SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
adam kinzinger
Judge Tosses Trump's $10 Billion Wall Street Journal-Murdoch Suit Over Epstein Reporting
The fight seemingly isn't over, with a spokesperson for the president pledging that he will "refile this powerhouse lawsuit," which critics have called part of his war on free speech.
Apr 13, 2026
A Florida-based federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a "bawdy" birthday letter the Republican allegedly gave to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump denies writing the letter or drawing the outline of a naked woman around the text. He sued the journalists behind the July report—Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar—and the newspaper, plus its parent company News Corp, chief executive Robert Thomson, and founder Rupert Murdoch.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently subpoenaed the Epstein estate for all materials that now-imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly compiled for the dead financier's birthday book, including the letter attributed to Trump—and in September, the panel published those documents online.
US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, found on Monday that Trump's "complaint fails to adequately allege actual malice." However, Gayles also gave Trump the opportunity to amend his filing within the next two weeks.
While The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement that the president intends to continue the case.
"President Trump will follow Judge Gayles' ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," the spokesperson said. "The president will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People."
CNN noted that despite the legal battle, "the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a cozy if complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months."
The suit over the birthday letter to Epstein—whom Trump was publicly friends with in the 1980s and '90s until a reported falling out in the early 2000s—is just part of a sweeping effort by the president and his political enablers "to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected under the First Amendment," as the advocacy group Free Press put it in a December analysis.
In addition to the Journal case, examples included Trump's legal battles with the BBC and The New York Times, the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, the administration blocking The Associated Press from the Oval Office over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, ABC temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following comments from Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, and the Pentagon's legally contested media policy.
Such attacks continue. Last month, as the costs of his unconstitutional war on Iran mounted, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Makes No Sense’: NATO Allies Bash Trump’s Strait of Hormuz Blockade as Oil Rises Above $100 a Barrel
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Spain's foreign minister.
Apr 13, 2026
Contrary to President Donald Trump's claim that "other countries will be involved" in imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz after ceasefire talks ended over the weekend without a deal with Iran, North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries on Monday made clear they did not plan to join Trump's effort as the news of the blockade sent global oil prices skyrocketing once again.
“We are not supporting the blockade," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC Monday before the closure began at 10:00 am Eastern time. “It is in my view vital that we get the strait open and fully open, and that’s where we’ve put all of our efforts in the last few weeks, and we’ll continue to do so."
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened through diplomatic means, while Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles told Al Jazeera that Trump's decision to block ships “entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas" in the strait "makes no sense."
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Robles, who along with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has vehemently condemned the US and Israel's decision to go to war with Iran and has refused to involve Spain's military assets in the conflict.
Starmer called the closure of the strait "deeply damaging" and said that this week the UK and France will convene a summit "to advance work on a coordinated, independent, multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends."
US Central Command said Monday that US forces “will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports," appearing to step back from Trump's original Sunday statement, which he reiterated Monday on Fox News, that he would impose a "complete blockade" on the key trade waterway.
The news of the blockade came after Iranian negotiators accused Vice President JD Vance of acting in bad faith in the high-level ceasefire talks and Vance claimed Iran would not comply with US demands regarding nuclear development.
The two-week ceasefire deal that was announced last Tuesday—just before a deadline Trump had imposed, saying the US would obliterate Iran's "whole civilization" unless the government struck a deal—sent oil and gas prices tumbling blow $100 per barrel, but prices rose again after Trump's new threat of a blockade.
Brent crude prices were at $102.52 per barrel on Monday, a 7.7% increase, while US crude also rose nearly 8% to $104.02. The UK's wholesale gas contract for the month of May rose by 11.7%.
About 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz before Iran effectively closed the waterway after the US and Israel began the war, as well as major shipments of fertilizer.
Priyanka Sachdeva, a senior market analyst at the broker Phillip Nova, told The Guardian that "the market reaction" to Trump's threat "underscores a simple but powerful reality: Hormuz risk is not theoretical; it is structural, and it is real.”
“In today’s environment, every barrel of risk added to oil markets carries an inflation price tag for the global economy," Sachdeva said.
Trump's threat of a blockade included any ship that has paid Iran a toll to pass through the strait since the Middle Eastern country began its blockade, with the president accusing Iran of "extortion."
At Responsible Statecraft, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos wrote on Sunday that under Trump's threat, the US is now planning to block "major allies."
"The Philippines is a treaty ally and gets 98% of its energy resources through the strait," Vlahos wrote. "A Japanese vessel carrying liquefied natural gas reportedly passed through the strait two weeks ago."
Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said the US blockade "is another step toward a might-makes-right world."
"Illegalities are being heaped on top of illegalities. The attack on Iran that started this war was compounded by Tehran's seizure of the Strait of Hormuz. Washington's blockade of the strait has further upped the ante," said Shidore.
An adviser to Iranian Supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said that Iran has "large, untouched levels" to fight back against a US blockade, while Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, said that Americans will soon "be nostaligic for $4-$5 gas."
At The Conversation, international law professor Donald Rothwell of Australian National University wrote that Trump's blockade would "certainly" imperil the fragile temporary ceasefire while roiling international markets.
"In purely legal terms, if the US imposes a blockade then the ceasefire is over and hostilities have resumed," wrote Rothwell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Did Trump Just Light the Match for World War III?
The most important lesson of the First World War is that leaders who think they can manage escalation usually can’t.
Apr 13, 2026
Saturday’s back-to-back headlines on The Washington Post were: “‘They Have Chosen Not To Accept Our Terms,’ Vance Says” and “U.S. Intelligence Shows China Taking A More Active Role In Iran War.” They echo headlines from a century ago that reported on the early days of what quickly became World War I.
In 2021, China and Iran became military allies, signing a “broad strategic partnership encompassing economic, diplomatic, and security dimensions.” Russia signed a similar comprehensive military/security agreement with Iran in January of last year. The three countries are now military allies and formally assisting each other. Hold that thought.
Then, on Sunday morning, America’s resident madman Donald Trump announced on his Nazi-infested social media site that the United States Navy will illegally blockade the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow chokepoint through which twenty percent of the world’s oil used to flow every day—threatening to intercept “every vessel in International Waters” that’s paid a toll to Iran.
The US blockade of the Strait begins the hour that this article was published: 10 AM ET on Monday, April 13th.
What happens when a US destroyer orders a Chinese-flagged tanker to heave to in the Strait of Hormuz and a Chinese warship sails between them?
That means all the shipping of oil for China and drones for Russia will be intercepted by the US. We’re now blocking the war and energy supplies of nations that have nuclear weapons and whose military assets are already in the region. And it came just hours after the peace talks in Islamabad—led by three American grifters with absolutely no diplomatic experience—had predictably collapsed.
What happens next will depend entirely on whether anyone in this administration has ever seriously studied what happened the last time a similar cascade of great-power commitments, cornered leaders, and military miscalculations all converged at once.
A hundred and twelve years ago this summer, a young Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip fired two shots in Sarajevo, killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.
What followed was a deadly catastrophe, because every major European power had spent the previous forty years putting together mutual defense treaties with other major European powers.
(In the 1908 Bosnian Crisis Austria-Hungary had annexed Bosnia, land that Serbia claimed; the Serbs were humiliated and furious. The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 left Serbia stronger and more willing to reach out to the Slavic people still living under Austria-Hungarian rule, particularly those in Bosnia, further enraging the Austria-Hungarians.)
Everybody was armed to the teeth and, frankly, paranoid about everybody else. So, when Franz Ferdinand’s assassination gave Austria-Hungary an excuse to punish it’s longtime enemy Serbia, those treaties clicked into place like the tumblers of a massive combination lock and the doors of hell swung open onto the most catastrophic war the world had, at that time, ever seen.
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia, bound by pan-Slavic solidarity and treaty, mobilized. Germany, allied with Austria-Hungary and seeing the Russian mobilization, declared war on Russia. The Franco-Russian alliance dragged France in.
Once the fighting started, Germany’s Schlieffen Plan required invading France through neutral Belgium, which triggered Britain’s 1839 treaty obligation to protect Belgian neutrality.
Within six weeks of two pistol shots in Sarajevo, virtually every major power in Europe was engaged in a brutal war that escalated with the inevitability and power of a landslide. The leaders who set the whole machine in motion genuinely believed they could control the escalation, but they were terribly and tragically wrong. The interlocking agreements and past hostilities simply took over, and seventeen million people died.
I’ve been thinking about Sarajevo a lot this week, because what’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz right now follows the same terrifying script, except that this time, the European, Middle Eastern, and Asian powers that are being pulled toward what could easily become World War III all have nuclear weapons.
Here’s how we got here:
Benjamin Netanyahu made six trips to the White House in the year before the war began, each time pressing Trump and his old family friend Jared Kushner with the argument that Iran was ripe for regime change, that the mullahs were one good strike away from falling, and that history was calling.
What the New York Times’ reporting now makes clear—and what Trump’s own CIA director and secretary of state reportedly called “farcical” and “bullshit” in private—is that Netanyahu had an overwhelming personal reason to want this war: he’s been fighting a fraud, bribery, and breach-of-trust criminal trial that could put him in prison if he’s convicted.
Wars are good for embattled leaders: they can generate emergency status and even pause court proceedings. And when this war started on February 28th, Netanyahu’s trial did indeed grind to a halt under Israel’s wartime court emergency rules, which had to be repeatedly extended. The trial is only now, this week, resuming. (Trump, to help his fellow authoritarian, has been publicly pressuring Israel’s president to pardon Netanyahu, telling him to do it “today” and calling him a “disgrace” for hesitating.)
So Trump (himself facing a crisis from the Epstein documents and accusations of raping a 13-year-old girl) and “Whiskey Pete” Hegseth (who simply loves war) launched a bloody confrontation in which one of the key decision-makers’ primary motivation—at least on the Israeli side—was to keep himself out of prison.
And 44 days later, the man who should be in the defendant’s chair is instead flying into southern Lebanon to pose with troops (his popularity is now sky-high in Israel because of the war) while the United States Navy blockades one of the most consequential waterways on the planet.
Yesterday, Trump posted to his failing social media site a declaration that may end up being seen, in retrospect, much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. He proclaimed that the Navy will begin “BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” and will “seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran.”
That last sentence is the one that could rock the planet, because, as the independent National Security Desk analysis makes clear, Trump’s phrase “every vessel in International Waters” is a global directive. It means the US Navy now officially claims the legal right to board, search, and seize foreign ships anywhere on the world’s oceans as well as the ships of any nation trying to pass through the Strait.
Under international maritime law, that’s called “piracy.” And here’s the other parallel to the tensions between Austria-Hungary and Serbia back in the day: roughly 80 percent of China’s oil imports that transit the Strait—that Trump just said he will “blockade”—are Chinese-owned or Chinese-connected vessels.
— China already has a Type 055 cruiser, a Type 052D destroyer, and a massive surveillance ship sitting right there in the region, in the Gulf of Oman.
— Chinese satellites have been providing real-time targeting intelligence to Iran throughout this war.
— Russia has been running electronic warfare systems that, according to pre-war assessments, degrade American radar and communications by as much as 80 percent.
— Iran’s military has been successful in killing over a dozen American troops and wounding hundreds — and downing multiple US military aircraft — because of targeting information Putin’s reportedly been giving them.
These are active military contributions to the Iranian war effort right now.
So what happens when a US destroyer orders a Chinese-flagged tanker to heave to in the Strait of Hormuz and a Chinese warship sails between them? Trump has to choose between backing down—and watching the blockade collapse—or firing on the naval vessel of a country with roughly 400 nuclear warheads.
And this isn’t a purely hypothetical scenario. China and its leader Xi Jinping have made it abundantly clear that maintaining an uninterrupted energy supply through the Strait is one of its core national interests; it won’t simply steam away.
On the Russian side, Vladimir Putin is also not a man who responds with moderation to being cornered. And he’s already in deep trouble in his own country, as well as on his back foot in Ukraine.
The Atlantic Council and RAND have both documented that Putin’s domestic position is more stressed than at any point since his brutal and criminal Ukraine invasion began. Russia today faces runaway military spending consuming eight percent of GDP, skyrocketing inflation, fuel shortages, and a society that polls show has grown deeply tired of the war in Ukraine.
Analysts at the Royal United Services Institute have concluded that Putin literally cannot afford to be seen accepting strategic defeat, because the entire justification of his authoritarian model rests on his promise to “restore Russian greatness” (Make Russia Great Again). If he fails, he may not survive. Not just politically, but physically; Russia has a long, ancient history of dealing harshly with failed leaders.
Thus, a cornered, domestically vulnerable Putin with 6,000 nuclear weapons who is already actively helping Iran kill Americans isn’t a guy who backs down gracefully. He’s a leader who escalates.
And to compound things, yesterday one of the most important parts of the worldwide autocratic network Putin’s been building for decades (including his support for Trump’s election and re-election) collapsed.
In Hungary, where Viktor Orbán has spent 16 years building the model of “illiberal democracy” that Trump, Vance, and the Heritage Foundation have openly cited as their template, voters turned out in the highest numbers since the fall of communism—a stunning 78 percent—and handed a decisive victory to opposition leader Péter Magyar and his Tisza party.
In 1914, it took six weeks until the dogs of all-out-war were fully unleashed. This time, we’re already 43 days in, and we have destroyers parked in a mined strait that China needs to stay alive economically and Russia would love to see humiliate the United States and Europe.
Vice President Vance was just there last week, rallying with Orbán, promising Trump’s “economic might” to help out Hungary (which is suffering under years of corruption and looting by Orbán’s oligarch buddies) if Fidesz held on. Today, that ally is soon to be gone (Magyar takes over in May). The worldwide autocrat network, which is now largely led by Putin, Trump, Orbán, and Netanyahu, is beginning to fracture at its European edge.
When great powers are simultaneously cornered along with a smaller ally, when their leaders face domestic crises that demand the appearance of strength, when interlocking military commitments are already active and drawing them toward conflict, that’s when the world has historically stumbled into catastrophes that nobody wanted and nobody planned.
In 1914, it took six weeks until the dogs of all-out-war were fully unleashed. This time, we’re already 43 days in, and we have destroyers parked in a mined strait that China needs to stay alive economically and Russia would love to see humiliate the United States and Europe.
Louise and I have traveled the world extensively; I’ve stood in the World War I cemeteries of France and Belgium, with row after row of white crosses stretching to the horizon, and been stunned by the fact that every one of those young men died in a war that the people who started it genuinely believed they could control.
The lesson of WWI is that leaders who think they can manage escalation usually can’t.
The time to speak up is right now, before the tumblers click into place. Call your senators and representative (you can reach them through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121) and tell them to support the Democrats’ War Powers Resolution that could stop Trump from going even farther down this treacherous, deadly, possibly-planet-destroying road.
Congress must reassert its constitutional war-making authority: under our Constitution, no president gets to blockade an international waterway with a social media post, and the American people didn’t vote for a nuclear confrontation with China and Russia over Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial. Trump must be impeached now.
And make sure you’re registered to vote and that everyone you know is registered, because the November 2026 midterms are the most direct democratic check we still have on where this is all heading. Check your registration at Vote.gov.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Erosion of Moral Leadership: Trump’s War With Iran
A nation that persists in waging illegal war and pirating resources for profit, risks becoming a pariah in the international community, and its soldiers who blindly follow orders without critical analysis, war criminals.
Apr 13, 2026
President Donald J. Trump’s current intervention in Iran is not without precedent. It echoes events many Iranians remember well. While Trump and, likely, many Americans may be clueless about the violent history of American-Iranian relations, most Iranians are acutely aware of America’s involvement in the 1953 coup that ousted their democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Following the coup, Iran became a client state of the United States, exploited for its oil, and governed by the Western puppet, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose leadership was marked by oppression and ruthlessness. As a consequence, America’s intervention and the Shah’s corrupt, repressive regime fueled the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the pro-Western monarchy and established the anti-Western, theocratic Islamic Republic—the same government President Trump now seeks to overthrow through military action.
Further, despite claims of supporting freedom and democracy in the region, the US provided military intelligence and chemical weapons targeting data to Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s invasion and subsequent bloody eight-year war against Iran. Recently, under President Donald Trump, US and Israeli attacks have resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,500 Iranian civilians, including 175 children killed when a US Tomahawk missile struck a school in Minab.
This legacy of violence perpetrated against the Iranian people over the past 80 years reveals the treachery and hypocrisy of which the United States is capable. While promoting itself as a champion of freedom and democracy, it has repeatedly undermined democratic ideals and governments for its own economic and strategic gain.
Promises Made, Not Kept
During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump criticized the “forever wars” of previous administrations and promised the American people that when elected, he would end foreign entanglements, prioritize domestic issues such as housing affordability, public safety and trust, economic relief, etc. According to his administration’s National Security Strategy, which emphasized non-interventionism, “the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.” Despite these promises, in less than two years of his second term, Trump has intervened militarily at least seven times—in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, Venezuela, and has threatened military action in Cuba, Columbia, and Greenland. These are hardly the actions of someone who has proclaimed himself the “Peace President.”
President Trump has yet to provide Congress, and more importantly the American people, with a clear and coherent rationale for his war with Iran.
In so doing, he has ignored both the Constitution, which grants only to Congress the authority to declare war, and the United Nations Charter, which requires member states to settle disputes peacefully, and to use violence only as a last resort, either in self-defense or with UN Security Council authorization. According to Chapter II, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter to which the United States and Israel are signatory, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
When called to task by historical allies for waging illegal war and ignoring the obligation to fight rightly—most notably the dictates of International law—rather than to explain and clarify America’s actions, Trump’s “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth criticized and demeaned our allies by characterizing their legitimate concerns as “wringing their hands and clutching their pearls.” Instead of acknowledging the gravity of these violations of law, Hegseth boasted about the precision and lethality of the slaughter, viewing the large-scale killing of Iranians as something of which to be proud and dismissing restrictions on warfighting—rules of engagement—as “stupid” and as an impediment to achieving victory. At the same time, Trump was demanding NATO Allies come to his aid in reopening the Straits of Hormuz.
In a recent Christian Worship Service at the Pentagon, Hegseth echoed Mark Twain’s The War Prayer, his searing anti-war lament on how religious and patriotic fever blinds people to the cruelty and insanity of war. Clearly misunderstanding Twain’s intent, Hegseth’s prayer was a literal invocation for violence calling for divine wrath against America’s enemies and portraying his war as righteous and necessary:
...Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness... Break the teeth of the ungodly. By the blast of your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter for their day has come, the time of their punishment. Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind.
It is repulsive, how Trump, Hegseth, and General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when recounting the plan of battle, clearly relish describing and emphasizing the KILLING of Iranians and celebrating the violence. Even many war-hardened combat veterans understood that the killing of those deemed the enemy was not something of which to be proud, choosing instead to use euphemisms—“wasting,” “capping,” hosing,” smoking,” etc.—to describe their taking of human life on the battlefield.
As American coffins began returning from the war and were being transferred to a waiting vehicle, Trump violated the “dignity” of the ceremony and again showed his disrespect and contempt for fallen soldiers and their family members by failing to remove his hat and later using a photo of the event in a fundraising email. Perhaps anticipating future fundraising opportunities, Trump prognosticated a warning that the numbers of killed and wounded Americans will increase as death and injury is inevitable in war.
Lessons Learned from War
As a veteran of the American War in Vietnam, I have firsthand knowledge of the realities of war and do not require President Donald Trump, who used his family’s wealth and influence to escape military service, to explain it to me. I know its effects on participant’s bodies, minds, and souls; I’ve lived it and spent a lifetime laboring to understand and to heal from the experience.
I learned that war is abhorrent and should never be entered into lightly. Certainly not as a “wag the dog” distraction from domestic controversies or crimes that Trump may wish to conceal. I learned that there is no glory in war. That war is unwarranted and should be waged only if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged enemy poses a real and imminent existential threat, and then only as a last resort, and after all diplomatic avenues for the peaceful resolution of differences have been fully explored and exhausted.
Whether Trump’s war with Iran satisfies the criteria for a just war (jus ad bellum) is highly doubtful even among Trump’s inner circle. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress in March that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and the late Supreme Leader Khamenei did not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Though I had admired Gabbard’s adamant opposition to unnecessary war when she sought the Democratic nomination for president during the 2020 election cycle, I am disappointed that she lacked the courage of her convictions, changing her position after criticism and intimidation by Trump, claiming, though not very convincingly, that her testimony had been taken out of context by a dishonest media. Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, agreed with Gabbard’s initial assessment and became the first senior Trump Administration official to resign in protest over the Iran war. In a letter to Trump posted on X, Kent wrote: “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby."
Before any military action is undertaken—prior to the dropping of the first bomb or the firing of the first bullet—the commander in chief is obligated to present a clear and compelling justification for war. This process requires formally seeking authorization from Congress in accordance with the Constitution, as only Congress is granted the power to declare war. Furthermore, it is essential that the president request debate and approval from the United Nation’s Security Council, thereby ensuring that the United States’ actions are aligned with International Law and global standards for conflict resolution.
Additionally, before initiating any military action, the president has the responsibility to fully inform the American people about the reasons for the conflict, the precise nature of the threat, and the objectives to be achieved through military engagement. Such transparency is vital to establishing the legitimacy of the war and maintaining the trust of both Congress and the American people.
Further, if the president believes war to be so important and necessary to warrant the inevitable cost in lives, sanity, and resources, then its risks and burdens should be borne by ALL who benefit—not merely by those less fortunate who lack the wealth and influence he enjoyed to avoid “service,” nor solely by other people’s children instead of his own. Wars tend to appear less "necessary" and become less frequent when politicians and those who advocate for war have blood in the game. According to a study conducted by scholars at Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown, politicians and supporters whose children are of military age are less inclined to support war and vote for hawkish policies were their children subject to conscription and required to fight.
America at a Crossroads
A comprehensive report published by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) institute at Sweden's University of Gothenburg has documented a significant decline in the quality of democracy in the United States during President Trump’s tenure. According to this report, several alarming trends have emerged, including the growing concentration of power within the Executive Branch, persistent violations of both domestic and international laws, intentional efforts to bypass Congress, and direct assaults on free speech and the media.
As a consequence of this undermining of the foundational principles of American democracy, the United States has experienced a dramatic drop in its democracy ranking, falling from 20th to 51st place among 179 nations. This decline reflects not only the internal challenges facing American governance but also the broader implications for the nation’s standing as a global model of democratic values.
Trump is not, nor has he ever been, a soldier. Nor does he embody the qualities of a president.
This deterioration of democratic principles has not gone unnoticed. Across the nation, tens of thousands have taken to the streets during events such as the No Kings Days demonstrations voicing their outrage over President Trump’s policies and ongoing wars. In addition, protesters feel the urgency to “take back America,” and to resist the weakening of political rights, civil liberties, the rapid decline toward authoritarian rule, and reaffirming the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution, the framework of government that countless Americans, including those who wore the uniform, took an oath to defend. The message is clear: America is not a monarchy, and President Trump is not a king, despite his apparent desire for the mantle.
President Trump has yet to provide Congress, and more importantly the American people, with a clear and coherent rationale for his war with Iran. There has been no substantive explanation of why it is in America’s interest to sacrifice American lives and to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on the conflict—resources that could better be used on domestic programs such as affordable housing, adequate healthcare, and other social programs. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimate the cost of the war in Iran has already surpassed $38 Billion with the White House now seeking supplemental appropriations that would provide more than $200 billion in additional funding.
In recent public statements and posts on Truth Social, which are often marked by bellicose and vulgar rhetoric, Trump avoids calling the attack on Iran a “war.” Instead, he refers to it as a “military operation” in an apparent attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement for congressional approval for acts of war, as if merely changing the terminology grants him unchecked, monarchical power to kill and to destroy at will.
Conclusion
America stands at a pivotal juncture in our nation's history, a time of great economic and social upheaval. Though the illusion of America’s greatness and beneficence persists, by surrounding himself with spineless, incompetent sycophants and enablers who do his bidding without question, Trump has abandoned principled leadership. As a result, America under Trump has lost its moral compass and forfeited any moral standing or leadership it may have had in the world. Further, by waging illegal wars, threatening war crimes such as the total destruction of the Iranian civilization, seizing millions of gallons of Venezuelan oil, and planning to do the same in Iran (to the victor belongs the spoils), he has denigrated the nobility of the profession of arms and transformed our military into a well-equipped and highly trained band of brigands, marauders, and war criminals.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s attack on Iran without regard for International Law failed to make the Middle East, Israel, the United States, and the world safer. In fact, it probably had the opposite effect. This attack has increased the likelihood of nuclear proliferation by convincing leaders of nonnuclear nations that possessing nuclear weapons is necessary to deter attacks from powerful nuclear states. Interestingly, Israel agrees. Unlike Iran, Israel, while neither confirming nor denying its nuclear arsenal, is widely believed to have some 90 nuclear weapons with enough fissile material to produce hundreds more. Again, unlike Iran, Israel is not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor does it allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, despite numerous demands that it bring all its nuclear facilities under the oversight and safeguards of the IAEA, arguing that maintaining a nuclear deterrence is vital for survival in a hostile region.
Perhaps it is not too late to restore this nation’s integrity, moral character, and sanity. To do so, we must continue building a viable opposition, foster a groundswell of resistance to a political leadership that sees war, violence, tariffs, and intimidation as a tool of governance and a substitute for the hard work of diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences.
Until rational and principled leadership prevails, Trump must be prohibited from initiating policy, especially from sending our military into harm’s way to fight in wars he clearly does not understand, care about, or, as in the past, lacks the courage to participate in himself. A nation that persists in waging illegal war and pirating resources for profit, risks becoming a pariah in the international community, and its soldiers who blindly follow orders without critical analysis, war criminals. War is not a game.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity," said Dwight D. Eisenhower.
...And Trump is not, nor has he ever been, a soldier. Nor does he embody the qualities of a president. Perhaps we should take him at his word and know him by his actions, that he is first and foremost a businessman and war is a convenient tool for increasing his personal wealth and a manifestation of his malignant narcissism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular