Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) disappointed me this week by telling constituents he supported Trump but wasn’t so sure on the tariffs.  I should not have been surprised, even a little.  McConnell, if nothing else is a party loyalist, someone I call a “congenital Republican.”  The term is not a compliment.

While McConnell and close to every other Republican in Congress should be considered lost causes, I am encouraged by the growing numbers of people who have reassessed Trump and determined his return to the White House is a national crisis.  I wonder if the campaign to end Trumpism—and I mean ending the “rule by intimidation and Executive Orders” administration of Trump—is possible.

I say it is.  The dangers and recklessness of Trump are self-evident. It is there for anyone who tries hard enough to see.  The answer, my friend is blowing in the wind.

What is that answer? There are, I hope, many ways to find it, but my recommended way for Trump skeptics looking to do the right thing, is to ask themselves a few yes or no questions.  The answers point to the only response—to reject Trump and join the effort to persuade others to do the same.

Here are the questions:

Do you support the Constitution? A no answer means that President Trump’s autocratic approach to government, which entails defying courts, ignoring statutes, and intimidating the legislature into acquiescing in the president dismantling the government is contrary to the Constitution.  The Constitution provides for three branches of government, not one.  The president cannot ignore court orders and laws passed by Congress and say he loves the Constitution.  To do so is a lie. A yes answer means rejecting Trump.

Do you support the Rule of Law?  This question may seem duplicative but is raised by President Trump’s campaign of terror and intimidation against undocumented migrants as well as against his perceived political enemies, and the imposition of penalties on law firms, institutions of higher education, and individuals without due process of law.

Where do you start with documenting Trump’s utter disdain for the Rule of Law?  Start with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man sent to El Salvador “by administrative error” by the Trump administration.  The administration now, belatedly, is offering “proof” that Garcia was not in the U.S. legally and was likely a member of a gang.  Democrats, and even a Fox News commentator, are saying, “prove it.”  The Rule of Law suggests that Garcia should have his day in court.  That means returning him to the U.S. and resolving the questions regarding his legal status and deportation in a court of law.

Apart from Nazi-like deportation of persons deemed enemies of the state, Trump has unilaterally, and illegally, imposed penalties on institutions of higher education, law firms, and individuals.  In each case, Trump has listed grievances but not put forth evidence of violations of law or contracts.  

Do you believe Free Trade contributes to peace?  Trump’s tariff policies are turning much of the world into America’s enemies.  Yes, countries are now coming to Washington to seek revisions to Trump’s tariffs, but that should not be mistaken for accepting the legitimacy of the “reciprocal tariffs.”  The bitter taste of American arrogance will last a long time.  And if some countries—say, China—determine that an acceptable compromise with the U.S. is not possible, the trade war will turn into another type of war.  Why take the risk of this happening?

Do you believe in Democracy?  Remember that Trump told an audience in 2024 that if he won the presidency, future elections may not be necessary.  What did he mean?  President Trump has demonstrated a rejection of the will of the people, as executed through an election, in the most dramatic way possible—when he lost, he rejected the loss and sought to overturn the election and remain in power.

Amazingly, Trump keeps talking about the “theft” of the 2020 election.  Given that he is back in the White House, that isn’t necessary.  So why is he doing it?  Because he anticipates that voters will eventually reject his autocratic rule and demand the return to democracy.

Ask yourself my four questions.  Try to be honest.  If you don’t believe in three separate but equal branches of government, you must reject Trump.  If you are not okay with the White House violating court orders and denying due process to individuals and institutions, you must reject Trump.  If you believe the U.S. is a member of a community of nations and not the self-appointed world empire, you must reject Trump.  And if you still believe Trump won the 2020 election and that “elections are rigged” against him, see a psychiatrist immediately after you reject Trump. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Less than three months into what will be a long four years, President Trump has changed America. Things that were abnormal, and in some cases unimaginable, are now a new normal. Things like accidentally sending an unjustly accused man to a harsh Venezuelan prison, telling America there is nothing to be done about returning the deportee to America, and then defying a court order when told to “facilitate” a return. And, of course, recklessly imposing mammoth tariffs and precipitating an eleven billion dollar decline in the value of the stock market.

And then there is Trump hawking “Teslers” in front of the White House, taking a lap in the presidential limo at a stock car race, and redecorating the Oval Office in garish gold.

I ask myself, sometimes daily, what is going on? Is there a rhyme to Trump’s reason? Maybe I do have some strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome because I can’t find one. I simply reassure friends who claim that “Trump is not right (in the head)” that “this can’t go on.”

This month, after more than eleven weeks of endless Executive Orders, some on paper straws and water pressure in shower heads, as well as angry retribution against perceived enemies, movement is being seen. Trump is shedding supporters. Yes, even true believers, some of them at least, are starting to question Trump.

I wish I could credit the Democrats for this welcome and hopefully-not-too-late movement away from Trump. Some in the party, including Bernie Sanders, AOC, and 25-hour speechmaker Senator Cory Booker, deserve some credit, but the President himself is paving his road out of town. He’s doing it by prompting questions.

Questions are often the best means of finding the truth, but they also are a powerful weapon against autocracy. And people are asking questions. Lots of questions. Questions that Trump, and even Press Secretary Karoline Levitt, a woman friends from New Jersey have called “a piece of work,” can’t answer. Questions like, “Why are you defying court orders?”

Here are a few:

Trump met with right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer (look her up if you are not familiar with her), who advised the President that two national security advisors were not “loyal.”  Trump fired them. Is the President taking personnel advice from Loomer? Why?

Who in the White House developed the formula for Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs?” The tariff rates have been described as unrelated to tariffs but instead reflect, in part,  trade deficits with individual countries. Why were tariffs imposed on an uninhabited island, but not on Russia? And, most importantly, now that the U.S. (and world) economy has been shaken to its core, why is Trump willing to precipitate a world depression?

Is Trump aiding or participating in insider stock trading? Anyone knowing that Trump was about to “pause” most of his tariffs could have bought stocks low and sold them high the next day. Senators Schiff and Gallego want to know who knew what when. They smell a rat.

Why did President Trump appoint clearly unqualified people to cabinet-level offices, especially RFK, Jr.? Check the spread of measles across the south and southwest, especially Texas. My personal question: Why haven’t you fired RFK, Jr.?

And what about “Signalgate?” Why did President Trump’s National Security Advisor accidentally add an Atlantic Magazine writer to the text exchange? More importantly, why did none of the other call participants confirm who was on the text exchange?

And what about retribution? Law firms are being extorted for representing clients and, just this week, a former Trump official has been accused of treason for questioning Trump’s policies during the President’s first term. My question:  Will Attorney General Pam Bondi seek an indictment for someone who disputed Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen?

Trump is sinking in the polls but seems too busy golfing to notice. Or too busy redecorating the Oval Office in gold, watching Elon Musk dismember the federal government, and otherwise engaging in behavior that is reminiscent of Benito Mussolini, the man who in addition to forming a disastrous alliance with Hitler, sought to take Italy into a golden age.

The people—Trump supporters and everyone else—are starting to realize what Trump’s America is. It is an America where Social Security offices are closed or woefully understaffed; where veterans are losing access to essential services; where federal support for education, the arts, and humanities is being slashed; and where Trump is making Canada and Mexico look elsewhere for friends.

Dare I say it? This nonsense cannot go on. Mr. President, your policies are impacting people’s everyday lives, including the people who voted for you.  Do you have no shame?

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.  

Until recently, I had assumed that there were Tesla dealerships on the Eastern Shore even though I had never seen one. There aren’t any. Tesla Cybertrucks are still rare on the Eastern Shore. Still, you are more likely to see a Tesla sedan than a Buick or Cadillac. Were people driving to Bethesda to buy their cars? 

Remember when Teslas first came on the market? Buying one was doing something to fight climate change. Hollywood stars traded in their Mercedes sports cars, and sometimes their Toyota Priuses, to be seen stepping out of a Tesla when making their entrances onto the Oscars’ red carpet.

I remember thinking about buying a Tesla, but, given recent events, I’m sure glad I didn’t. I’d prefer not to drive a car with “F*ck Elon” painted on its side. 

Want to see a Cybertruck? If you can’t get into the Fox News parking lot, try a California junkyard. There, in addition to the Cybertrucks that caught fire with no assistance from an anti-Trump or anti-Musk “lunatic,” you will find Cybertrucks torched in protest to DOGE and Trump. 

President Trump,  confident that he knows unfairness when he sees it, expressed outrage against people venting their anger and attempting to draw attention to what they see as an authoritarian takeover of government, by vandalizing Teslas. 

Said Trump, “I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20-year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla. Perhaps they could serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions!”

The President has directed the FBI and the Department of Justice to track down those responsible. Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are on the case. 

There is irony in Trump’s anger. He pardoned his “January 6 Patriots,” who Trump described as peace-loving people venting their anger after Trump lost the 2020 election. Trump convinced them that the election had been stolen, which, in Trump’s mind, justified their violence against police officers and the Capitol. The anger of the people protesting DOGE is different, right?

President Trump is now considering compensating the “January 6 Patriots” because they were treated “so unfairly.”  A concert by the now world-renowned “J6 Choir” can’t be far behind.

The Tesla vandals (Musk, Trump, Kash Patel and others call them “terrorists”), like their J6 counterparts, illegally engaged in violence. I don’t see the difference between them and Trump’s “J6 patriots.” Both groups deserve punishment for vandalism, but the President now celebrates one group while subjecting the other to a nationwide hunt, with harsh punishment promised.

Elon Musk was surprised when the vandalism against his cars started. He told Fox News: “It’s actually disadvantageous for me to be in the government, not advantageous. My companies are suffering because I’m in the government.” Musk added, “Do you think it helps sales if (Tesla) dealerships are gonna be fire-bombed? Of course not.”

Musk is, of course, right, but while I join him in condemning the violence, I am not about to pull out my violin. He has received over $38 billion in government contracts and, as head of DOGE, will receive more, which is one explanation of why he joined the Trump administration as a “volunteer.”

Musk will suffer millions of dollars in losses in the stock market value of Tesla, but he is the world’s richest human. The economic harm he will suffer is nothing compared to that of the tens of thousands of federal employees that Musk and his DOGE team members have fired. 

Those of us on the Eastern Shore who have friends who worked for the federal government know that DOGE has caused more pain and suffering than the Tesla vandals would cause Musk if they torched every Tesla ever built and every Tesla dealership. There just isn’t any comparison. 

I hope the FBI crackdown on violence against Teslas will be successful. Nobody wins when violence is tolerated. The Tesla vandals are not heroes. If arrested, just like the January 6 insurrectionists, they should be prosecuted for their crimes and not be pardoned by the president or compensated for being “treated very unfairly.”  

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack. 

Mr. Dean will be on travel next week.  His column will return on April 16.

 

Can someone help me contact Taylor Sheridan? You know, the creator of Yellowstone, 1923, 1883 and other hit miniseries involving the Dutton Family. I want to pitch an idea to him. My series would be “Trump 2.0: A House of Cards,” not the most original title, but it fits.

My brainstorm arrived after I had already completed a draft column for this week titled, “Is the Trump honeymoon over?”  I speculated that the public, even here on the Eastern Shore, was starting to question some of what Trump and Musk are doing and realizes that America now finds itself in the middle of a “clusterf**k.”

That column, written only yesterday, has been superseded by events. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally included the editor of The Atlantic on a group text chat about war plans focused on Yemen’s Houthis. The editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, received full, detailed plans for the proposed military action and heard a discussion of actions, including this comment from Vice President Vance: “I just hate bailing out Europe again.”

Pete Hegseth, a ready-made character for a Taylor Sheridan mini-series if there ever was one, is now in a heap of trouble, not only for his role in the chat, held  on a non-government message service called Signal, but for lying about the incident after The Atlantic published Mr. Goldberg’s report on it. 

The incident, likely to be remembered as one of the worst security breaches in recent history, is not the first stumble for the new Trump administration. It is their 100th, with the mistakes coming days after Trump won the election. Remember Matt Gaetz?

By the way, when President Trump was asked about the breach, he said he hoped Mike Waltz had learned his lesson. Really? Nobody is going to be fired? 

But I digress. My point isn’t just that the Trump administration is making mistakes, it is how they are making them. That is where Mr. Sheridan might be interested. Think about the drama and the colorful characters.

The new President strips security details from his predecessor’s family and continues to ridicule the ex-president four months after defeating him.

The President’s marriage appears to be a sham, with the First Lady living in New York and the world’s richest man, a wild Nazi-saluting self-described “genius”, basically moving into the White House.

The President is selling cryptocurrency and other junk while in office. Meanwhile, Netflix pays Melania Trump $40 million to do a biopic of her.

The President appoints a “border czar” who proclaims, “I don’t care what the courts say,” after he ignores court orders and rounds up suspected Venezuelan gang members and deports them with no due process. (The incident reminds me of the “train station” in “Yellowstone,” and that is not a good thing.)

The President’s son rubs cocaine on his gums while watching Elon Musk’s Starship lift off. (Part of the rocket later exploded.)

The President’s ex-daughter-in-law starts dating the man who was once the world’s greatest golfer.

The President redecorates the Oval Office with lots and lots of gold. He also awards Boeing a $20 billion contract for a new jet fighter dubbed the “F-47.”

Then there are the minor characters. One is the son of a Democratic Party icon who sells his soul to Trump after he unsuccessfully runs for president. The son is a conspiracy theorist and former heroin addict. Another is a former governor who disclosed, in her autobiography, that she had once shot her dog in a quarry because it was not easily trained.

You get the idea. The open credits could show a handful of Trump’s buildings and golf courses, a Tesla Cybertruck, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller being himself, and a stack of Executive Orders.

It would not be difficult to find subplots for the first three or four seasons of the series. You have the President’s criminal past, including the failed insurrection, lots of sex scandals, lots of extortion, including against universities and law firms, and, of course a dozen or so Republican legislators, including an extreme-right wing anesthesiologist now representing Maryland, kissing Trump’s behind as the world’s economy (thanks to tariffs) drifts to recession and chaos and Trump himself drifts into insanity.

We should be grateful that people are finally organizing to say “Enough!” to Trump 2.0.  It is not too late to save democracy, but it won’t happen unless the Trump Show is cancelled. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.  

 

April 26 is Oxford Day in Talbot County, a celebration of one of the most historic and scenic small towns in the United States. I will be there, but how many more Oxford Days will there be? Oxford is subject to flooding every year, and it is getting worse.

If the Trump administration has its way, don’t bet on Oxford’s future—or anywhere else on the Eastern Shore. The President is surrendering in the war on climate change. He is changing America’s side in this existential fight—his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, former Congressman Lee Zeldin, is launching an all-out assault on the regulations targeting climate change.

Said Zeldin: “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.” The “more” is to increase corporate profits for his supporters, even at the cost of places like the Eastern Shore.

Zeldin will kill the “climate change religion” by “reconsidering” a long list of existing EPA regulations.  The list is a long one, but worth reading:

• Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0) 

• Reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry (OOOO b/c) 

• Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS) 

• Reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program) 

• Reconsideration of limitations, guidelines, and standards (ELG) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources (Steam Electric ELG) 

• Reconsideration of wastewater regulations for coal power plants to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG) 

• Reconsideration of Biden-Harris Administration Risk Management Program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule) 

• Reconsideration of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations that provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate (Car GHG Rules) 

• Reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding (Endangerment Finding) 

• Reconsideration of technology transition rule that forces companies to use certain technologies that increased costs on food at grocery stores and semiconductor manufacturing (Technology Transition Rule) 

• Reconsideration of Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards that shut down opportunities for American manufacturing and small businesses (PM 2.5 NAAQS) 

• Reconsideration of multiple National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for American energy and manufacturing sectors (NESHAPs) 

• Restructuring the Regional Haze Program that threatened the supply of affordable energy for American families (Regional Haze) 

• Overhauling Biden-Harris Administration’s “Social Cost of Carbon” 

• Redirecting enforcement resources to EPA’s core mission to relieve the economy of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens that drive up costs for American consumers (Enforcement Discretion) 

• Terminating Biden’s Environmental Justice and DEI arms of the agency (EJ/DEI) 

• Ending so-called “Good Neighbor Plan” which the Biden-Harris Administration used to expand federal rules to more states and sectors beyond the program’s traditional focus and led to the rejection of nearly all State Implementation Plans 

• Working with states and tribes to resolve massive backlog with State Implementation Plans and Tribal Implementation Plans that the Biden-Harris Administration refused to resolve (SIPs/TIPs) 

• Reconsideration of exceptional events rulemaking to work with states to prioritize the allowance of prescribed fires within State and Tribal Implementation Plans (Exceptional Events) 

• Reconstituting Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (SAB/CASAC) 

• Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update coal ash regulations (CCR Rule) 

Anyone remotely concerned about the increase in hurricanes, fires, tornados, and, of course, flooding should be worried about the wholesale “reconsideration” of dozens of regulations intended to slow down climate change. 

The Trump administration could have announced a review of select regulations with the goal of making them more efficient. The President and his all-too-eager EPA director chose a different path—they want to “drive a dagger through the heart” of efforts to respond to climate change.

The Eastern Shore should be worried. 

I wonder whether Andy Harris will support Trump’s effort to emasculate the EPA. I bet you know the answer.

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

First District voters who have supported Andy Harris as a “man of principle” better think again. Last week Harris had two decisions to make. First, would he support a budget resolution that increases the federal debt? Second, how would he react to President Trump and Vice President Vance bullying Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office? 

Harris chose Trump over principle twice. 

In April 2024, Harris wrote: “Our national debt is almost $35 trillion. That is over $103,000 per citizen. It is time to get our fiscal house in order.”  The House-passed FY 2026 budget raises the Federal Debt Ceiling by four trillion dollars. Guess who voted for it? Andy Harris. Like every other Republican in the House of Representatives save one, Harris voted “aye.” 

The bill extends and expands Trump’s 2017 tax cuts at a 10-year cost of $4.5 trillion (as much as $11.2 billion if you believe The Committee for a Responsible Budget). 

So much for fiscal responsibility. Harris is putting Trump ahead of principle.

But it gets worse. Donald Trump has adopted Putin’s Russia as our ally. The President has called Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator.” 

Only a little over a year ago, Andy Harris, then Co-Chair of the House Ukraine Caucus, wrote: “Tomorrow marks two years since Vladimir Putin began the brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. In that time, the Ukrainian people have demonstrated extraordinary courage and resolve in the face of evil and have bravely faced down the onslaught of unprovoked Russian aggression on their lives and in their country. I am proud to join my fellow Congressional Ukraine Caucus Members in introducing this new House Resolution to commemorate Ukraine as she stands against the continued, unprovoked, and illegal Russian aggression.”

After Friday’s disastrous Oval Office meeting, Harris dutifully lined up behind nearly every other Congressional Republican to criticize President Zelenskyy rather than Trump. 

Our man in Washington wrote: “It was unbecoming of President Zelenskyy to disrespect the President and Vice-President of the United States on live television in our cherished Oval Office. President Trump rightly pointed out the Russia/Ukraine war could lead to World War III – this calls for diplomatic leadership not grandstanding and performative behavior on the world stage.”

Harris has not disagreed with Trump calling Zelenskyy a dictator and talking about inviting Putin to visit the president in Washington. Will the House Ukraine Caucus expel Harris? It should. 

Another Maryland Congressman, Steny Hoyer reacted differently to last Friday’s Oval Office abuse of President Zelenskyy.  Hoyer wrote: 

“Donald Trump and JD Vance’s treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office today is among the most disgraceful, feckless, and destructive scenes in the annals of American diplomacy. A president who is serious about a just, lasting peace does not invite the leader of a besieged ally to the White House only to berate him in front of the world. The only people talking about World War III are Trump and Vladimir Putin.”

“Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people want peace. They have wanted it ever since Putin illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. They have prayed for it every single one of the 1,100 days since Putin launched his illegal, full-scale invasion of their sovereign nation. Ukrainians correctly recognize, however, that they will never know peace again if they concede to Vladimir Putin’s demands. Neither will the free world. Any agreement that fails to guarantee Ukraine’s security and deal Putin a resounding strategic defeat is not a peace deal – just an opportunity for Russia to recover, rearm, and reinvade in the near future. Crucially, a Russian victory would be an invitation to dictators around the world to take aim at other democratic nations. “

“History makes that lesson plain. Neville Chamberlain did not secure peace by forfeiting Sudetenland. Donald Trump will not secure peace by gifting Putin the Donbas. Appeasing a dictator does not sate his hunger for expansion; it only makes him crave it more.”

“Many of my Republican colleagues profess to know that lesson. Now is the time to prove it. Do not let our Congress – and our country – abandon Ukraine.”

The Eastern Shore needs a Congressional representative who represents its residents, not Donald Trump. I would trade Harris for Hoyer in a microsecond.

Did you know that Andy Harris claims his mother was Ukrainian? I wonder what she would think about her son’s cozying up to Trump as the president abandons Ukraine.

The First District needs someone other than Andy “Handgun” Harris in Washington. You know that. You have heard it before. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Change is in the air in Washington—and on the campuses of America’s colleges and universities. As President Trump implements his campaign to reduce the cost of government, eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, American higher education will change. Given that American higher education has been the envy of the world for more than a century, this is not a good thing.

The Trump administration and conservative Republicans believe that Washington is responsible for what it sees as a liberal bias at many schools. The administration sees higher education, with rare exceptions, as hostile to the GOP. It also believes it is the source of initiatives that are obstacles to America becoming “great” again—things like DEI, academic offerings it sees as “woke,” and efforts to curtail free speech by prohibiting right-wing speakers from campus. 

The new administration, with help from Republicans in Congress, has already attacked elite institutions as anti-Semitic and accused all higher education of wastefulness. 

As the FY 2026 Budget is determined, Republicans see an opportunity to kill more than one bird with the stones of their Project 2025-inspired agenda. Several initiatives already are underway via Executive Orders and institutions have taken notice. African American and gay and lesbian studies have been curtailed at some schools, DEI offices closed, gender or ethnic-specific clubs have been banned. The goal is not to be targeted by Trump for deeper penalties.

The efforts to “get in line” may work for some institutions, but the changes in spending and policy under consideration on Capitol Hill and within the Trump administration will change American higher education for the worse. 

The writers of Project 2025 proposed:

The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate or move OPE [Office of Postsecondary Education] programs to The ETA [Employment and Training Administration] at the Department of Labor. 

This proposal includes major modifications to institutional accreditation to prevent accreditors from requiring things like DEI programs. The goal also is to reorient higher education to increase its focus on job-training. That change conflicts directly with the mission of hundreds of small liberal arts colleges and universities. 

Project 2025 proposed:

Funding to institutions should be block-granted and narrowed to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribally controlled colleges. 

This short-sighted proposal is based on a misunderstanding of federal support for HBCUs and tribally controlled colleges. More Black and other minority students are served at non-HBCUs than at them. If the goal is to increase college attainment for underrepresented populations, cutting funding to institutions that serve such students is a major mistake. For reasons that are not clear, Project 2025 ignores Hispanic-serving institutions altogether. 

Research and other grants are important to hundreds of smaller but high-quality colleges and universities, including public institutions. The ability of these institutions to maintain their quality will be undermined if resources are eliminated. 

The Administration also seeks to move programs deemed important to our national security interests to the Department of State. How is the Department of State supposed to oversee such programs if its staff is cut? And given that most funds involved in these programs involve colleges and universities, the State Department doesn’t have the expertise to administer them.

Project 2025 calls for a complete restructuring of federal student loan programs:

The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA [The Office of Federal Student Aid] and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management.

This proposal calls for returning student lending to banks and other private sector institutions, an action taken in 2010 to reduce the cost of providing student loans. Presumably, the authors of Project 2025 believe creating a “new government corporation” would save money. Maybe call it Sallie Mae 2.0? Hopefully, The Trump Organization is NOT planning to enter the student loan business. 

More important than this change is the proposal to eliminate loan forgiveness and income contingent loan repayment plans including SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education). Project 2025 provides:

The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.

It is unclear what “abuses” Project 2025 was referencing. The language in Project 2025 also would have been more honest had it added, “or not borrow federal student loans at all.”

The proposed changes would dramatically increase the cost of borrowing for college. Hundreds of thousands of students would not be able to afford college, most of them from low to moderate-income families. 

The increased cost of borrowing would also result in hundreds of smaller institutions, many affiliated with churches, closing because they will be unaffordable for most students and the schools have little or no endowment or other means of subsidizing tuition. 

House Republicans have also called for an “excise tax” on the endowments of elite colleges and universities (those with large endowments). The rate is already 1.4 percent. Proposals are now under discussion to increase that rate to 14 or even 20 percent.

This tax increase is seen as a means of punishing elite schools for their “liberal bias, “but also would produce revenue savings that could be used to help pay for extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. One unforeseen result is likely to be a decrease in donations to elite colleges and universities, something that, in the long run, will undermine their excellence.

There are other changes to higher education beyond those referenced in this column. The administration would change Title IX (Ensuring Gender Equity in Education), for example, in a way that would result in fewer athletic opportunities for women attending college.

If you agree that one of the reasons America is great today is because of our colleges and universities and widespread educational opportunity, be afraid of the Republican proposals. They would kill the higher education system that the rest of the world has sought to replicate and put an end to American leadership in technology, science, and engineering. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

Scroll back to 1967 when The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was released. The film was an instant classic. I watched it again recently and enjoyed it thoroughly. That experience led me to do something I’ve done dozens of times since 1967: I used the film’s title as the starting point to analyze something I didn’t like. In this column, I am doing it again.

We are in a “Wild West period” in American politics. A felon is president, and he’s angry. In some ways, he’s on a rampage, energized by power and bent on revenge against people and ideas that he believes wronged him. It’s Old Testament stuff, but the old Donald Trump remains there. He wants to be remembered as a great man despite January 6 and a chaotic first term in the White House. And to achieve that, he must do “big things” and diminish the reputations and legacies of Presidents Biden and Obama and others. Taylor Swift, for example, has repeatedly been the target of juvenile Trump social media posts.

You need a scorecard to keep track of everything Trump has done since winning the November election. (If you want a list, you can find one in the February 9th edition of the New York Times.) Trump has been busy. To keep track, I read the news, discuss issues with others involved in public policy, and monitor Trump’s social media posts (as well as those of his effective co-president, Musk). It isn’t easy to know who is on first.

Where do some of these crazy ideas come from? Why did Trump choose people who he knew, or should have known, were cringeworthy for his cabinet? And how has he managed to create a team that, despite an agenda structured to glorify 78-year-old Trump, shows up to work daily ready to deconstruct government and engage in actions that, with few exceptions, end up in court battles?

To aid in my efforts to understand Trumpism, I expanded the “analytical structure” of the 1967 Clint Eastwood film by adding “The Insane.” I did this because some of Trump’s thinking, relating to his “J6 Patriots,” the Middle East, Canada, and “terminating” the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, can only be categorized as crazy.

Here is part of my working list of what Trump has done since election day 2024:

The Good. 

I don’t have anything yet. It is good that illegal border crossings are down, but that arguable “good” outcome results from Trump’s massive ICE crackdown, which includes mass arrests and, most recently, warehousing arrestees in Guantanamo Bay, where critics accuse Trump of building a “concentration camp.”

The Bad.

Cabinet nominees unfit for service because of lack of experience (Hegseth), doubts about loyalty to the United States (Gabbard), or their personal histories (RFK, Jr., Pete Hegseth, Gaetz, and several others). Did you read that RFK, Jr. disclosed massive credit card debt on his financial disclosure forms? What type of person, regardless of their wealth, has a balance of $1 million in card debt?

Can we admit that Elon Musk is “on the scale” and is not the world’s greatest genius? Trump has set Musk loose with the instruction to deconstruct the federal government as a “special employee” of the U.S. Musk’s DOGE, using young, inexperienced people, many from Musk’s SpaceX or Tesla, is evaluating and recommending the “termination” of federal agencies about which they know little or nothing.

Musk contributed $288 million to the Trump campaign. Why would he do that, regardless of his wealth? And why do you think Musk hates government regulation?

How about nominating Ivanka’s father-in-law — a convicted felon — to serve as ambassador to France? That is more than a garden-variety faux pas.

Suspending the enforcement of a statute that criminalizes U.S. businesses engaging in bribery (The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

Canceling President Biden’s security briefing.

Canceling security details for Dr. Fauci, John Bolton, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Canceling security briefings for former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Wouldn’t using both as resources on national security issues make better sense?

Removing General Milley’s portrait from the wall in the Pentagon. Petty, petty, petty.

The Insane:

Talking about “taking ownership” of Gaza. Most of us gasped when we heard this nonsense. U.S. foreign policy should not be hijacked to create real estate development opportunities.

Pardoning January 6 insurrectionists that injured police and destroyed property. One has already been shot dead by police while resisting arrest for a new crime.

Suggesting Canada should be “The 51st State.” Trump was not kidding.

The Panama Canal and Greenland. Imperialism is alive and well inside the White House (or, better said, inside the president’s brain).

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Why?

My analysis could go on. My point? The president has chosen to launch dozens of actions that conflict with the law, are poorly thought-out, alienate allies, and Make America Look Foolish Again.

Many of Trump’s illegal actions are already before the courts. Judges are issuing injunctions and blocking the implementation of many of Trump’s Executive Orders. Sadly, Presidents Musk and Trump have condemned the courts for their actions and will likely continue implementing their plans while appealing the court action.

An impeachment resolution (the first of many) has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. Trump should be lawyering up for another House impeachment, likely if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the 2026 elections.

A growing number of Americans are taking a look at what Trump has done in less than a month in office and do not like it. Widespread protests against Trump are coming, and none too soon.

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.