Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”: Are Republicans Gaining the Whole World of Wealthy Donors, but Losing Their Soul?

This past week Republicans in the House of Representative passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”. It is really big, but is it beautiful? It is a megabill that funds a laundry list of items on the president’s agenda. It now needs to go the Senate, where it will likely be modified and then returned to the House for “reconciliation”.

Budgets are moral documents, insofar as they represent one’s priorities. It is appropriate to raise moral questions about this legislation. Will this budget bill help or hurt most Americans, but especially our poorest citizens? Is it beautiful or is it selfishness disguised as efficiency?

What might Jesus of Nazareth say about this big, beautiful budget bill? Jesus (revered as the Son of God by billions around the globe, and as a great moral teacher by many others) taught a lot about money and economics. He warned that human greed is deceitful and destroys true life. He raised a probing question: What does it profit a person to gain the whole world, if they lose their soul? (Mark 8:36) If many people are losing their soul, their conscience, their compassion for others, this loss of our soul will be felt by “the least of these” that Jesus loved so much.

Jesus also warned his followers that human rulers usually lord it over their fellow citizens, while at the same time, they lie about all the “good” they are doing for people. (Luke 22:25) Therefore, we the people need to be diligent and discern the truth from the propaganda misinformation that comes at us from both sides of the aisle. I would like to “forward” Jesus’s question to the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Although they claim this bill would do so much good, if it hurts our neediest neighbors, are we losing our soul?

Since both Republicans and Democrats tend to spin information for their own advantage, what sources can we trust? I suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is nonpartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats love the CBO when it backs up their claims, but they both hate it when it reveals their distortions and disinformation. (“Figures never lie, but liars do figure”) The CBO is the closest thing we have to an impartial “referee” in Congress. The predictions below are the estimates of the CBO based upon the budget bill as currently passed in the House of Representatives.

The most significant items in the bill are (1) the renewal of the Trump 2017 income tax legislation scheduled to end this year; (2) cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits; (3) cuts in food stamp benefits / SNAP.

Democrats claim that the legislation favors the very rich whereas Republicans affirm that the budget bill is beautiful for all citizens, especially the middle class and the poorest people. The CBO estimates that, due to the provisions of this bill, the wealthiest 10% of the population will see a 4% increase in their wealth next year. The CBO predicts the poorest 10% of our people will see a 2% decline in their income next year and a 4% drop in the following year.
President Trump promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits. The CBO predicts over $800 billion will be cut from these programs. Republicans claim most of this is due to waste, fraud, and the removal of “dead people” on the list who are currently receiving benefits. The CBO denies these claims. It sure seems to me that Trump broke his promise and would sign this legislation.
The CBO claims that the “big, beautiful” bill will add to our national debt by at least $3.3 trillion. Republicans don’t like this prediction and they claim the CBO (the official referee) underestimates the growth in our economy. During his first term, Trump predicted his economic plans would not add to the debt. He was very wrong. His supporters seem to forget that Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion during his first administration (the highest jump in any four-year term).
There are major changes in health care, especially in Medicaid and “Obamacare”. The CBO predicts that 13 million Americans would no longer have health insurance. Here again, Republicans don’t like these figures and they claim the CBO is “wrong”

Food stamps (the SNAP program) currently serves one-in-eight Americans each month. This bill would cut $230 billion over ten years, literally taking food out of people’s mouths.
Some of the provisions of the bill do help low wage earners (for example, no taxes on tips). Nevertheless, these are mere “crumbs” compared with the lavish deductions given to the very rich.

As I affirmed at the beginning of this post, budget bills are moral documents that should be evaluated by their (estimated) consequences. I choose to use the criteria taught by Jesus: What happens to the “least of these” among us? According to his standards, this bill does not seem very beautiful. In fact, it is quite ugly.

Trump Voters and Law-Abiding Refugees: A Question of Conscience

Voters who cast their ballots for Trump had two main goals they wanted him to implement:

Fix the economy by reducing the prices of food, housing and gasoline; and
Close the border to undocumented immigrants.

They did not want cruel punishment applied to law-abiding people. In this post, I raise my voice on behalf of refugees who are suffering that cruelty. I ask you to do the same.

The facts

Last week, the Trump administration issued a memo ordering a freeze on federal grants and loans to organizations like USAID. This stopped funding that involves trillions of dollars and thousands of organizations. Within a day, a federal judge put a pause on the freeze. Then, Trump rescinded the freeze (giving the impression that the freeze was illegal, or at least not thought out very carefully). Supposedly, funding would resume immediately. This has not happened, and the consequences are truly tragic both locally and around the world.

I would like to concentrate here on refugees in the area of Chicago. All people, including refugees and other immigrants, are made in God’s image and deserve to be treated with respect. Nevertheless, refugees have a special legal status. They usually face persecution in their home countries or their lives are in serious danger. They apply for legal status to emigrate to another country. They are thoroughly vetted at many different levels before they are admitted to our nation or other countries. Upon entering our country, we want them to adapt well, put down roots, get a job and contribute to the well-being of our society. Private organizations and our government join together in accompanying them in this process of adaptation. Our federal government has committed to provide registered refugees essential food, housing, and medical services for the first ninety days of their time in the United States. World Relief is a highly respected Christian humanitarian organization that has served refugees for many decades.

World Relief Chicagoland has ministered to legal refugees since 1979. Churches that I have participated in have partnered with World Relief on several occasions. I vouch for their integrity and effective service. Currently, they are serving 387 refugees who are in their ninety-day adaptation period. Government funding has been frozen and the impact is devastating. These refugees are in real danger of not having enough food. They don’t have rent money and might become homeless during Chicago’s cold winter. Needed medical attention will not be provided. Promises were made to these refugees, and our promises to them are not being kept.

Our Response

There is an immediate financial need. Individuals, churches and other groups should provide financial assistance to World Relief or similar humanitarian organizations.

But there is an even more important response to this cruelty. I invite my readers, especially those who voted for Trump, to repudiate this funding freeze. Write to your senators and congressional representatives and urge them to restore funding immediately. At times, Trump can be smart. He is not smart on this issue. His freeze order on federal funds and grants is cruel.

Buyer’s Remorse and Trump, Part 3: Ethics

In my recent posts, I have explored “Consumer’s Remorse” applied to our recent presidential election in light of Trump’s first days in office. Some who voted for him are having “second thought” about that choice.

About 35% of U.S. voters consider themselves to be part of the MAGA base. They enthusiastically voted for Trump. They generally do not acknowledge any significant defect in his policies or personal character. They would go to the ends of the earth for Trump. There is a second group, consisting of “swing“ voters who voted from Trump (about 15% of the total population), but who are willing to admit some faults in his policies and character. They are willing to listen to reason and evidence, and to follow the truth wherever it leads. I am writing this blog post primarily for them. This post is about Trump and ethics.

I am appealing to the conscience of my readers. I recognize that individuals vary somewhat in how they reach their understanding of what is right and wrong. I unashamedly acknowledge that my code of ethics is largely due to my understanding of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is broad agreement on general ethical principles among all people in our country. Most of us believe that murder is wrong. Lying is generally recognized as wrong, as well. I suggest the following areas where people who follow basic morality might find common ground regarding contemporary political events.

Respect for the Law

Most of those who voted for Trump that I personally know are generally law-abiding citizens. Although they drive a few miles per hour above the stipulated Interstate Highway speed limits, they generally obey the important laws of the land and want their president to obey those laws. They are proud Americans who cherish our Constitution. They should be outraged when our president issues an executive order that clearly violates that Constitution. With the alleged goal of reducing the incentives of undocumented immigration, Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. The problem is that this order is a clear violation of the 14^th Amendment to our Constitution. Trump supporters might approve of his goals, but they should publicly reject his actions if they violate the Constitution. (There exists a legal way to amend our Constitution, but the president has not chosen that route.)

A President has the right to disagree with the appropriation decisions made by Congress but does not have the right to freeze the disbursement of those funds that have already been appropriated. In our country we have a balance of power: three co-equal branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Congress has the power of the purse. The President has the responsibility to carry out those decisions. The courts have the responsibility to interpret the laws where there is disagreement. On Sunday, Trump ordered a funding freeze on federal program grants that negatively impacts millions of citizens. Although Social Security and Medicare were exempt, thousands of programs were frozen. This freeze includes food programs like SNAP, aid to Ukraine, housing, etc., although there was much confusion regarding which agencies were affected. In fact, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, was not able to answer the question whether Medicaid (which serves 72 million Americans) was included or excluded. A federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze. The good news is that Trump has changed his mind (acknowledged his mistake?) and has rescinded the freeze. The bad news is that the president will probably issue another freeze which would be more limited, but would still be illegal.

Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. He has also affirmed that his priority is to deport those people who are felons or who have committed violent crimes. (Technical language is important here. Entering the U.S. without legal documents or overstaying one’s visa is considered a “civil offense”, not a “crime.” The White House Press Secretary deliberately mixed these categories.) On the first day of the deportation raids, 1179 immigrants were arrested. 52% of these were considered “criminal arrests”; 48% were “non-criminal arrests”. I hope those who voted for Trump hold him accountable.

Bullying

Bullying can be defined as “the behavior of a person or group that hurts or frightens others who are smaller or less powerful, often forcing them to do something they do not want to do”. Most decent people denounce personal bullying as hurtful and destructive. It is not acceptable on an individual level. Neither is it appropriate behavior for relationships between nations. A week ago, the U.S. sent undocumented immigrants to their home country of Colombia in military airplanes. The use of U.S. military aircraft, instead of commercial planes, shows a complete ignorance of U.S./Latin American relations. The U.S. has immorally invaded Latin America dozens of times (Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, etc.). This invading mentality is even enshrined in our Marine Hymn where we declare that we will invade and make war “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”.

Colombian president Gustavo Preto refused to receive these planes. Trump immediately threatened Colombia with severe tariffs and penalties. Preto countered with tariffs to be applied to U.S. products sold in Colombia. Colombia and the USA are not of the same size nor economic GDP. Colombia is economically dependent upon its coffee exports to the U.S. Those exports make Colombia extremely vulnerable. Preto backed down and received the aircraft. Trump claimed victory and boasted “the United States is respected again”. This is not respect; it is fear. According to the definition above, it is bullying because a more powerful country is forcing a smaller nation to do something it does not want to do.

My friends and readers of this blog post. I know that most of you don’t agree with bullying at an interpersonal level. Denounce it when it takes place at an international level.

Respect for the Family

Those who voted for Trump usually have a high respect for the family. They believe in the family and vote in favor of our country’s families. I don’t think they are aware of how Trump’s immigration policy is tearing families apart. As I wrote above, 48% of those arrested on the first day of raids were “non-criminal” arrests. Most of these people live in families where their spouse and children are legal U.S. residents or citizens. These raids are ripping parents from their kids and children from their parents. Readers, if you are truly pro-family, urge the president to make his immigration policy more humane.

The Truth

Regrettably, the president has a troubled relationship with the truth. He lies even when there is no justification to do so. For example, he has made repeated claims that he won the November 2024 election in a “landslide”. The truth is that he won a plurality of the votes, but he did not obtain a majority (49.8% compared to Harris’ 48.3%). His margin of victory was the smallest since the election of 2000.

His reputation for lying and hyperbole is so bad that we need to take his statements with a bucket of salt. Carefully examine statements from all politicians (and from me, as well), holding on to what is good and rejecting what is not.

My Plea

Friends, regardless of whether we agree on Trump’s goals or not, we can agree and find common ground on the following:

Presidential actions and executive orders must be legal and not violate our Constitution nor our laws.
Presidential actions and criticisms from his opponents must have a high regard for the truth.
We commit ourselves to examine the positions of the “other side” with honesty and integrity.

Pope Francis Weighs in on the U.S. Presidential Election: One Principle, Several Issues

A week ago, Pope Francis wrapped up an eleven-day pastoral visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania. On the plane trip home to the Vatican, he held a press conference for the reporters who accompanied him on the plane. One reporter asked the Pontiff for his opinion on the presidential election in the United States. Although he did not mention Donald Trump or Kamala Harris by name, it was obvious who he was referring to. “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong; it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about things.”

After denouncing the sinful policies of both Trump and Harris, he stilled affirmed that it is a Christian’s responsibility to vote. He was asked whether it would be morally admissible to vote for someone who favored the right to abortion, he responded: “One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to his or her own conscience.”

Although I strive to follow Christ, I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Pope Francis on every issue, but I acknowledge him as a fellow traveler who advocates for the most vulnerable in our society (according to the Bible, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger). His ethical principle is fairly simple and echoes the teaching of Jesus. All of our actions, including voting and other political acts, should seek to enhance the lives of our neighbors, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He urges us to apply this Golden Rule to all aspects of human life, what Catholic ethicists call the “Seamless Garment”. Therefore, all government policies should be evaluated according to how they enhance humanity’s wellbeing: policies regarding marriage and family, healthcare, education, employment, care of creation, abortion, immigration and other issues. He does not think that people should evaluate political candidates by only one issue. People are fallen creatures and political policies exemplify their flaws. That should not lead us to political apathy. We should evaluate these options and vote for the “lesser of the evils”, that is, those that achieve the greatest good in the world.

This papal advice might affect the U.S. election in unexpected ways. Not all people of faith agree with the Pope that human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception. Many place that point at the moment of the viability of the fetus outside the womb, while others believe it should begin at birth. Many of these people will vote for Harris. Even those pro-lifers who agree with the Pope’s position on abortion might vote for Harris, because Trump’s immigration policy is equally evil.

May people in the U.S. seek the truth, evaluate the options and vote as their conscience leads them.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report…What do we know now?

A week ago, on Thursday, April 18, Attorney General Bill Barr held a press conference about the Mueller Report. He then sent a redacted version of that report to congressional members which he also made available for public view.

Let us not be naïve. Both political sides are putting their “spin” on the Report and the analyzed events. These spins range from one extreme, “This is the best day so far in the Trump presidency” to the other extreme, “He should be impeached!” Trump himself exclaimed at first, “No collusion! No obstruction!” Nevertheless, upon becoming aware of the details of the Report that portray him in a negative light, he has claimed that the Report is full of lies.

As seekers of truth, we need to work hard to filter out the spin. This means we need to read with great care the Mueller Report for ourselves and to not accept blindly the “Cliff Notes” of secondary sources. It also means reading and listening to various points of view. I have forced myself to listen to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and PBS, plus going on line to view additional sources.

Original purpose of the Mueller investigation

What has been overlooked by most news outlets is the conclusion that Mueller arrived at regarding the main purpose of his investigation: Did Russia interfere in our 2016 presidential election? Mueller’s answer was a resounding “Yes!” He provided pages and pages of evidence showing the multiple ways Russia tried to influence the election on behalf of Trump and against Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, neither the White House, nor the Republicans, nor the Democrats have taken enough steps to block this type of interference in the future.

Attorney General William Barr

Every Attorney General swears to uphold the Constitution and is the highest law enforcement officer in the country. He or she is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of justice and should be above partisan politics. The Attorney General is the attorney for the U.S. people, not the private defense attorney for the president. I believe that Attorney General Barr has lost credibility for the following reasons:

Barr shared the redacted document with the White House and Trump’s lawyers prior to making it available to Congress or to the public. The Attorney General should be committed to equality and to not show favoritism.
In Barr’s four-page summary letter of March 24, 2019 as well as in his press conference last Thursday morning, he distorted the Mueller Report on both the allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice, the right of Congress to evaluate the report, and the supposed eagerness of the President to cooperate with the investigation. (see below)

The Redaction of the Report

Attorney General Barr has emitted a redacted edition of the Mueller Report, not the complete version. Four kinds of information were blacked out. They are the following:

Grand Jury material
Classified information regarding secret intelligence content and sources
Information that could interfere with other ongoing legal investigations
Information that could hurt the privacy and reputation of ´peripheral third parties’

It seems reasonable to me that the first three types of information should not be revealed to the general public. Because I am committed to the truth, I am not quite so convinced that peripheral third parties need to be protected. Nevertheless, I believe that Republican and Democrat congressional leaders have the right to see the entire non-redacted version plus the evidence that undergirds it. The reason is obvious. Attorney General Barr has lost credibility in the eyes of half of our citizens. He did not let Robert Mueller confirm the veracity of his “Summary” of last month nor the redacted version last week. I do not trust Barr to be the “gatekeeper” of what information is released. I also believe that Barr, Mueller, Don McGahn and others need to appear before Congress to answer important questions so that the truth can be made more public.

Legal Context – A President cannot be indicted but can be impeached

According to the Justice Department’s traditional position and the specific judgment of its Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. The rationale behind this is that presidents should not be distracted from fulfilling their executive responsibilities due to legal procedures against them. The options are the following:

A president can be accused of a crime, but not indicted. Nevertheless, without being indicted, a president does not have a legal way to respond to the alleged crimes.
A president can be indicted for crimes committed during his/her presidency, but only after leaving office.
If a president’s actions reach the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, Congress has the responsibility to impeach a president. This is essentially the only way to remove a president from office.

In addition, Barr wrote an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department in June 2018 before he had become Attorney General. In that article he wrote that the Mueller investigation was illegal and a waste of time and taxpayer money, and that a sitting president could not commit obstruction of justice. Many people think that Trump chose Barr to be the Attorney General precisely due to these opinions. In essence, Mueller’s only course of action was to lay out the evidence and then let Congress take the next step. He clearly stated this, “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”

No Conspiracy and Cooperation between Russia and the Trump Campaign

The good news for Trump is that Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy. The word “collusion” is not a legal term, and as a consequence, Mueller chose to hold a rather strict definition of the legal crime of “conspiracy”. Although Russia interfered in the election in support of Trump and against Hillary Clinton, and the Trump Campaign appreciated their support (ex. “We love WikiLeaks!), Mueller did not find that there was actual cooperation between the Russian government and the Campaign.

Obstruction of Justice

In his summary letter a month ago, Barr concluded (together with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) that Trump was not guilty of obstruction of justice. This is where Barr distorted the facts. The Mueller Report clearly stated that it did not reach that conclusion. The Report reads, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” It continues, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Thus, Attorney General Barr gave false information when he provided the first “spin” of the Mueller Report in his March 24th letter and then again in his press conference on April 18.

Why didn’t Mueller reach a decision regarding possible obstruction of justice? He investigated 10 episodes of alleged obstruction by the Trump campaign and administration. He then laid out the evidence both in favor and against that possible obstruction. Was the evidence so divided and balanced that Mueller could not reach a decision? No! He believed that his role was not to render a decision. He wanted the evidence to be weighed in the court of public opinion. If there would be a judgment, it would not be made by him nor by the Attorney General. The U.S. Constitution dictates that it is the Congress that should evaluate if impeachment is required for an obstruction of justice. (See comments below on Congress)

Did President Trump eagerly cooperate with the Mueller investigation?

During his press conference and in other moments, Barr affirmed that President Trump willingly and eagerly cooperated with the investigation. The facts do not confirm this claim. Mueller wanted to directly interview the president and so requested. Trump’s lawyers fought this request over and over again. Finally, it was agreed that Mueller would ask questions that Trump would answer in writing. (Mueller considered subpoenaing the president to an oral interview, but finally decided against doing that because the delay tactics of Trump’s lawyers would have caused the Report to have been extended by months or years.)

In his written answers, Trump was not very cooperative nor transparent. Over thirty times, he answered “I do not remember” or “I do not recollect”. Given that he had several days to turn in his answers, he had plenty of time to review emails, his notes, etc. to refresh his memory. (This is particularly ironic given that he has boasted over and over again that he has one of the best memories of anyone in the history of humanity.) During this past week, Trump has again refused to turn over his tax records. He has also demanded that his White House staff (both current and previous) refuse to appear before Congressional committees, even when they have been subpoenaed. It sure seems that he is trying to hide information from public view.

The Role of Congress to Evaluate the Report

Barr repeatedly affirmed that Mueller never said that the report was to be evaluated by the Congress. This goes directly against Mueller’s testimony. On repeated occasions, Mueller indicates the role of Congress to not only read his report, but if necessary, to act upon it. For example, “The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The Report also states, “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” It is quite clear that Mueller wants Congress to evaluate his findings.

“Sincere” Beliefs?

Attorney General Barr made an unusual comment that has not received much comment by the press. He claimed that some of President Trump’s actions were based upon his “sincere” beliefs that he was being unfairly attacked. I take issue with the word “sincere”. Only God can determine the sincerity of people’s hearts. So, unless Barr has an infallible connection with God, he should be an impartial Attorney General and not vouch for the sincerity of anyone.

Where do we go from here?

The two options that are generally proposed are: (1) We should forget about the Report and move on with other challenges; or (2) Congress should begin impeachment procedures now. I disagree with the first option because the serious Russia threat needs to be addressed and because Mueller has placed the ball in Congress’ court. I am against the second option because an impeachment procedure is painful and divisive for the entire nation and should only be entered into after thoughtful deliberations. I urge a third way. It is the responsibility of Congress to clarify remaining doubts and answer lingering questions by calling Mueller, Barr, McGahn, and others to bear witness to the truth. Let us follow that truth wherever it leads.

A National Emergency?

February 21, 2019

Our political turmoil continues. The negotiators in Congress who were representing the Democrats and Republicans were able to reach compromise legislation on federal spending last week and averted a governmental shutdown. The legislation passed with overwhelming, veto-proof, majorities in both chambers. The bill dealt with border security, but only authorized $1.375 billion dollars for the construction of 200 miles of a new barrier along the border between Mexico and the United States. This was much less than the $5.7 billion that Trump had requested. On Friday, February 15, President Trump announced that he would sign the legislation into law, but that he was also declaring a national emergency in order to secure more funds for expanded construction of the wall. White House officials say that the declaration would permit the president to redirect $3.6 billion from the military, $2.5 billion from counter-narcotic programs, and $600 million from the Treasury towards wall construction.

Justification for and Weaknesses of the Declaration of Emergency

The 1976 National Emergencies Act is a U.S. federal law that grants special power to the President during an emergency but identifies restrictions for the use of that power. An emergency declaration can be rescinded by a joint resolution of both Chambers of Congress, but this would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and in the Senate in order to override a veto by a president.

Since its enactment, the law has been utilized 59 times, and over thirty of those declarations are still in effect. Republican and Democrat Presidents have invoked it, but this time is different. Previous uses of this act have always enjoyed widespread, bi-partisan acceptance. Recent examples include (1) the prohibition of the importation into the U.S. of diamonds from Sierra Leone {Clinton Executive Order 13194} and (2) the blocking of property of individuals contributing to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo {Bush Executive Order 13413}. Although these and other declarations are somewhat important for those involved, they hardly rise to the level of a “national emergency”.

What is new in Trump’s Declaration is that he wants to transfer funds authorized for other purposes into the construction of the border wall. In its federal spending bill, Congress specifically prohibited the use of funds beyond the $1.375 billion for the construction of a new wall. The U.S. Constitution maintains a fairly clear separation of powers of the three branches of our government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial). It is the Congress that has the “power of the purse”, that is, the responsibility to authorize federal spending, not the Presidency.

How will this conflict play out? It is likely that challenges will take place in both Congress and in the Courts.

Challenges in Congress

Now that the Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives, it is very likely that Speaker Pelosi will introduce a Joint Resolution to rescind Trump’s emergency declaration. It is also likely that the resolution would pass the House with a substantial majority. Through a special provision, the Senate would have to vote on that same legislation within a short period of time. Republican Senate Leader McConnell would probably not want to bring any legislation to the floor in which Trump would lose the vote, but in this case McConnell would not have any other option. Many Republican Senators (including Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Marco Rubio) have expressed that the declaration would establish a “dangerous precedent” and, as a consequence, they would support a resolution to rescind the emergency declaration.[1]

It is not so likely that such a Joint Resolution would garner the two/thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which would be needed to override a Trump veto.

Challenges in the Courts

In his White House speech, President Trump himself predicted that his emergency declaration would be challenged in the courts. “They will sue in the 9^th Circuit (Court of Appeals) even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we will get another bad ruling and then we will end up in the Supreme Court and hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court, just like the (travel) ban.”[2] Trump made these comments in a sing-song fashion as if to ridicule the judicial process, but in fact, he is probably correct in predicting what would happen in the various venues of the legal proceedings.

As of today (February 21, 2019), sixteen states have begun proceedings to sue the President. The legal suit claims “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border.”

Some other legal proceedings will probably come from ranchers who own land on the Southwest Border who do not want their land taken by the government through the use of “eminent domain”.

It is also possible that Democrats in Congress will sue the President, but I think they will express their disapproval through a vote on a joint resolution to rescind the declaration.

In the end, it is likely that the legal proceedings will reach the Supreme Court. The decision they might reach is somewhat difficult to predict. Although “Conservatives” have a 5/4 majority in the Supreme Court, it is not at all certain how they will rule. The newest Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, is known to be in favor of expanding powers for the presidency and would probably vote in favor of the declaration of national emergency. Nevertheless, other conservative justices usually tend to defend the constitution over “extenuating circumstances” and might rule that Trump has violated the law.

At times, President Trump has shown himself to be brilliant in his use of social media to advance his goals (tweets, rallies, etc.). At other times, he has made mistakes that have hurt his cause. His Rose Garden speech on February 15 was not one of his better moments. He made statements that weakened his argument that border wall construction was an “emergency”.

If it were truly an “emergency”, the border wall construction should have been his only topic. Nevertheless, he started his speech by rambling about a host of other items: Brexit, trade, Syria, North Korea, praising himself for being suggested for the Nobel peace prize, etc. before he got to the main issue of the “national emergency”.
During the speech he referred to his emergency declaration and claimed, “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” Emergencies usually require urgent action. By his own words, he unintentionally admitted that the declaration was not urgent, merely just convenient.
After the speech, Trump spent the weekend on vacation at one of his resorts in Florida. Although presidents have the right to go on vacation, it gives an apparently contradictory message to declare an emergency and then go play golf.

My Reflections

Those Republicans in Congress who believe that Trump’s declaration of national emergency was a violation of the law, should vote their conscience instead of giving in to “party loyalty”. Partisanship does not outweigh ethical convictions. It will be important to notice how Republican voters respond to the Senators and Representatives who vote their conscience.
Democrats should avoid “overreach”. They hurt their own cause when they overstate their case. They should stick to the facts. They also need to repeat over and over again why they believe the border security bill was good and sufficient (increased number of ICE personnel, asylum judges, and inspection agents at the ports of entry, the use of better surveillance technology, etc.)
The Supreme Court should evaluate whether this was a valid, legitimate use of the 1976 National Emergencies Act or whether it was a violation of that Act, especially the transfer of large sums of previously designated funds.
Congress should revisit the 1976 National Emergencies Act and, where necessary, make explicit what activities are considered emergencies and those that are not. This Act needs to be updated.
According to all the national polls, most U.S. citizens do not favor declaring a national emergency to obtain funds to build to build a border wall. Nevertheless, a significant majority of Republicans do favor such a declaration. So, even if Trump loses a joint resolution in Congress and/or rulings in the courts, he will repeatedly affirm that he has fought the good fight to be true to his campaign promises. Most of his political base will stick with him and he hopes that this will be sufficient to win the 2020 election. It is important to see if he can keep independent voters. At the present, the majority of independents view this border wall construction as a campaign promise that is not the best way to provide border security.
There is a national crisis, but it is not the need to construct 200 more miles of a wall along the border. There exists a moral crisis. There is a need for more truth in the discussions about the great moral challenges of our day. We the People need to demand, and live, the truth.

[1] See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-warns-trump-republicans-against-emergency-declaration-on-border-funding/2019/02/14/cf6f492c-3099-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.705f470cf319 for statements by Rubio and other Republican senators who have expressed they would vote in favor of a joint resolution to rescind the emergency declaration.

[2] https://nypost.com/2019/02/15/trump-predicts-he-will-ultimately-win-legal-challenges-to-border-wall/