The Supreme Court Finally Reined In Trump’s Reign. The Court Also Gave Him A Present In Disguise Which He Did Not Accept.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that was the most significant rebuke to President Trump’s agenda to date: his widespread use of tariffs. By a 6-3 margin (with conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Conan Barrett, and John Roberts joining their more liberal colleagues) the high court claimed that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs issued under a 1977 emergency powers law, did in fact exceed presidential authority. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs, and Trump had not shown there was an emergency that would warrant usurping that authority.

Prior to the ruling, the president has exerted a lot of pressure on the Court and predicted that if the Court ruled against his tariffs, our economy would suffer catastrophic disaster. He had arrogantly lied that the tariffs had ushered in a golden era of U.S. economic dominance and huge revenues were pouring into the U.S. Treasury and were paid for by foreign countries. The truth is that tariffs are true taxes paid by U.S. importers (think Walmart) and then largely passed on to American consumers. “A tax by any other name is still a tax.” Therefore, tariffs are quite unpopular with U.S customers. National polls consistently indicate that 60%-66% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariffs.

Traditionally, Republicans have opposed tax increases. Therefore, most GOP Senators and Representatives do not like the tariffs, but they have not had the courage to publicly go against Trump. The Supreme Court’s ruling was a gift to them, because classifying the tariffs as illegal, these Republicans thought they could avoid the fallout caused by tariff induced inflation. The Supreme Court’s ruling had given the president an easy “off ramp” and many Republicans wanted Trump’s adventurism just to go away. But Trump was too stubborn to just accept this gift in disguise. He blasted the Court and threw a temper tantrum, calling Conan Barrett and Gorsuch fools, disloyal, lap dogs and unpatriotic. Then he downplayed the importance of the high court’s ruling. “Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

After the ruling was announced, the president pledged to impose a new global ten percent tariff under a law that has never been used to apply to tariffs before. He later increased this percentage to 15% on all nation without any rhyme or reason regarding trade varying trade imbalances. After 150 days, this tariff increase would require an extension to be approved by Congress. Many elected Republican officials are quite anxious about casting their vote on such an unpopular extension because it would negatively affect their chances of winning in the mid-term elections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling left some items unresolved. The court did not decide whether companies could recover billions of dollars already paid in taxes, even as federal figures show more than $133 billion was collected. The decision will go down to lower courts and probably drag on for several weeks, or even months. There are additional issues on the Supreme Court’s plate such as voting rights and birth right citizenship. Will the conservatives hold together, or will they show more independence and fracture?

It is also not clear how many Republicans in Congress will begin to break with Trump. His control has been almost total, but will he begin to be seen as an increasingly unsuccessful and weak lame duck?

The Billionaire Tycoon Les Wexner. From New Albany, Ohio to the Epstein Files: Silence is Complicity.

On Wednesday I turned on the morning news (WSNOW). It had a reporter located on a sleepy downtown intersection in New Albany, Ohio, the town where I grew up in the 1960s. At that time, New Albany was a small farm town that was becoming a suburb of Columbus, the state capital. A few decades later, the town was transformed even more and became one of the wealthiest suburbs in the state through the Midas touch of real estate tycoon and CEO of Victoria Secret, Les Wexner. Corn fields were bought up and transformed with mansions, estates, and fabulously manicured golf courses. For some, Wexner was synonymous with wealth, prestige, and the elite class. For others, he was the death knell of the good old days of small-town America.

On Wednesday, Wexner was being deposed in his Ohio estate by the U.S, House Oversight Committee. The purpose of the deposition was to clarify his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the man who ran the criminal human trafficking of young women and children. Wexner opened the deposition with a pre-written statement in which he admitted that he was “duped by a world-class con man” in Jeffrey Epstein, but he did not witness, condone or enable Epstein’s crimes. Although Wexner did not utilize the Fifth Amendment to avoid difficult questions, his answers were frequently vague, and he attempted to downplay their relationship. in fact, he gave Epstein power of attorney over his own finances.

In their public statements, the Congressional Representatives were quite explicit in their criticism of Wexner. Stephen Lynch (Massachusetts) affirmed, “There is no question in my mind, given the evidence so far, that Les Wexner knew about this and failed to stop it and gave Epstein license and the ability to commit these crimes.” Congressman Robert Garcia (California) said there wasn’t any doubt Epstein would not have been able to commit the crimes he was accused of if it were not for the $1 billion he received from Wexner: “There’s no Epstein Island, no Epstein plane … Mr. Epstein would not be the man that he was without Les Wexner.” Wexner was labeled a co-conspirator, but the Department of Justice failed to follow up the case. No one should be above the law, not even the rich and famous.

Wexner is now 88 years old and his memory is not as good as it used to be. Nevertheless, it is just too easy and convenient to claim we “did not know” what was happening to our vulnerable neighbors. In this case, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of young women and girls were raped and sexually assaulted. (Everyone within Epstein’s circles knew what was happening.) These women were victims, but they have now become courageous heroes for their pursuit of truth and justice. They have shown us that we are, indeed, “our neighbors’ keepers”.

Silence is complicity. Let us raise our voices for our neighbors, near and far, who have no voice.

ICE – Let’s Work Towards a Reasonable Consensus

The activities of ICE agents in Minneapolis and other places have captured the news headlines during the past month. These include the tragic killing of US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, immigrants with appropriate legal status, and U.S. citizens alike. The ICE tactics have been quite controversial. According to most polls, two/thirds of Americans believe the ICE tactics have “gone too far”, with 22% saying the actions were “about right”, and only 12% affirmed they did not go “far enough”. Even President Trump has stated the killings of Pretti and Good “should not have happened”.

This coming week members of Congress will debate and vote on possible ways to rein in the excesses of ICE’s actions. These votes will take place within the context of the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Presently, there is a deep divide between Republicans and Democrats. It doesn’t have to be this way. If our representatives in DC would humble themselves, set aside their partisan concerns, and apply one reasonable criterion, we would reach a consensus almost immediately. What is that criterion? We should apply the same regulations to ICE that we use for all other law enforcement agencies in the United States (like local police, the FBI, etc.).

What are the proposed restrictions? Here is the list of ten ways to rein in ICE. They seem quite reasonable to me.

Targeted Enforcement – ICE agents cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant signed by a federal judge. This is a standard legal requirement among local law enforcement personnel. The fact that over 72% of ICE detainees have no criminal history reveals an abuse that could be resolved by requiring targeted enforcement.
No Masks – ICE agents should not wear masks to hide their identity. Citizens have the right to know who is detaining them. An exception would be permitted only if agents were ‘under cover” for a specific authorized reason.
Require ID – This regulation would require ICE agents to verbalize their ID number and last name if asked. This is standard law enforcement procedure.
Protect Sensitive Locations – Prohibit the use of funds for ICE enforcement near medical facilities, schools, childcare facilities, houses of worship, polling places, courts and other sensitive locations. This is standard law enforcement procedure.
Stop Racial Profiling – These rules would ban stops, questioning and searches based on presence at certain locations, jobs, spoken language, accent, race or ethnicity. Racial profiling should have no place in our United States today.
Uphold Use of Force Standards – We need regulations that codify reasonable use-of-force policy, expand training and require officer certification; and remove agents from the field pending investigations after incidents. Although we cannot eliminate all ambiguity, we should codify as much as possible, just like police forces do throughout our country
Ensure State and Local Coordination and Oversight – This should not be a point of disagreement. We need rules to preserve state and local authority to investigate potential crimes and excessive force; that require evidence preservation and sharing; and that require consent of states and localities for large-scale operations outside targeted enforcement.
Build Safeguards into the System – We need rules that require immediate access to attorneys for those in detention; This is standard law enforcement procedure and would allow states to sue DHS for violations.
Body Cameras for Accountability – This rule would mandate body-worn cameras and establish storage/access rules. This is now standard procedure for most police forces. Secretary Noem has already agreed to mandatory usage of body cameras for ICE agents.
No Paramilitary Police – We need a rule that regulates and standardizes uniforms and equipment to align with civil enforcement. This seems to me as a “no-brainer”.

Your comments of agreement and/or disagreement are welcomed.

Trump Claims “Republicans Should Take Over the Voting” in at least “15 Places”. This would be a Dangerous Violation of the Constitution and a Further Sign He is Losing his Grip on Reality.

President Trump has made another outlandish claim which distracts attention from the 3 million newly released Epstein files, but which also shows a growing break with reality. In an interview with the “podfather” Don Bongino, Trump advocated, “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting, the voting in at least, many, 15 places.’ The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” (Readers might recall that Bongino was recently the Deputy Director of the FBI but who resigned from his post to return to his podcasting gig.)

Trump’s proposal is clearly in violation of our national Constitution, which explicitly states who is responsible for managing these elections.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” (Article I, Section 4).

The Constitution can be amended, of course, but only by Congress, not by the President and certainly not by any political party.

Why is Trump making this absurd recommendation? I believe it is due to his ego and his unhealthy obsession with the 2020 presidential election. For the last five years, he has repeatedly affirmed without any evidence, that he won that election in a landslide. For his claim to be true, he had to win the election in Georgia, which he lost by 12,670 votes. He requested an official hand recount of the votes. In fact, there were three recounts and Trump lost in all three recounts with similar results. Georgia’s Governor and Secretary of State are both conservative Republicans and repeatedly have confirmed that the Georgia election was free and fair, and that Trump lost. What is worse, the president called the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, and attempted to steal the election by trying to get the Secretary to change the count. (this call was taped and is easily accessible). Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, told him he lost and should give up his allegation of voter fraud.

It is sad when anybody begins to lose touch with reality. This is happening to our president (ex. he confused Iceland and Greenland eight times in a recent important speech.) The best thing we can do is to correct these mistakes and help the person face reality. Those supporters who are “enabling’ Trump in his false allegations are not helping him nor our country. There might be valid reasons to support Trump, but repeating his false allegations about 2020 voter fraud is certainly not one of them.

Kristi Noem, We the People Do Not Believe Your Lies and Partisan Talking Points

On Saturday, another person was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The victim was 37 year-old Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the VA hospital in the city. Almost immediately, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, came out with several statements that defended the actions of the ICE agents even before an investigation had taken place. She, and top DHS officials, claimed that the ICE agents acted in “self-defense”, that the victim was a “domestic terrorist”, that the victim wanted to cause “massive damage” on ICE agents because he was “brandishing an AR 15 gun”, etc. We are quite aware of the practice of partisan talking points that are being committed in many countries by politicians of various ideologies. The script is all too common: “My side is always right and is completely innocent. The other side is always wrong. We know the evil intentions of the other side. We need to get out our statements early so that we can control the narrative, even before an investigation takes place.” A biNoemg problem exists when objective evidence surfaces that contradicts the partisan talking points. In this situation, the evidence (videos, witness testimony, government documents) includes the following;

There is no video of the victim brandishing a gun of any type;
Mr. Pretti had a permit to carry a gun which is legal in Minnesota according to the Second Amendment and state law;
That gun was removed by the ICE agents;
An ICE agent then fired several shots at close range into Pretti causing his death;
There is no evidence of Pretti assaulting any agent; there is video evidence of Pretti helping a woman who had been shoved to the ground by ICE agents.

Noem made several false statements and, at the very least, should be removed from her DHS position until a fair investigation can determine whether she and other officials committed criminal actions.

To help restore public trust, the ICE agents should immediately be removed from the streets of Minneapolis. Let the city’s police force restore public safety.

An Invitation to a National Conversation on When Civilians Should Impede Police Activity: Can Corrie ten Boom Lead Us to a Consensus?

At first glance, the scenario of civilians impeding police activity seems to be just another insurmountable division in our deeply polarized country. Take for example the shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE official last week. The sides were clearly defined almost immediately. On the one side was the Administration and on the other side the protesters. Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security, assuming the innocence of the ICE agent, declared that he fired the shots in self defense and accused Ms. Good of trying to run over the official with her car. Later, Vice President Vance clearly summarized the Administration’s position. “You have a woman who was trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement operation. Nobody debates that. You have a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator. Nobody debates that. I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also believing it is a tragedy of her own making, and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe, against our law enforcement officers.”

Many on the other side of the debate reach a totally different conclusion. They argue that the videos show that the ICE agent’s life was not at risk and the woman was not trying to ram her vehicle into him, based on the positioning of the tires. Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz argued against pre-judging the shooting and the need for “a thorough investigation… that will take all factors in, and it will come up with a fair and just conclusion. And we will accept that.”

Over the past few days, the stakes have heightened. Usually in cases where a civilian is killed by a police officer, the Department of Justice conducts a thorough investigation regarding the shooting. Nevertheless, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Bianchi issued a statement that the Department of Justice will not be investigating the shooting. To the contrary, the DOJ will be investigating the contacts of the deceased victim. Several senior prosecutors of the DOJ have resigned to protest what is, from their perspective, a total lack of justice!. The heart of this issue is the question whether there are situations that merit actions by civilians that impede police activity. Although in the Minneapolis shooting the answers that are given lie along ideological lines, history shows us a more complicated perspective. At times conservatives have defended civilian interference (examples of pro-lifers who block entrance to abortion clinics). On other occasions it has been more progressive folk who have implemented such interference (MLK pacific marches and sit-ins in the South).

Fifty years ago, the film The Hiding Place had quite an impact on conservatives in the United States. It tells the true story of Corrie ten Boom and her family that hid persecuted Jews from Nazi soldiers and police in German controlled Holland during WWII. The film was produced by World Wide Pictures, a ministry of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The ten Boom family, motivated by their love for the vulnerable, most definitely impeded the police activity of their day. They lied to the police officials. The family remodeled their home to create a “hiding place” where the Jews could take refuge. They developed a system of signals in order to alert the refugees when the Nazi police were nearby. They provided for the needs of the Jews with food, clothes and passage to areas that were safer. In the beginning the ten Booms were not aware of the cruel death that awaited Jews in the gas chambers. They just knew that innocent people were being detained for the crime of “being Jewish”. In the United States, most conservatives, especially evangelicals, defended the actions of the ten Boom family and other thousands in Nazi controlled Europe who were trying to impede the immoral activity of the police and military.

The story of “The Hiding Place” has many similarities with our situation today regarding the protests against ICE officials. Many protesters acknowledge a legitimate role for ICE but they accuse many current ICE agents of going far beyond what is legal. The fact that over 70% of ICE detainees have no criminal record shows that ICE is not prioritizing deporting “the worst of the worst”. There are hundreds of cases where US citizens or foreigners with legal status have been apprehended and/or deported. Before searching a person’s residence, ICE must have the name of a specific criminal and must obtain a judge authorized search warrant, but on hundreds of occasions, they have not done so. Protesters believe they are acting morally when they distribute information about the rights of all people in the United States or when they alert their neighbors regarding the presence of ICE agents in their communities. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans believe the presence of ICE agent has made their cities less safe.

The Holy Scriptures describe and praise many individuals who impeded police activity when it was immoral. Hebrew midwives defended human life by practicing civil disobedience. “The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.” (Exodus 1:17) Rahab was praised and her life was spared because she provided a hiding place for Joshua’s men. (Joshua 6) The “Wise Men” heeded a vision from God and they disobeyed King Herod’s command. (Matthew 2) Although believers in Scripture are urged to respect human authorities, there are times when these authorities are in conflict with God’s will. The apostolic teaching in these situations is clear, “We must obey God rather than human beings”. (Acts 5:29)

We need a national conversation about when the impeding of police activity is warranted and necessary. May grace and truth guide that discussion!

If He Walks Like a Dictator, and Talks Like a Dictator, Ergo…

The Good Book teaches that you can know people’s real character by examining their actions. “By their fruits you will know them.”

A more modern version of this truth is the following expression: “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”

I suggest this test should be applied as a question for our nation’s president, his cabinet, and our people. “If he walks like a dictator, and talks like a dictator, are we descending into a dictatorship?”

If he walks like a dictator…

President Trump sent troops into Venezuela to “extract” President Maduro and his wife and bring them to the United States. This was definitely a military attack because it involved more than 150 military aircraft and Venezuelan military bases were bombed. Trump ordered this attack without seeking nor obtaining the required congressional authorization.
He did not even inform the bipartisan, congressional “Gang of 8” which previous presidents had done.
Trump did not seek nor obtain the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Unless authorization is granted, (and it wasn’t) this means Trump violated the UN Charter in Article 2(4), which affirms that member states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any state.
Stephen Miller is Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff and is a regular spokesperson for the president. He was recently asked a question by Jake Tapper regarding Trump’s use of force in Venezuela and possible use of military power to take over Greenland. He answered, “We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” This is a rejection of all universal ethics and international rule of law.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president cannot be charged for any crime committed while fulfilling the duties of the presidency. For all practical purposes, this means that the president is “above the law”.
Given that the US President also has the power to pardon or to commute the sentence of any person guilty of federal crimes, Trump can extend this “lawlessness forgiveness” to anyone who commits a crime in carrying out his wishes. On his first day in office, Trump pardoned nearly 1600 people who were found guilty of rioting at the nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021. A mockery of the rule of law takes place when this pardon extends to unrepentant criminals such as George Santos, Rudy Giuliani, and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was serving a 45-year sentence for drug trafficking.
This past Wednesday, an ICE agent shot and killed a 37-year-old women in Minneapolis. Before a thorough investigation had occurred, Vice President Vance declared that the ICE agent had “total immunity”.

And talks like a dictator…

This past week Mr. Trump sat down for an interview with senior reporters from the New York Times. They asked him a variety of questions. When asked if there were any limits on his global powers, Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
At another moment in the interview, Trump affirmed, “I don’t need international law.” When asked if the U.S. government should comply with international law, he answered “yes” but clarified that in situations where it restricts the U.S., the decision-maker is himself, adding, “It depends on how you define international law.” This reflects Trump’s characteristic dismissive attitude toward international law, such as sovereignty and borders. National power as implemented by the president—not law or treaties—should be the decisive factor when great powers clash. In his own mind, he is above international law.

The Descent into a Dictatorship

To avoid a complete fall into a dictatorship, the Judiciary and Legislative branches of the US government should fulfill their congressional duties of being a guardrail against all excesses of the Executive branch. The checks and balances of the three branches are necessary in a democracy with fallen leaders. Thus wrote our wise ancestors in the Constitution.

PS Dear readers, per our healthy custom, if you find any factual inaccuracy in this writing, please let me know.

The Teaching of Jesus Denounces the “Donroe” Doctrine: So should those who Follow Jesus

The Monroe Doctrine was coined in the early Nineteenth Century to describe US President James Monroe’s vision for the Americas. Its core proclamation was that the European powers should take their grubby hands out of the Western Hemisphere (which I applaud) and allow the emerging nation, the United States, to fulfill the role of imperial power in the Americas (which I denounce).

In light of the US intervention in Venezuela over the weekend, President Trump renamed the vision as the “Donroe” doctrine. He described what this meant: “the US dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again” and “we (= the Trump administration) run Venezuela”. Trump identified other countries where he might intervene and rule: Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and even Greenland!

What would Jesus say about this new application of the Monroe Doctrine? (Although it is somewhat risky to apply Jesus’ teaching today, twenty centuries after He walked the earth, this is precisely what followers of Christ are called to do.) Jesus clearly described the typical conduct of earthly rulers: “The rulers of the nations lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves ‘Doers of Good’. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-26)

Human rulers lord it over their people, and even though their actions of dominating other people is sinful and denounced by Jesus, human rulers like to describe these actions as “good”. Nevertheless, the Good Book says “woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

Followers of Jesus might be attracted to bits and pieces of Trump’s policies, but the Donroe Doctrine definitely does not fit in that category. It is a clear vision, but clearly wrong. The teaching of Jesus denounces the domination of one nation over another. The followers of Christ should denounce it as well.

Trump’s Troops Capture Venezuelan President Maduro. Does Might Make Right?

Overnight, U.S. troops entered Venezuela and captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and flew them out of the country under U.S. custody. They are to stand trial in the United States. This military maneuver came as a surprise to many, both inside and outside of Venezuela. Civilians died, but the number of deaths is still unknown. There is no doubt that this attack reveals U.S. military supremacy, but that is not the major issue. The main question that must be answered is the following: “Does might make right?”. All major ethical systems would answer with a clear “No!”

Let’s be clear. Maduro was a thug. Although he had previously been elected President of his country, it also seems quite evident that he stole the most recent election. His Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez has claimed that she is running the country according to the Venezuelan Constitution. Some of the opposition affirm that it should be Edmundo Gonzalez who really won the election. Others suggest it should be Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado. It remains to be seen who the Venezuelan generals will support. It is likely there will be fighting in the streets with many deaths. My hope and prayer are that the Venezuelan people will determine their own national destiny.

Nevertheless, I raise serious questions for the Trump administration.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress must authorize acts of warfare. Trump did not seek nor obtain this authorization. Neither did he even inform the bipartisan “Gang of 8” before the attack. Article 2 of the Constitution is an exception which grants limited war power to the President but only if U.S. personnel are under “actual or imminent” attack. Under no stretch of the imagination was this condition met.
Trump did not appeal to the United Nations for authorization. In fact, the President of Colombia has already asked the UN Security Council to intervene. Will the U.S. (a founding member of the UN) even acknowledge that it violated the UN charter?
Trump gave a campaign promise that he would not take our country into war, especially to bring about “regime change”. Hegseth and Rubio made the same promise to our Congress last month. Trump does not seem to understand the complexities of Venezuela’s internal polarization. Does he have any clue about the “day after”. Did candidate Trump lie to his MAGA base?
Just War Theory affirms that wars should never be waged in order to obtain the natural resources of another country. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. To what extent has this oil motivated Trump’s military attack?
According to the polls, Trump is the most unpopular president of the last hundred years. Over 60% of Americans disagree with his policies on the economy, health care, ICE detentions, and tariffs. Does he hope our people will rally around a president at war with a “cheap patriotism? A genuine love for one’s country seeks truth, justice, the rule of law and peace that comes from national righteousness.

I ask all people of good will to ask and answer these tough, but necessary questions. “Might makes right” is an immoral heresy that should be rejected.

Ukraine Again: An Evil Dictator (Putin), a Weak President (Trump) and No End to the War

On Sunday Ukrainian President Zelensky met with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss steps to end the four year old war by Putin’s Russia on its weaker neighbor. Both Trump and Zelensky claimed that “progress” had been made. Even while negotiations were going on, Putin was continuing the bombing of civilian areas in Ukraine. Trump then talked to Putin by phone and affirmed the strange claim that Putin wanted Ukraine to “succeed”. Later, Putin alleged that Ukraine sent drone strikes at one of his personal residences in Russia. Trump became very angry when he heard about these strikes, although he did admit that these strikes could be fictitious.

You probably see many holes in this narrative…and rightly you should. We have seen this script acted out (with a few variations) for four long years. We have been on a roller coaster ride of ups and downs where hopes of a peace are raised and then dashed to pieces…again and again. I am tired of hearing the same lies over and over. Let’s shine the light of truth on two specific individuals.

Putin is an evil aggressor who invaded Ukraine. He is guilty of war crimes. He is not a man of peace. And in no way does he want Ukraine to succeed. He claims he wants peace but he does not sit down with Zelensky to have genuine negotiations. His demands for concessions (land, no NATO membership or protection for Ukraine) are ridiculous that none of us would accept. An honest appraisal of Putin would conclude that he has “played” the White House and continues to do so.
Although Trump likes to bully his rivals and subordinates, in fact, he is a weak president. He has never stood up to Putin (nor to any other authoritarian leader like China’s Xi). He praises Putin at every turn. “Putin did not start this war,” “Putin wants to end this war,” and “Putin is a man of peace.” Nevertheless, we have seen the evidence. Putin will never end this war because of any supposed “goodness” in his heart. He will only agree to a peace deal when war becomes too costly. Economic sanctions need to be levied against Putin until he is forced to negotiate. Mr. Trump, don’t blame our European allies. Work with them to apply economic pressure upon Putin. Do not enable him any longer. In short, become a true leader.