Is the United States Silently Slipping Toward Communism Under President Trump?

In simple terms, communism is where businesses are owned and managed by the government. The United States has been and continues to be a capitalist, social democracy. Thus, why even contemplate communism as a threat to America? President Trump has clearly articulated that social democrats are leading the way toward communism in the United States. However, is it possible that the government has already moved from buyer, to creditor, to owner of key businesses?

Before Trump’s second term, the U.S. government had interests in only a handful of companies. These interests were mostly legacy crisis-era situations (bailout of established companies like General Motors) under the Troubled Assistance Relief Program (TARP) (e.g., AIG, GM, banks). These “bailout” loans were quickly paid back once the economy recovered. However, since 2008, the American government has a long‑standing conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is operational control but not typical equity ownership. There are also a few residual interests from the 2020 airline bailouts. But during Trump’s second term, the number of government holdings has expanded dramatically. The government has moved beyond loaning money or guaranteeing loans. Today, the U.S. holds dozens of equity stakes, warrants, or direct ownership positions across strategic industries.

Before Trump’s second term, the U.S. had not yet begun the wave of strategic equity purchases in semiconductors, minerals, or quantum firms. The major shift begins in 2025. Trump’s second term marks a historic expansion of federal equity ownership. The United States now has 16 direct equity deals worth $20.9B(Intel, MP Materials, U.S. Steel golden share, Nvidia China‑sales revenue cut, etc.) America also has seven marquee deals(engineered business investment platforms) catalogued by GovGreed Research (MP Materials, USA Rare Earth, Intel, TSMC, Micron, etc.). There are now 25federal equity stakes and warrants tracked publicly (Intel, Micron, TSMC, Samsung, IBM, GlobalFoundries, Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals, quantum firms, etc.). This is a five‑fold increase over pre‑2025 levels. More businesses are expected to come under federal conservatorship (Operational control but not typical equity ownership) as new deals are announced.

In 2026 the United States government has interests in 6 different types of industry: semiconductors (Intel, TSMC, Samsung, Micron, GlobalFoundries, IBM), critical minerals (MP Materials, USA Rare Earth, Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals), quantum computing (Rigetti, SandboxAQ, D‑Wave, IBM quantum), AI firms (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI — proposed stakes), energy & nuclear, and defense manufacturing. It may be coincidental but on August 11, Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent announced that the department was changing general ownership reporting requirements. Companies no longer need to disclose ownership with a few exceptions (i.e., foreign ownership) where reporting is still required.

Conclusion

Before Trump’s second term, the United States had no federal ownership interests. Government interests were limited to conservatorships and residual bailouts. Now, during Trump’s second term there are at least 25–30 companies, with the federal government holding equity stakes, warrants, golden shares, or revenue‑linked ownership across strategic sectors. This represents the largest expansion of U.S. federal ownership in private companies in modern history.

While the United States is not in jeopardy of becoming a communist country, there is an irony in President Trump’s messaging. He has openly stated that the greatest threat to America is the democratic social movement which will create a communist country. But in reality, his own government is moving toward ownership of businesses, the primary focus of communism! Which is the greater threat?

Donald Trump Will Claim that America Needs the SAVE Act: My View Prior to His Presidential Address on July 18, 2026

Election Fraud and the Need for Reform in America

Concerns about election integrity have become a common theme in American political life, particularly promoted by President Donald Trump. According to federal and state investigations, documented cases of widespread, outcome‑changing fraud remain rare. However, the public perception of vulnerability has grown sharply with the claim of widespread election fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. Investigations have failed to support his claim. However, that perception alone weakens public trust, depresses voter participation, and fuels political conflict. For a constitutional system that depends on public confidence, the appearance of voter fraud can be nearly as damaging as actual misconduct.

Where Fraud Exists — and Where It Doesn’t

Authoritative investigations by state election boards, the U.S. Department of Justice, and independent research organizations consistently find that allegations of large‑scale fraud do not withstand scrutiny. The verified cases tend to involve isolated incidents– individual voters casting ballots improperly, occasional mishandling of absentee ballots, or administrative errors at the local level. These problems are real, but they are rare.

Two examples illustrate this point. In the highly contested state of Pennsylvania, The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank with data goes back 30 years and covers 32 elections with over 100 million votes cast) found only 39 cases of voter fraud. Another study can be found in Arizona where the percentage of actual fraudulent votes over the last 25 years was a minuscule .0000845%.

Modern election outcomes in the U.S. have not been altered by ballot fraud!

Still, the decentralized nature of American elections creates different voter requirements in 50 states. Some states maintain rigorous auditing and chain‑of‑custody protocols; others rely on older systems or inconsistent training. This patchwork fuels suspicion and makes it harder to reassure the public that every ballot is treated with equal care.

A Path Forward

Reform legislation through the SAVE Act, has been presented by President Trump. Election reform does not require federal intervention. Many experts agree on the following improvements in state voting systems:

Modernizing voter registration systems with automatic updates and regular audits

Expanding risk‑limiting audits to verify results statistically
Improving ballot tracking technology so voters can see when their ballot is received and counted
Increasing transparency around election procedures, training, and equipment testing

These suggested improvements have occurred in some states. And while these changes would not eliminate every dispute, they would make elections more fraud resistant and reduce misinformation, confusion, or mistrust. The reality is simple. The Constitution clearly placed the responsibility for elections with the states, not the federal government!

Conclusion

American democracy depends on public confidence. Even isolated irregularities can be magnified into national controversies when trust is already fragile. Strengthening election laws is not about favoring one party or outcome — it is about ensuring that every voter, regardless of political belief, can rely on a system that is secure, transparent, and worthy of the country’s democratic tradition.

Do not be fooled by President Trump’s scare tactics. While our elections may not be perfect, they are not fraught with voter fraud. America does not need the SAVE Act!

Has Trump’s Diplomacy Been Successful?

I recently read an article, “Recovering the Lost Art of Diplomacy” (A. Wess Mitchell, Imprimis, February 2026). Imprimis is a publication of Hillsdale College, so I was not surprised that the author’s views focused on diplomacy from a strong leadership perspective. Mitchell posits that America lost the art of diplomacy under past presidents, with the U.S. State Department taking on goals that are detached from our national interests. However, he is optimistic that America is recovering the lost art of diplomacy through the policies of Donald Trump (The Art of the Deal).

After reading Mitchell’s discourse and evaluating his logic, I thought it was worth my time to consider if Mitchell might be correct!

It is impossible to argue that, since returning to office some of Trump’s diplomacy has not been high‑impact, highly personal, and often force‑driven. His policies have produced tactical successes. But these “successes” have come with significant strategic costs. The evidence from recent reporting and analysis shows a clear pattern. President Trump achieves short‑term outcomes through unilateral action and personal relationships, but often at the expense of institutional stability, alliances, and long‑term predictability.

One can also argue that Trump’s diplomacy has been effective inremoving adversarial leaders, reshaping trade agreements, and forcing negotiations. On the other hand, his approach has not produced stable and sustainable international relationships. He often bypasses established institutions, relies on personal power, and in many cases triggers unintended consequences.

Contrary to expectations of isolationism, Trump has chosen a foreign‑policy‑first agenda, reshaping trade, intervening militarily, and recalibrating alliances through his America First rhetoric. He brags about his new trade negotiations, his attacks on drug trafficking, the arrest of President Maduro, and his view of great personal relationships with world leaders in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He notes strong relationships with Netanyahu, Xi Jinjing, and Putin. On the other hand, his relationships with Zelenski, Ramaphosa (President of South Africa), and most European leaders has damaged American credibility.

In pursuing his agenda, President Trump has sidestepped Congress, the State Department, and multilateral institutions like NATO and the United Nations, thus reducing long‑term policy coherence. Instead, he has relied on personal envoys and relationships rather than institutional diplomacy. Individuals like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, can move quickly without bureaucratic barriers. The result of this approach is the erosion of long-term diplomatic infrastructures. In addition, many allies now perceive that America is unpredictable and not trustworthy! The Trump administration has chosen spectacle and personal showmanship over traditional diplomatic norms.

Trump’s team, through the Department of “War” Defense, explicitly frames military action as a tool of diplomacy— “governed by strength… and power.” His administration supports this power strategy by noting the success in Venezuela, the impact on drug trafficking, and the Memorandum of Understanding that has been reached with Iran.

However, the Iran war revealed that real‑world geopolitics do not always bend to coercive pressure, undermining Trump’s belief that force alone can dictate outcomes. Also, military interventions contradict his earlier promises to avoid new wars.

Has Trump been successful? If you consider the following, you might argue that he has achieved rapid, high‑profile outcomes. He has reshaped trade, coerced adversaries into accepting some of his agenda, developed stronger relationships with select leaders, and demonstrated that America will use force to support its diplomatic goals.

Has Trump failed in diplomatic efforts? Yes, if you consider that he has failed to build durable alliances. His policies have increased global economic instability. His policy of military muscle flexing has produced costly conflicts, and as a result, rules-based diplomacy has been ignored. But one would question whether this approach has been successful.

Trump’s diplomacy has been effective at winning battles, but not always at winning the war for long‑term U.S. influence and stability. Trump’s diplomacy differs from previous administrations in structure, style, and strategic intent. This is a sharp break from the post‑1945 U.S. foreign‑policy tradition which has been multilateral and institution centered. Previous administrations (Reagan → Obama → Biden) treated alliances (NATO, EU partnerships) as strategic assets. They relied heavily on the State Department, multilateral organizations, long‑term institutional commitments, and most importantly used diplomacy as a slow, consensus‑building process.

Previous administrations used professional diplomats, ambassadors, and interagency processes while emphasizing institutional continuity over personal relationships. These administrations promoted democracy, human rights, and rule‑based order, framing foreign policy around shared values and long‑term commitments. On the other hand, Trump’s approach reframes diplomacy as competitive deal‑making rather than value‑driven leadership.

Granted, there have been different approaches in the past. For example, Bush can be viewed as an interventionist while Obama is often considered as restrained in his policies. However, both worked within a predictable framework of alliance consultation and institutional process.

Despite “America First” rhetoric, Trump’s approach remains globally engaged, not isolationist. He prefers high‑impact, short military actions and coercive leverage. And most recently his Iran diplomacy—culminating in a 2026 memorandum—reveals the limits of force‑centric negotiation.

Has the Trump Family Benefited from the Presidency?

Several mainstream articles have recently discussed the wealth gained by the Trump family during the first year and a half of the Trump presidency. As with many of the activities that surround our president, the financial gains acquired by his family are an historical first for a sitting president. There are a couple of important questions that should be answered. First, how extraordinary is their wealth growth? Second, how does the increase in wealth compare to previous presidential family holdings?

Based on publicly available disclosures, reports, filings, and various watchdog organizations, it is estimated that the Trump family has increased its holdings up to $2.4 to $9 billion. The earnings come from family cryptocurrency investments, Trump name licensing agreements, foreign business ventures, and government contracts.

Crypto

Consider the Trump business connections with crypto currency. The New Yorker reported that Trump investments in crypto have resulted in $3.4 billion profit over the years of Trump’s political career. Forbes estimates that Trump’s personal net worth has increased almost $4.2 billion since 2024. The Wall Street Journal’s research puts the figure at $4 billion in just crypto earnings. And the Democratic House Oversight Committee estimates crypto wealth at $4.9 billion.

President Trump reshaped the U.S. crypto landscape more aggressively and comprehensively than any prior administration. He deregulated, promoted, and strategically integrated crypto into federal policy, turning it from a fringe financial technology into a declared national economic and strategic asset.

Within days of taking office in 2025, Trump scrapped Biden‑era enforcement policies that had aggressively targeted crypto firms. He next issued Executive Order 14178, “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.” This order sets the philosophical and regulatory foundation of Trump’s crypto agenda. This was the most pro‑crypto executive order ever issued by a U.S. president.

His next step, through Executive Order 14233, “Creation of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” established the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This order signaled that the U.S. views Bitcoin as a geopolitical resource, not just a speculative asset.

Trump then appointed Paul Atkins, a deregulatory former SEC commissioner, as SEC Chair. Under Atkins, the SEC dropped high‑profile enforcement cases, softened rules on memecoins (coins/medallions with someone’s likeness), mining, and stablecoins, and shifted toward a “light‑touch” regulatory posture.

This dramatically changed the compliance environment for crypto businesses. Trump’s actions expanded the crypto industry’s scale, legitimacy, and investment flows.

The crypto journey gained popularity when Trump announced his meme coin just before his inauguration. AP and Chainanalyis (a blockchain analysis firm) estimated that the coin generated $320 million. In addition, the President’s support for crypto currency has been a major boost for the young startup firms such as World Liberty Financial, a company founded by the President and his sons. World Liberty recently announced that it expects to receive a federal banking charter that will allow it to operate more like a bank. Does this present a conflict of interest? The President rightly claims that he is no longer involved in the company

Business Ventures/Stock Trading

As reported by CBS, during the first quarter of 2026, federally required disclosures show that over 3,600 transactions valued between $212 and $695 million were made by the President or his representatives. Of note is a $5 million investment in Nvidia. Nvidia is an advanced chip exporter to China, whose trading is directly impacted by the federal government. Other major portfolio investments include Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. These firms are highly connected to defense contracts. Some estimates suggest that the President has generated between $200 and $700 million through stock trades and assets sales. Trading stocks while having policy making ties to the companies being invested in creates major ethical questions.

Licensing Agreements

Projects such as the “God Bless the USA Bible,” the Trump Mobile phone, Trump sneakers, and the Trump guitar have added to the already financial success of the trademark registered Trump brand. How much money has the Trump brand added to family wealth since Donald Trump became president? The Trump brand has added billions to the Trump family’s wealth since Donald Trump first became president, depending on how the estimate is calculated. Estimates come from major outlets including The New Yorker, MSN, Forbes, and Bloomberg.

Foreign Deals

Trump businesses have several significant projects with various countries. The businesses claim that they are not working directly with foreign governments. However, in many countries the organizations involved with the Trump initiatives are closely associated with their governments. For example, in Qatar a Trump golf course and villa is being built by a Qatar government owned business. Other projects in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam have close ties to their governments. Don Jr. and Eric Trump have met with leaders in other countries such as Hungary, Somaliland, Israel, the United Kingdom and Hungary. While there is no stated quid pro quo, there are certainly perceptions of undo influence coming from the fact that their father is president.

Historical Comparison to Other Presidential Families

The Trump family’s financial gains during Donald Trump’s presidency are unprecedented in scale, speed, and direct connection to the presidency when compared with any other U.S. presidential families. No other first family has seen anything close to the same magnitude of enrichment while a president was in office.

In 2025 alone, Trump reportedly gained a total of $1.4 billion to $3.4 billion, depending on the estimate. One analysis found that Trump’s single‑year gain nearly matched or exceeded the combined inflation‑adjusted net worth of all 44 previous presidents while in office (about $2.7 billion).

Some presidents were wealthy, but their fortunes were static or declining during office or not tied to presidential power. For example, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were wealthy. Their holdings, adjusted for inflation, were in the hundred million dollars plus range. But their wealth did not grow during their presidencies. Other wealthy presidents like Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into an independent management group which did not benefit from his presidency. George W Bush sold his interest in the Texas Rangers. Both Roosevelt presidents were wealthy through inheritance. They did not increase their wealth through their presidencies. Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did earn substantial income after leaving office through book deals and speaking engagements, but not during their presidencies.

In all these cases, wealth growth was modest, occurred after leaving office, and was not tied to foreign investments or business expansion enabled by presidential authority. No other presidential family has seen this level of coordinated, multi‑member enrichment. The Trump family’s financial prosperity is historically unprecedented.

Conclusion

The Trump family has benefited beyond any financial benefits of any other sitting presidents. Through the family-owned foreign real estate deals, crypto currency, branded merchandise, stock market trades, and government contracts, the Trump businesses have prospered like no other presidential family in our 250-year history.

Celebrating Our 250th Anniversary with a Revolt

We are celebrating America’s 250th anniversary this year. It is a great time to remember the vision of our founding fathers by revisiting the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, our Constitution, and subsequent amendments. It was a time when a King was making decisions for our ancestors without representation. At the time, England was operating under the Magna Carta, as a monarchy with a people’s parliament. Though initially a feudal agreement, the Magna Carta’s core ideas were— due process, the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial. The rights guaranteed to England’s people were more limited in the colonies. King George was more focused on the economic value of the colonies than concern for their rights. Representation was limited, taxes were significant, and trade was highly regulated.

Now let us compare our current government to that of 1776. Consider reading the Declaration of Independence and note our ancestors’ grievances—dissolution of legislative bodies, obstruction of justice, imposition of a standing army, transportation to England for trial, interference with trade, forbidding governors from passing laws. Do they sound familiar? President Trump has eliminated or hampered government bodies, ignored many judicial orders, created an army through the ICE initiative, deported immigrants without due process, established tariffs on trade, and interfered in state government. It is also instructive to read the Articles of Confederation. This plan was developed by the founding fathers in attempt to gain rights that those in England already had, through a union of thirteen independent states. The Articles of Confederation were soon found to be lacking in providing for a unified central government. Therefore, a constitutional convention was convened and a constitution was created. However, the Constitution, as originally drafted, did not satisfy those who wanted to ensure the people’s rights. So, they developed ten amendments to guarantee those rights.

Today, much of the work forged by our ancestors has been challenged by Donald Trump. His actions are diminishing the rights guaranteed in those historic documents. President Trump has expanded executive power far beyond the limits defined by our founding fathers. Personal loyalty to Donald Trump is more important than adhering to our constitutional and legal norms. This is no different than King George! Donald Trump’s actions are designed to support his economic and social agendas, not what “We the People” want (Polling averages indicate that approximately 2/3 of Americans do not support Trump’s initiatives). I have previously written about Trump’s campaign promises– Make America Great. His statements were like many campaigns promises over the past decades. They were nothing but hollow promises to gain political support. The political campaign worked and MAGA became a reality built on those hollow statements.

Americans today are no different than those in 1776. We are being denied the rights that our ancestors fought and died for. As we celebrate our independence from King George’s reign, Americans need to recommit to the promise of the American Revolution. We need to hold our elected representatives responsible to the visions of our founding fathers and the documents that they wrote. Midterm elections are upon us. Use your vote to bring about a change in Congress! America needs a Congress that supports the America that was dreamed of in 1776, not a modern-day King George.

What is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

The AIPAC is the largest and most influential pro-Israel lobby organization in the United States. This lobby’s total dollars invested in political influence dwarfs spending by most other lobby groups. AIPAC’s stated mission is to encourage and persuade the U.S. government to adopt policies that ensure a strong and lasting partnership with Israel. This includes lobbying for specific pro‑Israel policies, including security assistance, countering Iran, combating terrorism, and opposing anti‑Israel discrimination. The group also promotes cooperation in areas like cybersecurity, energy, agriculture, and water security.

The AIPAC spent over $100 million in the 2024 election (Federal Election Commission) to defeat candidates who were critical of Israel. This makes It was the biggest single-issue spender. In the 2024 cycle, 96% of AIPAC‑backed candidates won their general elections, demonstrating its influence. The AIPAC is the dominant pro-Israel lobby group in the United States, with direct contributions and other expenditures used to influence congressional races. Both Republicans and Democrats have received support from the group. In a 30-year period, key legislators have received millions of dollars. Former President Joe Biden benefited from over $4 million, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz received almost $2 million each. Chuck Schumer was the recipient of $1.3 million. While the AIPAC is not a direct donor, it legally operates the AIPAC PAC, as well as the super PAC, United Democracy.

How much does Congress appropriate for Israel each year? How much is for defense? Congress appropriates about $3.8 billion per year for Israel in normal (non‑emergency) funding, and virtually all of it is defense‑related ($3.3 billion on Foreign Military Financing (FMF)). The remaining $500 million is for the Israel missile defense program (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow). Emergency supplementals have added several additional billions on top of the baseline.

Since the October 7, 2023 attacks, Congress has passed multiple emergency packages above the $3.8 billion baseline. For example, in FY 2024 Congress appropriated an addition FMF aid of $5.5 billion, $4 billion for the Iron Dome, and $1.2 billion for the new Iron Beam laser defense system. Also, while not dollars directly appropriated for Israel, the current Iran war has cost America over $30 billion dollars in military expenditures!

It is interesting to note that almost all the Israeli appropriated funds return to the United States. Under the 2016 U.S.- Israel Memorandum of Understanding, the FMF must be spent on U.S. defense goods and services. FMF grants must be spent on U.S.‑made military equipment, meaning the entire $3.3 billion FMF portion each year flows directly to U.S. defense contractors.

The missile‑defense funds (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow) are joint U.S.–Israel programs, but a substantial share (approximately 13%) also goes to U.S. contractors. Iron Dome components are co‑produced in the U.S. Arrow and David’s Sling involve U.S. firms such as Boeing and Raytheon. While the exact percentage varies by program and year, most missile‑defense appropriations also return to U.S. industry through co‑production and joint development

So in practice, well over 85–90% of all U.S. aid to Israel is spent in the United States, not Israel. At this point it might be wise to remember President Eisenhower’s caution, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex.”

How does our support of Israel compare with that given to other allies? Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since 2001, and its aid is uniquely structured to flow back to U.S. defense contractors. Other regional allies such as Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq receive less than $1.5 billion in general aid. Most is for general economic support programs, not military aid, about 50% of the aid for Israel. On must question, is it the United States’ role to be the major military supporter of Israel?

Trump Claims that Democrats are the Enemy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Homeland Security: What’s the Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump’s Promises Regarding Foreign Entanglements and War: Long Term Implications

The Promises

Across his 2016, 2020, and 2024 campaigns, Trump repeatedly promised to avoid new foreign wars, especially in the Middle East. He also promised to end “forever wars” begun by previous administrations. He pledged to reduce U.S. involvement in conflicts where allies “don’t appreciate what we are doing” or don’t “reimburse” the U.S. for security commitments. And lastly, he promised to pursue an “America First” foreign policy focused on domestic priorities rather than global policing. This message was central to his political identity.

Trump’s “no more endless wars/America First” promises aren’t new in spirit—but they collide with a long post‑1945 habit of deep global engagement. George Washington warned against “permanent alliances” and Jefferson favored staying out of European wars—what was later called isolationism or non‑interventionism. Trump’s position sits squarely in that older tradition of suspicion toward foreign commitments and wars that don’t clearly defend the homeland. In terms of rhetoric, Trump is tapping a very old American belief. Don’t get dragged into other people’s fights.

Historically, from 1945 on, a dominant pattern emerges. The US builds NATO, stations troops abroad, fights in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and intervenes repeatedly in Latin America and the Middle East—often as “leader of the free world” or to contain communism/terrorism. The policy becomes active interventionism plus alliances, not Washington‑style distance. Measured against that 75‑year pattern, Trump’s promises were counter‑cultural. He questioned alliances, criticized past wars, and framed global leadership as a bad deal for Americans.

During his first term, Trump emphasized that he had not started any new wars, and he used this as a major selling point in the 2024 campaign. His running mate, JD Vance, framed Trump as the rare modern president who resisted pressure to initiate new conflicts. He also promised to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and to avoid deploying U.S. forces unless the U.S. was directly threatened. His promise was to shift responsibility to regional actors saying, “Time for others to finally fight.”

Trump frequently criticized the Iraq War, calling it a “big, fat mistake.” He also criticized the U.S. role as “policeman of the Middle East,” and criticized the presidents who “threw America into unwise wars and failed to win them.” He framed Middle Eastern conflicts as costly, unproductive, and driven by the establishment.

Still, while promising to avoid new wars, Trump consistently said that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. He also believed that the U.S. must confront Iran’s regional influence and proxy forces. This was the one area where his anti‑intervention rhetoric included a clear exception.

The Actions

Despite his promises to avoid new foreign wars and to keep America First, President Trump used a drone strike to kill General Soleimani of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. He bombed nuclear processing sites in Iran. He has carried out a military strike in Venezuela to capture Nicolás Maduro. The attack followed 42 attacks targeting boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Then there was the public consideration of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. And over a week ago he started a major war in Iran, launched without congressional authorization. These actions contrast sharply with his earlier pledges to avoid foreign entanglements. On March 10^th he also reiterated the importance of Greenland and Panama to America’s economic security and stated that military action to acquire these countries was NOT off the table.

Trump now argues that Iran posed a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. He believed that the U.S. needed to degrade Iran’s missiles, navy, nuclear capacity, and proxy networks. He stated that the operation could last far longer than initially projected. He recently said he does not subscribe to the “no boots on the ground” promises of past presidents. This marks a major rhetorical shift from ending wars to justifying new ones as necessary for national security. Most presidents, even when cautious about war, treat alliances as strategic assets. Trump treats them as suspect unless they show immediate, measurable benefit.

The Financial Costs

The Iran war is already costing U.S. taxpayers billions—roughly $3.7 billion in the first 100 hours and more than $5 billion in the first week— and as of this writing a reported $11 billion total with the end still not in sight. Daily operating costs were estimated at $891.4 million during the opening phase. That includes $18 million per day just to keep two carrier strike groups on station—before firing a single weapon. Munition replacement for Tomahawks, JASSM-ER, bunker busters, etc. costs $3.1 billion. Additional costs are associated with replacement of lost units or their repair. The sad thing is that those dollars could fund major domestic priorities if redirected under an “America First” framework.

What Those Dollars Could Support in an America First Strategy

Here’s what $5 billion (the first week of war) could fund domestically.

It could fund 2–3 major semiconductor fabrication incentives (CHIPS‑style grants). It could be used to rebuild critical supply chains for pharmaceuticals, rare‑earth processing, and defense components. Or there would be dollars to modernize U.S. steel and heavy‑industry plants to reduce reliance on China.
It could have been used to repair or replace 2,000+ rural bridges nationwide, or to upgrade freight rail and river ports critical to Midwest agriculture. There would have been dollars to modernize water systems in small towns like those across western Illinois.
This money would have fully funded VA staffing shortages for mental health and primary care. It could allow for expanded housing vouchers for homeless veterans (tens of thousands served).
The money could support universal school lunch for millions of children for an entire year. It could fund 40,000–50,000 new childcare slots in working‑class communities. It might be possible to rebuild aging public schools in rural districts.

The America First argument is simple. Every billion dollars spent on a foreign war is a billion not spent on domestic security, industry, and community stability. And that’s before considering the possibility of months of continued operations, which could push total costs into the tens of billions.

Hidden Costs to Non‑Belligerent Countries in the Iran War

Even nations far from the battlefield are paying a price. These costs emerge through energy markets, supply chains, financial volatility, and geopolitical realignments. Even countries with no stake in the conflict face higher fuel, electricity, and manufacturing costs. Twenty to 25% of global seaborne oil and one‑fifth of liquid national gas (LNG) move through the Strait of Hormuz. Disruptions in this route immediately raise global prices. Crude jumped from $70 to over $110 within days of the strikes. Gasoline costs have increased worldwide, resulting in higher transportation and food prices, increased fertilizer costs (due to disrupted ammonia/nitrogen exports), and slower economic growth in energy‑importing nations (Europe, India, Japan)

The Middle East supplies more than oil. Qatar produces40% of the world’s helium, essential for semiconductor manufacturing. Nitrogen and ammonia exports (vital for fertilizers) face delays. Even countries not involved militarily, experience stock market declines (e.g., the Dow fell 400+ points after the strikes), tighter global financial conditions, and capital flight from emerging markets into “safe havens.” Airspace closures across the Gulf grounded thousands of flights. These closures result in higher air cargo costs for global supply chains, and tourism declines for countries dependent on Middle Eastern travelers. At least fourteen freight ships have been attacked in the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the War. Shipping times have increased, freight rates have risen, and insurance premiums have spiked. Countries not involved in the war still face pressure to take sides. This has strained relations with major powers (e.g., EU, China), increased defense spending to hedge against regional instability, and resulted in domestic political polarization over foreign policy alignment

Iran and its proxies have retaliated. There have been alleged Increases in cyberattacks on global banks, infrastructure, and government systems. There is a heightened terrorism alert, resulting in more resources diverted to intelligence and counterterrorism. Terrorist attacks at Old Dominion, a Michigan synagogue, and the theft of four drones may just be the beginning.

Even countries with no troops, no bases, and no direct involvement in the Iran war are paying a price—through higher energy costs, disrupted supply chains, financial instability, and geopolitical pressure. These hidden costs accumulate quietly, but can reshape national budgets, inflation rates, and political landscapes worldwide.

Conclusion

Considering the above discussion, is the cost associated with the Iran War worth the intended result, whatever that goal may be? What about America First? Shouldn’t the money spent on the Iran War be used to support the America First initiative?

Trump’s Presidency and Behavior:

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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