Protected: Trump’s Honeymoon is Over due to his Self-Inflicted Wounds: His Second 100 Days will be Even More Challenging

Christianity in the White House: We Need Less Spirit of Constantine and More Spirit of Jesus

On Good Friday of last week, the New York Times published an article “Christianity in the White House” written by their columnist Ruth Graham. She narrates the growing presence and influence of Christian leaders, especially evangelicals, in the White House. Her article is primarily descriptive. In this post, I first summarize the article. Then I describe some historical examples that were similar. Finally I raise questions about whether this influence is more positive or negative.

Summary of the Facts

Over two decades ago, then President George W. Bush established the White House Faith Office. During these first one hundred days of his second administration, President Trump has expanded the prominence of this Faith Office. It is now located in the White House West Wing (albeit in the basement). It is led by Trump’s spiritual adviser, Paula White-Cain and by Jennifer Korn. Their main stated purpose is to reduce hostility against Christianity and other faiths, by creating an American version of “a Church-state alliance. They point to the fact that prayers in the White House do not need to be generic, but can now be prayed in “the name of Jesus”. Nevertheless, their goals go way beyond “religious topics”. These include issues of gender and sexuality. They take pride in Trump’s executive orders that claim there are only “two sexes,” male and female.

The Faith Office has sponsored multiple briefings and listening sessions for Christian leaders. They deal with foreign relationships, trade and tariffs, education, etc. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez affirms that these sessions give Christian leaders unprecedented access to Trump’s staff.

Now we turn to the teaching of Jesus regarding secular rulers.

Jesus and “Secular Governments”

Jesus was quite aware that human governments exercise a special temptation for his followers. Many people are attracted to power. “Then the apostles began to squabble among themselves. They were arguing about which of them would be the greatest. Jesus said to them, ‘Kings of other countries use great authority over their people. Leaders of those countries want people to say good things about them. You must not be like that. The most important person among you must become like the least important person. The person who is your leader must become like your servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26)

Some observations:

Those who follow Jesus must use great discernment to distinguish between “true goodness” from the more common “fake goodness” of many rulers who claim they are doing good for their subjects…but are not.
By exposing the hypocrisy of kings and other rulers, Jesus expects his followers to rise above the idolatrous loyalty and fawning so typical of governments, because disciples of Jesus are called to serve a higher authority: the true and living God.

Historical Examples of Church/State Alliances

Throughout history there have been numerous examples of an alliance or “marriage” between secular rulers and religious leaders or causes that are perceived as “useful” for those rulers. The classic example is the “Holy” Roman Empire. Early in the fourth century A.D. there was a power vacuum in the Empire. four Roman generals began fighting and vying for the position of emperor. At that time, Christians and churches were expanding rapidly throughout the empire in spite of being frequently being persecuted. Although they were almost universally pacifistic and refused to take up the sword, their moral support could be useful to the generals. According to tradition, General Constantine had a vision in the night in which he saw a cross in the sky together with the words “with this cross you will conquer”. Although this vision is widely regarded today as mythical, Constantine defeated his rivals and became emperor. He changed the Church’s status from “illegal” to “tolerated”. A few decades later, Christianity became the official religion in the empire. Although there were some positive results of this alliance such as the creation of “sacred music” and Christian art, there were other devastating consequences. Freedom of religion was eliminated as the people of the empire were forced to accept Christianity or at least to go through the motions. Many followers of Jesus abandoned their Biblically based pacifism. They became Roman soldiers and did not heed the Biblical warning that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. The tragic truth is that the empire distorted Christianity more than the church positively influenced the Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to its own inner corruption rather than as a result of foreign attacks. This corruption seeped into the church as well. Powerful clerical posts were sold to the highest bidder. Luther was correct in denouncing these moral failures of the papacy.

Two more recent examples merit some mention. During the 15^th and 16^th centuries, weak Popes made deals with monarchs in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition emerged. This permitted the monarchs to punish Jews in their lands and to wage war against the Moors with “God’s blessing”. Later, they and their Portuguese counterparts waged savage wars upon the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. This was truly a continent-wide holocaust executed in the name of the God of the Conquistadores. Valiant voices of protests emerged, like Bartolome de las Casas.

In the twentieth century, Hitler was enabled to carry out his horrific attempt to make Germany great again by the acquiescence of the state church. Millions of Jews, Polish, gypsies and thousands of others made in God’s image “disappeared” and were massacred, all in the name of God and his chosen Aryan race. (God’s blessing appeared on the belt buckles of the German soldiers.) Here again people (like Bonhoeffer) arose to protest against this idolatrous alliance.

Concerns About Our Contemporary Situation in the United States

In light of lessons learned from history, I have questions about the presence and “access” of some Christian leaders in the White House.

It is well known that President Trump boasts about his transactional relationships (“I give you something, you give me something”.) These religious leaders gave Trump political support during the elections of 2016, 2020, and 2024, and partially due to their support, 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. What did they get in return? Invitations to go to the White House and to offer up prayers in the name of Jesus do not come close to “do justice and to walk humbly with your God”.
Paula White claimed she had received messages from God (prophecies) that Trump would win the 2020 election. Trump did not win that election. This makes her a false prophet. This is quite serious, as sincere Christians might believe, and act upon, her false prophecy.
Franklin Graham heads up the international Christian ministry, Samaritan’s Purse. His father was the famous evangelist, Billy Graham. Franklin was an outspoken supporter of Trump since 2015. In the Musk/Trump gutting of USAID a few months ago, Samaritan’s Purse received an exemption, and as a result, continued to receive millions of dollars. It seems to me like a transaction based on favoritism. Was it?
Trump has a difficult relationship with the truth. He frequently wanders far from it. Christian leaders in the White House could perform a valuable ministry to him if they had the courage to confront his lies. A very big lie has to do with the war in Ukraine. We all know that Putin started the war by invading Ukraine. But now, in his “peace talks”, the Trump administration claims Putin to be a “great man” and that it was Ukraine that started the war. Paula White and Franklin Graham, have you confronted Trump about this lie?

Jesus told his disciples, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13).

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? (Part II): Goals, Instability, Possible Corruption and Unjust International Trade

A week ago, I posted a brief article, “Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? ‘BE COOL’ Is Not an Adequate Answer”. In that post, I raised serious questions about President Trump’s six corporate bankruptcies and the huge national debt increase that took place during his first presidency. I also explained that tariffs are, in fact, taxes paid by import companies (not the exporting companies nor exporting countries), and the costs of these taxes are usually passed on to consumers. In today’s post, I want to add some other issues: goals for tariffs, the negative effects of “on again / off again” tariffs, possible corruption, and explore who has benefited from unjust international trading.

Goals for Trump’s Tariffs

One goal for Trump’s early tariff on Canadian goods was to punish that country for allowing great quantities of fentanyl to enter into the United States and contribute to drug addiction in our country. This is a bogus argument. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, only 43 pounds of fentanyl were intercepted coming from Canada into the U.S. last year. This is less than 1% of all interceptions (of which the overwhelming majority come across the U.S./Mexico border).
A more repeated goal or motivation is to make the tariff so high that companies will move their production to the United States. They hope that by avoiding the tariff, their products will stay cheap enough to avoid a decrease in their sales. This probably won’t happen for the following reasons. Some products (like coffee or bananas) cannot be economically grown or produced in the United States. For manufacturing jobs, the cost of labor is much cheaper in some countries (China, Mexico) and this comparative advantage makes it still more economical to produce in foreign countries (even including the tariff) than in the U.S.
The transition to production in the U.S. usually involves a significant investment of capital. These investments are risky if the tariff rules are subject to the presidential whims of “on today” and “off tomorrow”. The flow of capital requires a certain degree of stability not yet demonstrated by Trump’s trade negotiations and policies.
Another more reasonable goal for tariffs is to promote ”national security”. Why should the U.S. allow rivals/enemies (China) have control over the production of components (like semiconductors) that are essential for military weapons or the high tech utilized to obtain sensitive intelligence. This has led to opposite policies: (1) Semiconductors are so important that the president needs to carve out an exemption from tariffs for them, thereby guaranteeing their continued production and availability, at least in the short run; OR (2) Semiconductors are so important for our national security that we need to ensure their production occurs within our country. This can only done if we have high tariffs on them and thereby making it more economical to produce them here.
Trump is right when he affirms that international trade is sometimes unfair. He is wrong when he affirms that the U.S. is always the victim. A personal anecdote illustrates his error. I was living in Mexico in 1976. At that time the U.S. dollar was pegged at 12.5 pesos. Wealthy investors caused a run on the banks by buying up these “cheap” dollars. The Mexican government had to slow down this run on the banks and did so by devaluing their currency to a 24 peso to the dollar rate. Overnight the purchasing power of my dollars almost doubled whereas the ability of my Mexican friends to buy American products was cut in half. I personally benefited from the devaluation. My Mexican friends were the victims. What happened at an international level? Americans began buying more Mexican (now cheaper) products and Mexicans bought fewer products made in the U.S. Although this was seen as a trade “deficit” (from the U.S. point of view), in fact, Americans were beneficiaries of this dramatic weakening of the peso. Similar devaluations took place in Argentina, Brazil and much of the Global South with the corollary huge increase in inflation in those nations. These frequent devaluations have been pushed by the IMF, the World Bank, and others. The world winners have mostly been the United States and other countries in the Global North. Through decisions way beyond my control, my fellow Americans and I have benefited.
Insider trading takes place when some investors have advanced knowledge of some decisions which might greatly affect the rise or fall of stock indexes and then use this information to buy or sell certain stocks to make personal gains. This is morally unfair. President Trump’s 90 day “pause” on the reciprocal tariffs led to an historic skyrocket rise in the Dow Jones index. Did any of Trump’s friends have and utilize advanced knowledge about the pause? An independent investigation will reveal the truth. Given that officials in Congress and the Cabinet do have access to confidential economic information, all such officials should be barred from buying/selling specific stocks while they are serving in public office.
Handing out tariff exemptions is a highly lucrative business worth billions and billions of dollars. A week ago, Trump carved out exemptions on some electronics from China. Later, his economic advisers stated that these exemptions will be placed in a special “semiconductor bucket”. Do any of the president’s big donors control companies that will receive these exemptions? If so, this is corruption. Congress must grow some backbone and exercise its responsibility to oversee tariffs.

One of the greatest strengths of our nation includes the checks and balances codified in our Constitution. The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of our government and are an essential component of those checks and balances. For the wellbeing of our country, may each branch do its job. This applies to issues of tariffs and trade raised in this post.

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? “BE COOL” is Not an Adequate Answer

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? “BE COOL” is Not an Adequate Answer

This has been a chaotic week for the U.S. economy. Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, April 2, President Trump announced sweeping tariff hikes across the board with all of the United States trading partners (except Russia). The president proclaimed this “Liberation Day” in which he would level the economic playing field, by applying reciprocal tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. equal to the percentage that countries impose on our exports. (The conservative Cato Institute sharply criticized the administration for inflating the percentages. For example, Trump claimed that India imposed a 52% tariff on U.S. goods, although the real amount was 12%.) The Dow Jones fell 1679 points, a 4% decline. The NASDAQ fell almost 6% and the Standard and Poor sank 4.8%. On Friday, they continued their decline. Over the weekend, national and international stock exchanges continued to crash. Leading economic advisers predicted that a recession was more likely than not. This past Wednesday morning, Trump tweeted “BE COOL” trying to persuade investors to start buying stocks and not to continue the sell-off. The situation became even more dire. Retirees saw their savings decline by over 10%. By noon, Trump knew he had to do something. He announced a ninety-day pause on almost all of the tariffs. (Some say, “he flinched”, or “he caved”, or “he retreated”. The Dow Jones which had been down a thousand points skyrocketed, and set a record for the largest turnaround in a single day. People hoped that the surge would continue yesterday (Thursday). It did not, because a China – U.S. trade war still looms on the horizon. China has imposed a tariff of 125% on U.S. products whereas Trump has placed a tariff/tax of 145% on Chinese items. The Dow Jones sank another 1000 points.

Trump’s tragic history with businesses – Anyone who knows the history of Donald Trump, the businessman, should not want him to be the CEO of our national economy. Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, he has filed for chapter eleven corporate bankruptcy on six of his companies:

1991: Trump Taj Mahal
1992: Trump Castle Hotel & Casino
1992: Trump Plaza Casino
1992: Trump Plaza Hotel
2004: Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts
2009: Trump Entertainment Resorts

Apparently, Trump has not learned from these mistakes. In fact, he does not even admit that they were mistakes. He claims these were savvy business practices. He personally did not lose much money…, his stock owning partners had colossal losses. These bankruptcies do not include the now defunct Trump University in which Trump was ordered to pay $25 million to the students who were swindled.

Some Trump supporters like to refer to his first presidential term (2017-2021) as a wonderful economic “success”. Nothing could be further from the truth! During that administration, Trump increase the national debt by $7.8 trillion. This was the largest increase in the national debt ever by a president in a four-year period! (Whether individually or nationally, irresponsible people can be “successful and happy” if they don’t have to pay the bills.)

Where Do We Go From Here?

This economic crisis is not due to a Covid 19 pandemic nor due to a natural disaster. This came about due to the irrational decision by one man, Donald J. Trump… and his “yes men” (like convicted trade adviser Peter Navarro). Elon Musk has repeatedly called Navarro a “moron”. It remains to be seen which man, Musk or Navarro, will win this squabble and which one will have to leave.

Trump is enamored with tariffs and has been for a long time. The overwhelming majority of trained economists disagree with Trump. Tariffs are taxes which are paid by importers, who then pass along these added expenses to the prices for consumers. Tariffs go against the logic of “comparative advantage” of free market capitalism. Tariffs are a form of protectionism which rewards inefficient national industries. This is why conservative economists oppose tariffs. On this issue, liberal economists agree with their conservative counterparts.

The trade war will probably continue until either the U.S. or the Chinese economy approaches the breaking point, because the Chinese and Trump are very stubborn. After pronouncing the beautiful economic benefits of tariffs, it is extremely difficult for Trump to walk back this policy and now to acknowledge it was mistake. But if inflation starts rising dramatically and/or if we enter into a recession, his supporters will demand he reverse his tariff policy. Maybe Trump and the Chinese can reach an agreement on a low reciprocal tariff. Let’s hope so.

I urge my MAGA friends and readers to examine the facts and to evaluate Trump by the consequences of his economic actions.

Pastor Niemoller Spoke Truth to Power in the Time of Hitler, and in Our Time as Well: First They Came for….

Pastor Niemoller Spoke Truth to Power in the Time of Hitler…and in Our Time as Well: First they Came for ….

Martin Niemoller was a German theologian and Lutheran pastor during the time of Hitler. Early in his adulthood, he was a national conservative. Like most German Protestant ministers, he supported conservative politicians who opposed the Weimar Republic. He voted for Nazis in 1924, 1928, and again in 1933, thereby welcoming Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. He even praised Hitler for beginning a “national revival”. Nevertheless, he changed his opinion of the Nazis due to Hitler’s discrimination against Jews generally, and against Christians with Jewish ancestry. (Niemoller himself had to acknowledge aspects of antisemitism in his own thoughts and actions.). In 1934, Niemoller, together with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and other pastors founded the “Confessing Church” that increasingly criticized the Nazis for their racism and persecution of the Jews. In 1937, Pastor Niemoller was arrested. He spent much of the next eight years in detention and concentration camps. He is quite famous for the following illustration that he would frequently utilize in his sermons.

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” (There are many versions of this quote. This rendering of the original appears on the United States Holocaust Memorial.)

This famous quotenwas a dramatic speaking of truth to power. It defends our common human rights, even of those persons we disagree with. It was important to shout out this truth against the backdrop of Hitler’s tyranny. It is also important to emphasize this truth today in our politically charged climate. I trust Brother Martin does not mind that I borrow some of his words.

First, they came for the undocumented immigrants, and I did not speak out – because I was not undocumented (although some of my ancestors obtained lands in the U.S. without having permission from the true indigenous owners of those lands).

Then they came for vital USAID programs and employees, and I did not speak out – because I did not live in a refugee camp having fled from war.

Then they came for international grad students (with valid student visas), and I did not speak out – because I was a U.S. citizen.

Then they came for federal workers, and I did not speak out – because I was economically comfortable.

Then they came for (fill in the blank). Will I speak out?

Elon’s (Love of) Money Can’t Buy You Love…Nor Many Votes: A Case Study From Wisconsin

On Tuesday, people went to the polls in Florida and Wisconsin. In Florida there were two special elections to choose replacements for Representatives Matt Gaetz and Michael Waltz who had resigned their positions in the House of Representatives to join the Trump cabinet. (In fact, Gaetz’s bad reputation led to his withdrawal as the nominee for Attorney General, whereas Waltz has become Trump’s National Security Adviser.). Both districts (#1 and #6) are predominantly Republican in which Trump won by over 30 percentage points last November. Both Republican candidates won their races, each by a margin of fourteen percentage points. As a result, Republican control of the House of Representatives is slightly improved. On the other hand, these two elections are warning signs for Republicans. A decline in their margins of victory from over 30% to just 14% is a clear indication of buyer’s remorse. Polls conducted this week show President Trump’s approval rate has slipped to 43%, his lowest level since the inauguration. As his widely unpopular tariffs take effect, inflation will increase and a recession is looming on the horizon (as I correctly predicted in an earlier posting on this blog site).

A more dramatic disaster took place in Wisconsin. The principal election in that state was to choose a replacement for a position on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Technically, this was a non-partisan race. The party initials (D) and (R) did not appear on the ballot. Nevertheless, party preferences were quite clear. Trump and most Republican state leaders endorsed the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel. Democrats largely supported Susan Crawford, the progressive candidate. Wisconsin is a “purple” state with almost an equal number of registered Republicans and Democrats. Biden won the state in 2020, but Trump won in 2024 by a margin under 1% of the vote. The election was quite important because it would tilt the Supreme Court, especially on the redistricting of the state’s federal districts for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The race was also the most expensive judiciary election in U.S. with a total of over ninety million dollars spent by candidates, and political parties and donors from within and outside the state. The richest person in the world, Elon Musk, took a special interest in the race and donated twenty million dollars from his personal wealth for the Schimel campaign. He proudly offered $100 to any voter who would promise to oppose “activist judges” and he wrote out checks for a million dollars to two lucky winners of an ideological contest. (This money for votes scheme was even more egregious than JFK’s giving away of two-dollar bills back in 1960.) Musk even made a personal visit to Milwaukee over the weekend to campaign for Schimel. His money and visit proved to be toxic. The liberal candidate Susan Crawford won the election by a wide margin (55% to 45%). Even more important than the issues (redistricting, abortion, etc.), the election turned into a referendum on Musk and his money involved in politics. In her victory speech, Crawford claimed that she ran against the wealthiest man on earth…, and she won.

The National Security Breach: Worse than I Thought

A week ago, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had disclosed war plans in a group chat to 18 senior members of the Trump administration. This took place on SIGNAL, a commercial app platform. Participating in that chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. Part of the breach happened because Waltz had inadvertently added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat list. Of course, Goldberg, a private citizen, did not have security clearance.

The fallout has been striking. Recent polls indicate that 74-76% of American citizens believe this breach was “serious”, including 60% of all Republicans. The daily drip, drip, drip of mistakes are contributing to the growing lack of public trust. Faced with this problem, the White House wants the issue to disappear, and hopes the public just “forgets” the breach. On the other hand, Democrats want a thorough investigation to take place and necessary consequences to be applied. The following is my attempt to summarize the facts as we know them so that my readers can make up their own minds.

SIGNAL

SIGNAL is a commercial app. It is portrayed as a fairly safe platform because messages are encrypted from the source phone, and then kept encrypted throughout the transmission until they reach the receiving phone. Many people who work in the federal government, both Republicans and Democrats, utilize SIGNAL for ordinary transmissions.

The government has issued many warnings against using SIGNAL for sending sensitive, classified information for the following reasons:

The transmission is encrypted and, therefore, fairly secure. Nevertheless, the source phone and the receiving phones are vulnerable to attack and hacking. These phones must also meet high security criteria.
Federal security laws require that sensitive, high-level communication be retained for posterity. SIGNAL is programed to erase the contents shortly after the chat conversation has ended. This means that SIGNAL must not be used for the transmission of classified intelligence. All senior officials are made aware of this restriction.
Each person on a chat must be aware of the identity of all the other participants on the chat in order to fulfill security requirements. If there is any breach, participants should immediately raise an alarm and communicate the breach to the person who organized the chat.

THE BREACH

Everyone knew that SIGNAL should not be used to transmit sensitive, classified information.

National Security Adviser Michael Waltz made a big mistake of adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the list of recipients, thereby violating security criteria. Waltz has appropriately admitted that he was responsible for the mistake.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth introduced the highly sensitive “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. According to the Department of Defense’s own definitions, intelligence on imminent military strikes is designated “Top Secret”. Hegseth clearly violated security norms.
It appears that some of the participants were using their personal phones for the chat. These phones are susceptible to hacking and their use is a clear violation of the security guidelines. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia during the chat. There is concern that the phone he was using was vulnerable to Russian surveillance.

THE RESPONSE

Last Monday Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published brief segments of the chat text in the Atlantic. These did not compromise sensitive intelligence, but were sufficiently explicit to demonstrate that he had mistakenly been admitted to the chat. At first, the White House accused him of lying. Hegseth accused him of being a deceitful “so called journalist” who peddles lies. Trump called him a “sleazebag”. Goldberg responded that his integrity (and the integrity of the Atlantic) were on the line and that he felt goaded to publish the entire transcript. He made the appropriate agencies aware of his plans (the White House, the CIA, the DOD, etc) in order not to put U.S. military personnel in danger. The CIA made a request to omit an identification and Goldberg complied with their wish. The text was then published in the Atlantic and is now available for everyone to study. The text shows that in addition to military plans, sensitive derogatory comments were made about our European allies, and a disagreement between Vance and Trump was made public.
After the incendiary White House attack on Goldberg as a liar backfired, the official line has been to deny, deny, deny. They have minimized the seriousness of the breach: as if no classified intelligence had been communicated. A few voices were raised in protest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the breach a “big mistake”. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Armed Services Committee, was even more explicit. He signed onto a letter to the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense for an inquiry into the potential “use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.” I invite my readers to study the entire transcript and decide for themselves whether the contents should have been designated as “Top Secret” or not.
Our relationship with allies has been damaged. Israel provided much of the intelligence information that Hegseth shared on a non-classified platform. They and our European allies have stated they will re-evaluate what kind of intelligence they will share with us in the future. Are we a trustworthy ally?
The Wall Street Journal reported that “Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the breach to be serious, I agree with Senator Wicker that, at the very least, the Department of Defense Inspector General conduct a thorough investigation of the breach. They should also assign penalties if warranted. I would prefer a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would probably be more balanced and just. May the truth win out!

The Trump Administration’s Denial of the National Security Breach: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Over the weekend, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place on March 15. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disclosed war plans in an encrypted group chat to a group of senior members of the Trump administration. Participating in the chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. There were numerous anomalies including the following:

The conversation took place outside the secure government channels that would normally be used for classified and highly sensitive war planning.
The highly respected editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, affirmed in an article that he published on Monday that he was mistakenly added to the text chat on the commercial messaging app Signal by Michael Waltz.
Goldberg was most cautious. He did not reveal the most sensitive information in his article, but he disclosed enough (portions of the chat text itself, including emojis) to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had been included in the text chat.
Several Defense Department officials expressed shock that Mr. Hegseth had put American war plans into a commercial chat group. They affirmed that having this type of conversation in a Signal chat group itself could be a violation of the Espionage Act, a law covering the handling of sensitive information. The revelation of operational war plans before the planned strikes had occurred could also put American troops directly into harm’s way.
In the conversation, Ratcliffe mentioned the name of an active undercover CIA officer.

Yesterday there was a Senate hearing that dealt with the presentation of the major threats in the world, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials including Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe. This hearing is an annual event, but there was something different this time. Democratic senators (Warner, Bennet, Ossoff, Kelly) took advantage of the hearing to grill Gabbard and Ratcliffe about the security breach. They repeatedly answered that the conversation in the group chat did take place but that the information provided was not “classified”. How stupid do they think we are? Detailed, sensitive information about imminent strikes on Yemen, and information regarding targets, U.S. weapons and attack sequencing should not be considered “classified”? The Dems continued the pressure. They used Gabbard’s own words against her, by quoting back her own descriptions of what information should be identified as “classified”. She and Ratcliffe were frequently asked about the weapons and targets mentioned in the conversation. And they frequently (and conveniently) answered, “I can’t remember” and “I can’t recall”.

In a press conference later in the day, President Trump repeated the official line that “this information was not classified” because if it were classified, he and his senior staff would appear to be seriously incompetent. The official party line is “Deny, Deny, Deny!”: deny that the information was classified, deny that the breach was serious, or deny that lives were put at risk.

Sooner or later, the administration will have to admit the information was (and should have been) considered “classified” OR that it was not classified and now should be made public. Either way, the administration should admit its serious mistake. Truth will win out in the end. We, the people, deserve the truth. We also deserve public officials who are mature enough to admit their errors and improve our government. We deserve accountability. In my blog postings earlier this year, I questioned the inferior qualifications of many of the Cabinet nominees. Sadly, many of these “leaders” have demonstrated their incompetence. At the very minimum, Hegseth and Waltz should be fired.

Mr. President, When the Courts Rule Against You, Do Not Throw a Temper Tantrum. File Your Appeals, Then Trust and Obey.

One week ago, three airplanes, supposedly containing immigrants belonging to Venezuelan gangs, took off from U.S. territory and flew to El Salvador where the passengers were placed in a huge, infamous prison in that country. These deportations took place under the alleged authorization of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (which has only been invoked during wartime). Federal Judge James Boasberg, concerned that due process had not taken place, ordered that the planes not take off, or if already in the air, that they turn around and come back with their passengers to the U.S.

Mr. President, you threw a temper tantrum, more like a spoiled three-year old brat than someone who aspires to be a “great president”. Rather than dealing with the evidence, you labeled Boasberg as an “extreme leftist lunatic” (even though he was first appointed by Republican President Bush). You called him a “rogue” who should be impeached (although as you know an impeachment needs 67 votes in the Senate).

For your information, our government has three co-equal branches: the Legislative, which makes the laws and has the power of the purse; the Executive, which executes the legislation (here, “executes” means “implements”, not “kills”); and the Judiciary, which interprets the law and applies the penalties when violations take place. The Judiciary is like the umpire who calls “balls and strikes”. The courts don’t always get it right, but the beauty and wisdom of our government is that citizens can appeal the decisions they don’t like and take them to an Appellate Court, or all the way to the Supreme Court.

To be honest, your administration has not complied with Judge Boasberg’s orders. The judge has demonstrated great patience by extending additional time to your staff to provide the basic information regarding when the planes took off and landed, and when your administration became aware of the orders. Your administration is stalling and defying the court. Then yesterday, you came out and said you never signed the document invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Who forged your signature?

Mr. Trump, you swore to defend the Constitution. Do not, by your actions, allow our country to fall into a constitutional crisis. File your appeals if you wish. Trust the process. Obey the court orders.

The War in Ukraine: A Bit of Hope, but is Trump Getting “Played” by Putin?

Yesterday, U.S. President Trump and Russian “President” Putin had a lengthy (roughly two hours) phone conversation with the goal of ending the war in Ukraine. I do not fault Trump with reaching out to an authoritarian world leader who is guilty of war crimes (according to the International Criminal Court). I do raise concerns about Russia taking advantage of Trump’s lack of leverage in these negotiations. These conversations already have a history, including Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the White House and talks between Russian and U.S. envoys. In these preliminaries, Trump has made several unnecessary and unhelpful concessions to Putin:

Trump falsely accused Zelensky of starting the war and Trump defended Putin against charges of being the aggressor (in the UN vote)
Trump affirmed that Russia would be awarded some land in eastern Ukraine
Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO

By giving up these concessions up front, the United States has lost its leverage in these talks.

The Good News: Yesterday, Putin agreed to a 30-day limited cease-fire in which Russia would stop strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as long as Ukraine did the same. Putin also agreed to a significant prisoner exchange for later this month.

The Bad News: Putin did NOT agree to a complete 30-day cease-fire. To advance the negotiations, the U.S. cannot provide additional military assistance or intelligence information to Ukraine. Ukraine cannot send more troops to the front. These and other demands are totally unacceptable to Ukraine (and to our European allies).

The Results: Putin gives the impression that he is open and eager to end the war. In fact, he is stalling. Every day the war continues, Russia takes more territory. Trump’s peace initiatives will not be successful, because Putin is not acting in good faith. It sure looks like Trump, the author of “The Art of the Deal”, is getting “played” by Putin.

What can Trump do? He must regain leverage over Putin. He should impose new financial sanctions on Russia. These sanctions can be used as “bargaining chips” which can later be withdrawn if Putin removes his unreasonable demands.

The War in Ukraine: A Bit of Hope, but is Trump Getting “Played” by Putin?

Trump falsely accused Zelensky of starting the war and Trump defended Putin against charges of being the aggressor (by siding with Russian, North Korea, etc. in the UN vote)
Trump affirmed that Russia would be awarded some land in eastern Ukraine
Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO

By giving these concessions up front, the United States has lost its leverage in these talks.