed alarm over Trump’s cognitive faculties, suggesting signs of cognitive decline. Observations include rambling speeches, erratic debate performances, and incoherent tangents during public appearances. Analyses of Trump’s public persona often highlight traits associated with narcissistic leadership, authoritarian tendencies, and transactional logic. As noted earlier in this piece, his behavior aligns with grandiose self-image, moral disengagement, and strategic aggression, which have shaped his presidency’s most controversial policies.

Despite extensive public discussion and expert commentary, Donald Trump has not received an official public psychiatric diagnosis. Formal diagnosis requires direct clinical evaluation, which has not occurred. Trump has recently reportedly passed cognitive screening tests (such as the MoCA), Still, some experts remain concerned about potential cognitive decline, citing speech patterns and memory lapses. Recent media reports have highlighted Trump’s MRI scans and increased scrutiny of his mental fitness, especially following public statements and social media activity that some interpret as signs of confusion or possible dementia. However, these claims remain speculative and are not supported by official medical documentation.

The 2024 stud, mentioned earlier, used a structured Psychodiagnostic Chart to compare leaders and reported that Trump’s scores fell into a severe mental illness and dangerousness range across multiple mental functions, alongside Vladimir Putin, and contrasted with a psychologically healthy Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The study presents quantitative profiling to support its conclusions. The methodology and the authors’ selection criteria a important considerations for interpreting the strength of this comparison.

Conclusion

Multiple medical experts have raised concerns about Trump’s mental health and cognitive abilities through published collections and structured assessments, and these works consistently highlight public-safety concerns. However, differences in methods, ethical debates about remote diagnosis, and potential political motives indicate that these warnings should be treated as serious signals warranting further, standardized evaluation rather than conclusive clinical proof. My readers must assess whether clinical concerns are amplified by political objectives.

The Trump Administration and The Bill of Rights

The Future is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

One of the most important written documents in American history is the Constitution. And within the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments spell out the limitations of our government by the people as well as the rights of the people. Has the Trump administration adhered to our founding father’s vision of a nation ruled by the people and for the people? A look at how well the administration has followed the tenants of the Bill of Rights gives a clear picture of an administration that has no interest in these important rights and limitations! It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine just how far the administration can push the letter of the law!

The First Amendment relates to religion, free speech, and assemblage. The government should make no laws establishing a preferred religion or prohibiting the exercise of religion. Today, Christian Nationalism fails to allow for the exercise of religion other than that of Christians. Laws requiring Christian references have been passed in several states. Usually, they are found unconstitutional when reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Free speech is guaranteed. However, under the current administration, speech which does not conform to the standards set by the President has been under attack. Comedians making jokes about the administration are regularly attacked by the President and his surrogates. Colbert, Kimel, and O’Fallon are just a few who have had to pay a price for making jokes about the President and his administration. The President has even issued an executive order that prohibits flag burning, despite a previous Supreme Court decision that makes it a form of free speech. In the last few days, he has reiterated that anyone burning the flag should be in jail for one year! Furthermore, the press is being stifled with threats from the Federal Communications Commission following our President’s disapproval of news coverage. ABC recently settled a lawsuit regarding free speech rather than paying the price to defend the corporation and jeopardize a pending multi-million-dollar merger with Nexstar.

Freedom of assemblage is being taken away as the President sends national guard and/or federal troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and other cities where demonstrations around Immigration Customs Enforcement protest the government’s attack on immigration. As of this writing, federal judges have blocked the deployment pending hearing legal responses from the federal government.

The Second Amendment concerns the Militia (National Guard). The “Guard” is highly regarded and regulated by law and decades of precedents. Our President is using powers granted to him to control insurrections or enforce federal laws to create unrest where there are no insurrections and the enforcement of federal laws are not being forcefully ignored. The right to bear arms is not under attack by the administration.

The Third Amendment concerns quartering of troops. It has little application in today’s world. The administration, so far, has not tried to place troops in private homes or businesses. Although, ICE has trespassed on private property in the pursuit of illegals.

The Fourth Amendment provides for the security of people against unreasonable search and seizure. Probable cause is needed for searches and warrants. The amendment requires that warrants give a description of the place, persons, and things that can be seized. The ICE crackdown on immigrants has often failed to follow the simplest rules set forth in this amendment. People are arrested without probable cause as defined by our courts over many years. People are arrested because they do not look like “Americans”. Even children are being detained (arrested)!

The Fifth Amendment addresses the requirement for an indictment for crimes. A person must be indicted by a grand jury. In modern times, the prosecuting attorney can present the indictment. In 2025, individuals are being arrested without being indicted. There is no trial. This amendment also addresses double jeopardy; a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This amendment also provides for the right to not be a witness against oneself. It also requires due process before private property can be taken for public use. These three areas seem to be left alone.

The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers. This is the habeas corpus amendment. It provides for the right to call and confront witnesses. It also provides for the right to have an attorney. Many of the alleged illegal immigrants are not provided these basic rights. Many have been arrested and removed from this country without any formal hearing!

The Seventh Amendment is the double jeopardy rule. At this point this amendment is not being attacked.

The Eighth Amendment concerns bail. It cannot be excessive. It also says that the punishment cannot be cruel or unusual. In the case of ICE deportations, the charged crime of being an illegal immigrant has resulted in deportees being incarcerated in prisons in other countries or detained in deplorable detention centers here. Think Alligator Alley.

The Ninth Amendment reflects a deep philosophical commitment to the idea that liberty is not confined to what’s written in law. The rights of the people are not limited by the Constitution. The interpretation of this amendment may have bearing on current situations.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Current actions regarding the use of national guard and federal troops are beyond what the founding fathers likely believed. Their creation of posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act have limited the use of our military. While there are exceptions to both, the current situations as viewed by our president go beyond what the rationale person would accept as insurrections or a need to enforce federal law.

In conclusion, the decisions made by the Trump administration need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that justice prevails over political pressures!

What Can You Do About an Unpopular President?

(Written August 24, 2025)

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

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

The Economist (Aug. 15, 2025):

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

Morning Consult (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 45%
Unfavorable: 51%

Silver Bulletin (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Rasmussen (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 49%
Unfavorable: 49%

New York Times (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Pew Research Center (Aug. 14, 2025)

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 60%

Quantus Insights (Aug. 14, 2025):

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

CNBC (Aug. 7, 2025):

Favorable: 47%
Unfavorable: 51%

Real Clear Politics (July 28, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 52%

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

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 56%

Navigator Research (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 43%
Unfavorable: 54%

Emerson College (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 47%

Gallup (July 7-21, 2025):

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

Quinnipiac University (July 16, 2025):

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 54%

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

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

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

Other Ways to Evaluate a President

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

What to do When a President is not performing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The End Game

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

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

Conclusion

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

The Use of Federal Troops and Officers for State and Local Law Enforcement

The recent use of the National Guard, and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, and Federal Park Police in Washington, D.C., raises the question of when, where and how federal agencies and the military can be used for general law enforcement activities outside their normal assigned responsibilities. While the Pentagon ended the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles on July 15, 2025, 300 national guard soldiers are still deployed. These troops were initially sent to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Neither Governor Newsom nor Mayor Bass requested the use of the guard in dealing with localized protests and looting. The 700-person Marine unit has been recalled. Then, on August 12, 2025, approximately 800 National Guard troops and National Park Police were deployed to Washington, D.C, under President Donald Trump’s orders to combat crime and homelessness. This deployment included members of the Guard’s 273rd Military Police Company. In addition, three states are sending additional guard troops to support the District Guard.

As a career law enforcement officer, trainer, educator, and administrator, I was shocked to see the events in Los Angeles and Washington unfold using federal officers and military personnel. Most law enforcement personnel are familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385). This act prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. It was passed after the Civil War Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from policing civilian populations in the South. The term posse comitatus comes from Latin, meaning “power of the county.” Historically, it referred to a sheriff’s ability to summon civilians to help enforce the law. The Act specifically prohibits direct law enforcement by military personnel (e.g., arrests, searches, seizures). The use of the military as a domestic police force without legal authorization is not allowed.

The Trump administration has justified its actions citing the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act provides notable statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy troops to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws when requested by a state governor or when rebellion makes enforcement of laws impossible. In general, an insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It involves a group of people rising in active resistance to the enforcement of laws or the functioning of the government.

Historically, the Supreme Court has intervened interpreting the Posse Comitatus Act. In the United States v. Red Feather (1975) the Court upheld the concept that indirect support (e.g., equipment) does not violate the Act. However, in United States v. McArthur (1982) the Court found that military involvement in a drug investigation crossed the line into unlawful enforcement.

It is important to note that The National Guard is not regarded as a federal agency and is under individual state authority.Governors can use their National Guard units for law enforcement support within their state or, if invited, in neighboring states.

It is equally important to note that the Supreme Court has said that the military can be used inIndirect support of law enforcement activities—like sharing intelligence, training, or loaning equipment. But direct involvement in arrests or investigations is not allowed.

The Insurrection Act has been used eight times since its passage. President Abraham Lincoln activated state militias to fight the secessionist states of the Confederacy (1861-1865). President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of public schools (1957). President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama during the desegregation of southern schools (1957). President Jimmy Carter deployed federal troops to manage the influx of Cuban refugees in Florida (1980). President George H. W. Bush deployed federal troops to restore order during the Los Angeles Riots following the Rodney King verdict (1992). President George W. Bush deployed federal troops to assist with disaster relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005). (History of U.S. Troop Deployments 1950-2023, Hoover Institution) President Donald Trump deployed troops as noted in the introductory paragraph (2025).

As noted earlier, the National Guard is currently active in Washington, D.C., with approximately 800 troops deployed to support law enforcement and community safety efforts. The D.C. National Guard has a unique status, as it is the only National Guard unit that reports directly to the President of the United States. This structure allows for rapid deployment in response to emergencies or national security needs. The question is “Is there an emergency?”. The President claims he needs to remove homeless people and stop the crime epidemic. There is no crime epidemic. There are many cities in America that have higher crime rates than in the District. According to his own FBI National Crime Report, overall crime is down, not only in the District, but nationwide.

What transpired in Los Angeles was challenged as illegal. Only Governor Newsom has the authority to call out the Guard. The Insurrection Act allows the President to use the military when there is an insurrection or to enforce federal laws when requested by the state governor. There was no insurrection where the enforcement of law was impossible and there was NO request from Governor Newsom for assistance from the California National Guard.

As a result of the federal government’s action, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The request by Newsom for an injunction was initially granted but eventually overturned by the Appellate Court. The Department of Justice argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, there was no precedent for such a lawsuit, there was no injunctive relief or money damages, and that Newsom and the State had suffered no harm. That case was adjudicated on August 13, 2025 and is still being reviewed by U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

While the call out of the National Guard in D.C. is within the President’s authority, that authority is to only respond to emergencies and national security threats. As of this writing, numerous groups are questioning Trump’s justification. There is NO emergency! Crime is down in the District as well as the nation, as reported by Trump’s own Justice Department. Lawsuits will likely be filed. However, Trump has historically shown a tendency to use the courts to his advantage. Court actions generally move slowly, allowing Trump to continue his activities unless an injunction is approved.

Of greater concern is President’s Trump’s comments about using the Guard in other cities. Right now, there is NO national emergency, no major uptick in crime, and no rebellion. The founding fathers did not want a national police force. The significant laws are the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Trump administration is pushing the limits when they claim that the guard can be used beyond a logistics mission. While pending lawsuits will likely make this clear, as noted above, it has been Donald Trump’s strategy to use the courts to gain time.

It is time for concerned citizens to get involved by calling, texting, emailing or writing representatives and senators. Push Congress to act. It is time to “call out” the illegal behavior of the Trump administration before it is too late. Continued peaceful protests with widespread media coverage can be helpful, if the media finally engages. Trusted media sources must speak up along with our concerned citizens.

Can America Have a Balanced Budget and Pay Down Its National Debt?

Introduction

When Kennedy took office, the national debt was $289 billion, and of this amount $270 billion was incurred during World War II. As of the latest update, the current national debt of the United States is approximately $37.17 trillion. Every president except for Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson in his last year in office, spent less than budgeted. For all other years, the federal government spent more than it took in, increasing the national debt. More specifically, the breakdown during each presidency is as follows:

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963): The national debt increased by approximately $23 billion, an increase of 8%.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): The national debt increased by approximately $42 billion. However, in 1969 the federal government ran a budget surplus of $3.2 billion, With the surplus and national debt increased just over 13% over the Johnson years.
Richard Nixon (1969–1974): The national debt increased by approximately $121 billion, a 39% increase.
Gerald Ford (1974–1977): The national debt increased by approximately $224 billion, an increase of 57%.
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): The national debt increased by approximately $299 billion, an increase of 76%.
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): The national debt increased by approximately $1.86 trillion, an increase of 187%.
George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): The national debt increased by approximately $1.55 trillion, an increase of 54%.
Bill Clinton (1993–2001): The national debt increased by approximately $1.4 trillion from 1993-1997. However, during the years 1998-2001 the federal government had budget surpluses for four consecutive years. Clinton’s overall increase in the national debt was 32%.
George W. Bush (2001–2009): The national debt increased by approximately $5.85 trillion, an increase of over 105%.
Barack Obama (2009–2017): The national debt increased by approximately $8.34 trillion, an increase of 70%.
Donald Trump (2017–2021): The national debt increased by approximately $8.18 trillion, an increase of almost 41%.
Joe Biden (2021–2025): The national debt increased by approximately $6.17 trillion, an increase of 25%.

What is the National Debt?

The National Debt is the amount of money that the United States Treasury has needed to borrow to pay bills beyond the amount budgeted for any given fiscal year. Who loans the U.S. this money? The national debt is held by a combination of domestic and foreign entities. The largest domestic holder of U.S. public debt is the Federal Reserve Bank, with holdings of $5.24 trillion. Domestic Investors includes mutual funds ($3.7 trillion), depository institutions ($1.6 trillion), state and local governments ($1.7 trillion), pension funds ($1.0 trillion), insurance companies ($0.5 trillion), and U.S. savings bonds ($5.7 trillion). There are also foreign Investors like Japan. Japan is the largest foreign holder of U.S. public debt ($1.1 trillion), followed by China ($0.8 trillion), and the United Kingdom ($0.7 trillion). There is also debt held by various government agencies, such as the Social Security Trust Fund, which owns a significant portion of the debt. Overall, the U.S. national debt is a mix of public debt borrowed from domestic and foreign investors and intragovernmental debt reflecting internal government transactions ^{1 and 2}.

How Significant is the Interest Paid on the National Debt?

In addition to the government spending more than it takes in, interest payments on the national debt have been a substantial and growing part. For example, the U.S. government paid $749 billion in interest on the national debt through the first nine months of FY25, compared to $682 billion for the same period in FY24. This increase is due to the rapid accumulation of federal debt and higher interest rates. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects interest payments will rise from $1.0 trillion in 2026 to $1.8 trillion in 2035. This makes interest payments the fastest-growing portion of the federal budget. Relative to the size of the economy, interest payments on the national debt are expected to reach 3.2% of GDP in 2026 and 4.1% of GDP by 2035 ³. However, the actual interest payments on the national debt are projected to rise to 18.4% of federal revenues by the end of 2025 and 22.2% by 2035 ⁴.

However, the major contributing factor to the increase in national debt is failure to balance the budget. As noted earlier, there were only two presidents who managed to have budget surpluses.

If the Annual Budget is Balanced, Can Our Government Pay Off Its National Debt?

The answer is yes! It will take a determined bipartisan Congress to create a balanced budget. Budget spending and the projected income need to be balanced. A portion of each year’s annual budget must be directed toward a multi-year plan to pay off the national debt. This is much like the mortgage schedule that homeowners receive when they borrow money to buy a home. Cuts in many programs will be necessary. That is the hard part of finding a bipartisan middle ground!

The income level can and should be increased. As noted in the Introduction, at one time the federal government taxed Americans who made over $400,000 per year at a rate of 91%. Today, those making over $400,000 are taxed at only 37%, and if President Trump gets his planned tax changes that rate may drop to 22%. This potential plan does not reduce the federal deficit. Although Trump claims that his tariff plan will generate income and make up for the decrease in tax income, the CBO estimates that the Trump budget will instead be a long-term drain on resources.

During the Eisenhower era (1953–1961), the top income tax rate was an astonishing 91%, applied to income over $400,000 (equivalent to about $4 million today). This was not a flat tax. Only income above the $400,000 threshold was taxed at that rate. However, due to deductions and loopholes, very few actually paid the full 91%. Still, even with deductions, the wealthy paid a significantly higher tax rate than today. Most of the wealthy class often paid taxes reaching 40–60%. In addition, during President Eisenhower’s administration, the corporate tax rate in the United States was relatively high. The top corporate tax rate was 52%, which was one of the highest rates in U.S. history. This high tax rate was aimed at generating revenue for post-war economic growth and infrastructure development. Today’s corporate tax rate is only 21%. Yet, despite the high tax rate on the wealthy and corporations, the U.S. economy grew at an average of 4% annually. Unemployment remained low, and income inequality was far less severe than today. In addition, the high individual and corporate tax rates encouraged reinvestment in business expansion rather than excessive executive compensation.

Eisenhower’s tax rate was eventually lowered by his successors as follows:

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963): The top rate remained at 91%.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): The top rate was reduced from 91% to 70%.
Richard Nixon (1969–1974): The top rate remained at 70%.
Gerald Ford (1974–1977): The top rate remained at 70%.
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): The top rate remained at 70%.
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): The top rate was reduced from 70% to 50% in 1982 and further reduced to 28% in 1988.
George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): The top rate was increased to 31% in 1991.
Bill Clinton (1993–2001): The top rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993.
George W. Bush (2001–2009): The top rate was reduced to 35% in 2003.
Barack Obama (2009–2017): The top rate was increased to 39.6% in 2013.
Donald Trump (2017–2021): The top rate was reduced to 37% in 2018.
Joe Biden (2021–2023): The top rate remained at 37%.
Donald Trump (2023–present): The top rate may be reduced by 15% from 37%, resulting in a rate could be 22%.

While there’s no official CBO estimate for a full return to Eisenhower-era rates, economists and policy analysts have modeled scenarios. If the rate were set at 91% for incomes over $400,000, the estimated additional income would be between $300 and $400 billion. Adding in a capital gains tax at the Eisenhower rate would add another $100 – $150 billion. While such a high tax rate is not likely, raising the level back to Clinton’s almost 40% or Nixon’s 70% would still generate significant income. In comparison, even these high rates are less than the 2025 rates in other countries.

Top Marginal (tax on the highest earners) Income Tax Rates by Country (2025)

Sweden (57%)

Denmark (55.9%)

France (55.4%)

Germany (47.5%)

UK (45%)

Australia (45%)

Japan (45%)

Canada (33%)

Singapore (24%)

The U.S. has lower top income tax rates than most wealthy nations, especially in Europe. Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are mid-range, higher than tax havens like Ireland and Singapore but lower than many EU countries.

Rasing the top corporate tax rate to the Eisenhower administration level of 52%, is not likely. If we consider the total corporate profits in the U.S., which were approximately $2.3 trillion in 2021, raising the tax rate to 52% could theoretically generate substantial additional revenue 1.

Debt-to-GDP ratio

This is a line of thinking in economics. What matters most is the relationship between the national debt and the GDP, not just the raw size of the debt.

If GDP (the total value of goods and services produced) grows at least as fast as (or faster than) the national debt, then the debt becomes smaller relative to the size of the economy. In other words, even if the absolute dollar amount of debt grows, the country can more easily handle it if the economy that supports it is growing too. This is like a household whose mortgage stays the same, but their income keeps rising — the payment becomes a smaller burden over time.

Economists often use the debt-to-GDP ratio (Total National Debt divided GDP) as a key measure of sustainability. If GDP growth exceeds the interest rate on the debt, the ratio can fall even without cutting spending or raising taxes. Mainstream Keynesianeconomists — such as Paul Krugman and Olivier Blanchard — argue that if GDP growth outpaced interest rates, debt is manageable.

But there are big caveats to this line of thinking. If GDP growth slows or interest rates rise sharply, the math can flip — making debt harder to sustain. In addition, as mentioned earlier, political will to maintain stable deficits is also key, but difficult to achieve. Debt sustainability depends on investor confidence — if lenders lose faith, borrowing costs can spike regardless of GDP growth.

GDP growth is helpful, but insufficient alone to significantly reduce the debt burden. Sustainable debt reduction requires both economic growth and active fiscal management (like a balanced budget or surpluses, and/or keeping interest costs low). In short, while economic growth helps, fiscal discipline and favorable interest conditions play an even larger role in reducing the debt burden.

Conclusion

While economic prosperity, the Debt to GDP ratio, is worth noting, there are essentially two ways to reduce the national deficit– cut spending and raise more revenue. In addition, it would also help if the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate they charge banks to borrow. This in turn would affect the interest rate for the government allowing the government to refinance the old debt coming due at a lower rate. This is like a homeowner with a 7.4% mortgage refinancing at a new mortgage rate of 5%.

Americans need to elect representatives who will balance the budget. As individuals, most of us strive to live within our income and plan ahead for a significant expenditure. Our government should be held to the same standard. America can and should pay off its national debt.

Sources

Most of the data is from the Congressional Budget Office, National Bureau of Economic Research, Center for Economic Policy Research.

Other specific sources:

¹ Venditti, Bruno, “Charted: Here’s Who Owns U.S. Debt” – Visual Capitalist, December 10, 2024.

² Amadeo, Kimberly, “Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?” January 19, 2023.

³ What Are Interest Costs on the National Debt? – The Balance, Peterson Foundation, July14, 2025.

⁴ Hyatt, Diccon, “A Record $1.2 Trillion Interest Payments Are Blowing Up” – Investopedia, September 13, 2024.

Our National Debt—Is There a Way to Solve It That Makes Both Republicans and Democrats Happy?

Congress has now passed the One Big Beautiful Bill based on President Trump’s plan to reduce the budget. As the media has reported, the support for this legislation is split in both the Senate and House. Why?

Our national debt is presently $37 trillion. To pay interest in 2023, the budget had to set aside $726 billion, approximately 14% of the total federal budget. To cover the growing debt created by deficit spending, the Treasury Department issues securities (Treasury Bonds) that will be paid at a future date. For most of us, debt is something we can live with as long as we continue to bring in enough income to cover our annual expenses, loan payments and interest. To meet these demands, we can raise more money by working additional hours or cutting our spending. The government has the same dilemma. The federal budget can either cut spending or increase revenue. The source of additional revenue is taxes. Thus, the problem!

Cutting the budget may seem relatively easy. However, as is evident from the debates in both houses of Congress, cutting Medicaid or Medicare Advantage would have a significant impact on the working poor. Other discretionary cuts to defense and other programs are not deemed desirable by either one side of the political spectrum or the other.

President Trump is determined to make his tax cuts permanent, so increasing taxes under his watch is a nonstarter. Bernie Sanders advocates an increase in taxes on the wealthy (high income individuals and corporations, those making over $250,000 from 35%).

Can the debt be paid back? The answer is yes. However, the task is challenging. The biggest challenge is the lack of political will. Next is the mixed opinions of “we the people.” However, it may be possible to find solutions that will satisfy the majority of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests 76 options to balance the budget and pay down the national deficit. What are these options? These options span both the spending and revenue sides of the federal budget and are designed to merely inform lawmakers without making specific recommendations.

Category	Example Option	Estimated 10-Year Savings
Medicaid	Cap federal spending	$501B–$871B
Medicare	Raise Part B premiums	$448B
Social Security	Flat benefit structure	$593B
Defense	Cut DoD budget	$995B
New Tax	5% VAT (Value Added Tax)	$3T
Tax Reform	Eliminate itemized deductions	$2.5T

These options are not endorsements, but rather a menu of possibilities for lawmakers to consider. Savings from changes in entitlements would save less than $2 trillion. Saving from cuts in defense spending and changes in tax laws (selectively raising some income taxes) would save almost $6.5 trillion. The best path forward would appear to be changing our tax structure to reflect historical trends.

In the past 50 years, the United States has had a balanced federal budget—or more precisely, a budget surplus—only four times, and all of them occurred consecutively during the late 1990s and early 2000s: All four years were under President Clinton: in 1998 $69.3 billion; in 1999 $125.6 billion; in 2000 $236 billion; in 2001 $128.2 billion. President Clinton’s administration showed a rare period of fiscal discipline, driven by a strong economic boom in the technology industry, spending restraint, and higher taxes from capital gains and Income Taxes. During President Clinton’s administration, the Income Tax was increased from 31% to 39.6% for those earning over $250,000. Capital Gains Tax was reduced from 28% to 20% on assets held for over one year, and the Corporate Tax rate was increased to 35%.

Taxes were even higher during the Eisenhower presidency. The top marginal income tax rate for individuals was as high as 91% for income above $200,000. This means that any income earned above this threshold was taxed at 91%. The corporate tax rate was as high as 52%, depending on the level of profits. For example, profits above $25,000 were taxed at 52%. Despite facing two significant recessions, Eisenhower managed to forge a consensus on defense spending and maintain a strong economy (Penner, Rudolph, June 2024).

While tax rates were lowered during the Reagan administration with the passage of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there is much debate over what became known as Reaganomics or “trickle down” economics. Data shows that tax cuts and other policies to fatten corporate profits don’t always result in job creation, investment, productivity, and economic growth. There is also no concrete evidence supporting the opinion that tax cuts pay for themselves (Amadeo, Kimberly, “5 Reasons Why Supply-Side Economics Does Not Work,” Investopdedia).

Since 2001, the U.S. has run a budget deficit every year, including during periods of economic expansion. Both Republicans and Democrats were contributors to the deficit spending. The primary reasons for the deficits include tax cuts in 2002 and 2003 under President Bush and in 2017 under President Trump. Currently, Income Tax for those making over $250,000 a year is 35%, down almost 5% from the Clinton rate. Those making less than $11,600 a year pay a 10% tax. Capital Gains Taxes have remained steady. Corporate Taxes were reduced from 35% to 21%. At the same time, defense and entitlement spending has increased. In the decade following Sept. 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% when adjusted for inflation. Following these two major contributors was the COVID epidemic and government spending to bolster the economy.

America can have a balanced budget, and even a surplus, which could be used to pay down our federal deficit more quickly. With the passage of the current budget bill, which is NOT balanced, the federal deficit will increase. The cuts to entitlement programs are not enough to offset tax cuts and increased spending on the military and immigration enforcement programs. Our nation’s financial problems can be solved. Cuts to some programs are needed. However, the real answer rests in supporting tax rates that can allow for a balanced budget. The solutions will not make either party totally happy. Compromise must return to the bargaining table!. Program cuts, along with increased taxes, can reduce the federal deficit!

What Does Being an American Mean to Me?

Robert Fischer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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