In Washington, D.C., a city used to surprises, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis delivered a big one on Sunday. After joining Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) as one of only two Republican votes against supporting a full Senate vote on President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” he announced he will not run for reelection in 2026.

Senator Tillis, a two-term senator, is only 65 years old, middle-aged compared to some of his colleagues. He might have run two or even three more times. But, thanks to President Trump, Tillis stated he will be going home to North Carolina to spend time with his family,

Tillis’ decision is good news for Democrats. They may pick up a seat that otherwise would have remained Republican.

But the decision is bad news for America. Immediately after Tillis announced his decision, Trump condemned and threatened him.

As Tillis put it, “I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population. “

Political scientists tell us that there are two types of representation in the Senate. Some senators vote with their party on most votes. Other senators do their best to represent their constituents. Tillis was one of those latter senators.

I would describe him as courageous. Trump offered this take on the senator: “Thom Tillis has hurt the great people of North Carolina. Even on the catastrophic flooding, nothing was done to help until I took office. Then a MIRACLE took place! Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER! He’s even worse than Rand “Fauci” Paul!”

The President absolutely hates Senator Paul. Incidentally, Paul’s opposition to federal spending and increasing the debt limit are similar to the positions taken by our own Andy “Handgun” Harris. The difference, of course, is that Paul is willing to disagree with the President and vote against legislation inconsistent with his principles. Andy doesn’t have that problem. Remember he voted “present” on the Big Beautiful Bill in the House.

Thom Tillis will not be in the Senate after the 2026 election and, despite my disagreement with him on many issues, his retirement is unfortunate. The Senate needs more members willing to represent their constituents rather than more senators who rubber stamp their party leaders’ positions whether or not they agree with them. But more important is what Tillis’ retirement tells us about the Senate—It is not working.

Tillis was already tired of the fierce partisanship in the Senate before King Donald Trump conceived of a Big Beautiful Bill as the best means of preventing the Senate’s deliberation on the details of the Trump agenda. The bill represents Trump giving the middle finger to Congress, which is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government.

Tillis’ retirement tells us that the Senator concluded serving in the Senate is a waste of time. That conclusion should be deeply troubling to all of us, in part because so many other Republicans appear untroubled with Trump dictating the law of the land.

Maryland is fortunate to have Senate representation that contrasts with that of most Republicans. Senator Chris Van Hollen aggressively represents his constituents, as did former Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. It may be too early to say Senator Alsobrooks will uphold the same high standards, but initial indications are encouraging.

I wish Senator Tillis well. I hope his decision, as disappointing as it is, will prompt other Republicans to ask themselves an important question:  Is the Trump agenda in the best interests of my constituents?

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Early Sunday morning, after I learned that the U.S. had bombed Iran, I commented to a friend, “We are at war.”  My friend responded, “Are we?”  The answer was, in my opinion, yes. But now that a ceasefire appears to be at hand, the answer is “maybe.”  

Regardless of how you want to categorize the attack on Iran, President Trump launched the attack without authorization from Congress. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. President Trump decided that following the Constitution was not practicable or didn’t apply. 

Congressional Democrats are questioning Trump’s action. Representative Al Green (D-TX) introduced an impeachment resolution, but the House voted to table the resolution (kill it) yesterday by a vote of 344-79. One hundred twenty-eight Democrats joined 216 Republicans on the vote.

Is the issue of whether President Trump violated the Constitution “water under the bridge?”  Of course not. If Iran violates the cease-fire, the President will launch more military strikes. And “hostilities” could continue for a long time. 

Thus, I was glad to hear that Congressman Pat Ryan (D-NY), joined 11 other military veteran Democrats in introducing a War Powers Resolution so the issue can be debated.  The Democrats support Trump’s action, but not the absence of Congressional approval.

But enough about whether the President had the authority to launch the attack. What I worry about is what will happen now. I doubt the cease fire announced with great fanfare and self-congratulation by Trump will hold. I hope I am wrong.

Iran has not awakened to the error of its ways. Instead, it may simply be taking a breather from trying to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth and trying to retaliate against the U.S. Israel also is unlikely to stop its attacks on Iran if it concludes doing so is not in its best interests.

And what about the possibility that, despite President Trump’s innumerable claims that the attacks were a complete success, Iran still has weapons-grade enriched uranium? What if Iran’s close ally, Russia, told Iran to stand down for now and promised to assist Iran with retaliation against the U.S. once its war with Ukraine is over, which, unfortunately, could be sooner than most of us appreciate?

Is the Middle East entering a period of peace? No. Iran hates Israel as much as it always has. And it hates the U.S., the “Great Satan,” more than it ever has. And those hatreds will continue for decades. 

I am not ready to congratulate Trump for “victory” in Iran, but I won’t criticize him for the attack either. As I have written elsewhere, I hope the attack did some good. I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I would have preferred that goal to be reached through diplomacy rather than B-2s and 30,000-pound bombs.

Despite the “cease-fire,” which may be violated by the time you read this, I believe America remains at war. Only time will convince me that the risk of additional retaliatory strikes, including attacks inside the U.S., is over. 

This week, I won’t be writing about Trump’s ethical issues, about his crude language, or about his One Big Beautiful Bill, which I still hope fails to pass. For the short term, I will be focused on the horrifying possibility of a long-term war with Iran and pray that doesn’t happen. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack

Last week was a doozy that reminded us that the world is not in a good place. Half the country believes we are in a “golden age,” led by “THE most consequential President in history,” while the other half is marching in the street, decrying fascism. The debate is spirited, but unproductive.

Amidst this debate, some suggest that the problem is not Donald Trump or the Democrats, but both. The theory, and that’s all it is, suggests that both sides are to blame. Both existing political parties, they claim, sow division by vilifying the other with name-calling and an unwillingness to compromise. The solution offered is the creation of a third party, one that is presumed to eschew division and commit itself to finding common ground.

I’m not buying it. As I wrote last week, I find Donald Trump wrong on just about everything. To me and many others, there is no common ground on civil rights. You either believe in equality or you don’t. 

There is also no common ground on providing due process to deportees, thousands of whom have been arrested but not charged with a crime. I reject any “compromise” that gives due process to some people but not others. 

Everyone—no exceptions, no labels—deserves the right to be heard before being herded onto a military aircraft and sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador for the crime of being in the United States. 

I also doubt that those of us who call ourselves independents are ready to join a party that advocates positions on some issues, but not others. For example, the third party may embrace what it calls a middle ground on tariffs, but not the need for Diversity, Inclusion and Equity programs. That will be a non-starter for many independents. They will reject all three parties and remain independent.

I am also amused at the concept that there is a middle ground on a sufficient number of issues for a political party to find one. God, for example, was not looking for the common ground when promulgating the Ten Commandments. Imagine if the Sixth commandment said it is okay to kill someone if they covet your spouse.

And then there is the issue of leadership. What type of leader wants to head a third party dedicated to compromise? A “leader” who has no clear vision of the future other than quelling fierce political debate. No thanks.

Put more simply, authentic leaders may not want to compromise on transgender rights, racial equity, and inclusion, and the most fundamental of all American issues, democracy.

Can you imagine a third party that wants to embrace part of President Trump’s aggressive grab of executive power? The rationale would be that there is a middle ground between “excessive red tape” and things like protecting the environment. I live on the Eastern Shore. I reject compromises on climate change. 

I also don’t want to find common ground on the war in Ukraine. Putin started the war and is a war criminal. Full stop. There is no common ground. I want nothing to do with a party that is ready to “move past” Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in the name of “ending the divide over the war.” 

A few final thoughts. How does a third party guarantee that it will not lose its way and become as divisive as some advocates for a new party describe today’s Democrats and Republicans? It can’t. Humans are fallible. Whatever has led to the rottenness of the existing parties will, I guarantee you, eventually infect the third party.

And let’s look at the people who are described as likely to embrace a third party. They are people who lack strongly held beliefs on many issues. I call these people “lukewarm,” the type of people who may be slightly troubled by Trump’s mass due-process-free deportations but not troubled enough to protest them or speak out. I don’t want “lukewarm” people to be setting the nation’s policies. America must move forward, or it will move backwards.

So, if you are an advocate for a third party, please reconsider. 

A viable third-party movement will accomplish one thing: strengthen the current cult-like Republican party. If you want 20 years of Trumpism and MAGA, quit the Democratic party and guarantee Republican majorities for the foreseeable future.

If, like me, you are unhappy with today’s politics, consider working to fix what you see as wrong in your current party. Or, if you are an independent, join one of the parties and work to reform it.

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Sometimes, the comments made on editorials are more interesting than the editorials themselves. Take mine, for example. With admirable regularity, I find something negative to say about the President. One week, I complained about his cabinet appointments. The next, I complained about the tariffs. I also have written against Trump’s denying deportees’ due process. I wrote that seizing suspected illegal immigrants off the street, loading them onto planes, and delivering them to South Sudan is wrong.

Several readers have asked me why I can’t simply acknowledge all the good that Trump is doing for America. The idea, I think, is that Trump may be quirky, but he is doing a lot to make America better.  We need to overlook things about Trump such as his name-calling or redecorating the White House in gold and focus on the good stuff. 

One reader even reminded me, as the White House Press Secretary does frequently, that Trump is a highly successful businessman who has given up “everything” to Make America Great Again.” This obviously isn’t true. 

I wish I could write something positive about Donald Trump, but I can’t. I’m not able to point to a single positive thing that he deserves credit for. 

What about border security, you ask?  I support rational regulation of immigration, including securing the borders. Trump lost me with the prison in El Salvador and the flights to South Sudan.  

What about the decrease in the rate of inflation?  Less inflation is a good thing, but did Trump make it happen? I don’t think so. The CPI was headed down before Trump took office.  Did the possibility of Trump winning the election do the trick? Of course not.

 Inflation peaked at more than 9 percent in 2022 when Biden was President. Economists tell us that disruptions in the supply chain resulting from the pandemic and increases in the cost of energy resulting from Russia’s war against Ukraine contributed to the increase.  Biden did not cause the pandemic.  It started in March 2020.  Trump was president and ignored covid until it was a national crisis. (You can be sure that if Biden had been president when the pandemic began, Trump would have blamed it on Biden.)

And who believes Trump when he claims that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had he been President? Remember that Trump also claimed he would end the war “on Day One” of his second term or even before taking office? I do.  Blaming Biden for the war is, to put it mildly, a stretch. 

 And what about Biden’s spending? By 2024, the annual rate of inflation was down to 3.3 percent, despite the enactment of Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar bills to address climate change and other domestic policy needs. And, as a resident of the Eastern Shore, I enthusiastically supported federal spending and regulation to address climate change.

Had Biden been reelected, inflation may have continued to decrease, but we’ll never know. What we do know is that four months into his presidency, Trump is taking credit for fixing the economy.  This may prove premature. By the end of the year, Trump’s tariffs may drive prices higher.  Most economists say that is probable. (But don’t expect Trump to admit he was wrong or take responsibility for the problem.)

And what will happen if his ludicrously named “Big Beautiful Bill” is enacted? We know that his pending multibillion dollar extension of his 2017 tax cuts and increases in defense and border security spending will increase the national debt by more than $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

Some will disagree that Trump takes credit for positive developments that he had little to do with. But what about the things he says “make America great again” that do nothing of the sort? Let me list a few:

Eliminating funding for public television and radio. (Cut because Trump views them as critical of his policies.)

Cutting medical research. Are we supposed to be grateful for Trump ending important cancer clinical trials? 

Ending efforts to combat climate change, including attempting to rescind money for projects already appropriated by Congress. If you live within 50 miles of an ocean shoreline, you should be worried. 

Redecorating the Oval Office in gold. Please don’t tell me I’m supposed to take pride in this decorating fiasco. And who is going to pay to have it all taken down after Trump leaves office?

Attacking Harvard University and its students. Why this obsession with Harvard? Destroying Harvard will not make America great—it will destroy something that is part of American greatness.

Attacking Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. How exactly does ending DEI programs benefit white males or help American citizens who are people of color?

Appointing himself to Chair the Kennedy Center. I liked the pre-Trump programming at the Kennedy Center. Trump wants to replace classical music, opera and other “highbrow” culture with more popular fare corresponding to his own taste. Surprise! Ticket sales have dropped dramatically.

End the Department of Education and funding for low-income students, teacher development, student aid, and educational research.

Holding a $45 million dollar parade on your birthday because June 14 is also the anniversary of the U.S. Army. I predict massive disruption, massive damage to DC roads, massive protests, and potentially serious misdeeds. 

Cutting benefits and services to Veterans. 

Closing Social Security Offices. I don’t like waiting on the phone for an hour to get a question answered from someone who has no clue how to solve the problem.

Watching Kristi Noem flash a Rolex in front of the infamous El Salvadoran prison. Her stunt was embarrassing and shameful. A good president would have fired her.

I could go on with this list. Let’s be clear. President Trump claims things “Make America Great Again,” that don’t. Many of his actions take benefits and services from Americans, undermine the rule of law, and jeopardize democracy.  

Dare I say it, Trump is making his bed—a legacy of chaos and a reversal of progress—and will have to sleep in it. Fifty years from now, it will be  clear that Trump was a much worse president than Nixon. The gold trim in the Oval Office, the Qatari 747, the Crypto, Musk dancing with a chainsaw, and Trump’s devotion to the game of golf will be what is remembered. What also will be remembered is the number of decades it will take to put the country back in order. 

 If we are lucky and work together to stop the madness, Trump will be seen as an aberration and an embarrassment, nothing more.

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

Last week, I read a few articles about how Vladimir Putin is turning Trump into a monkey. The “great negotiator” apparently misread his mark and has again embarrassed America and himself. But more importantly, it is starting to look like Trump’s ham-fisted attempt to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine is costing both sides thousands more lives.

It may be time for Trump to acknowledge his limitations as a world leader and devote more time to playing golf. Instead, he seems to be ramping up his involvement in questionable “deals” as he seeks to further enrich himself and his family. Just this week, for example, it was announced that the Trump Media and Technology Group is buying $2.5 billion in bitcoin. 

The CEO of Trump Media, former Trump-worshipping Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), explained the purchase: “We view bitcoin as an apex instrument of financial freedom, and now Trump Media will hold cryptocurrency as a critical part of our assets.” 

I view bitcoin as an apex instrument to facilitate money laundering and am concerned that Trump Media will hold cryptocurrency as a critical part of its assets at a time when President Trump is decreasing scrutiny of bitcoin and controls the federal agencies that regulate bitcoin and prosecute cybercurrency crime.

President Trump, of course, held a well-publicized and likely long-remembered dinner last month for the largest purchasers of his meme coin. Some attendees spent more than one million dollars purchasing $TRUMP meme coins to attend the event and get an opportunity to meet the man who’s making crypto great again. Trump’s formula, create a “strategic reserve” of crypto, remove regulations interfering with use of crypto to evade taxes and, I fear, criminal laws, and ensure that people who are loyal to him are in charge of all federal agencies that might investigate violations of law or prosecute wrongdoers.

It is no surprise that the crypto crowd includes the Trump family (especially Eric, Don Jr., and, I am told, Barron), Trump’s special envoy, Witkoff and his son, and other friends of Trump. 

Crypto has been great for Trump—his net worth has ballooned hundreds of millions since he took office—and that doesn’t include the value of the Qatari 747 which, of course, is the “gift,” not yet finalized, to America that will not go to Trump at the end of his presidential term, but to his presidential library.  (Trump’s government-paid lawyers told him it is all legal and ethical.)

Harder to figure out is Trump’s wildly enthusiastic embrace of his pardon power. He has already pardoned his “J6 Patriots” and settled a wrongful death lawsuit with one insurrectionist’s family, Ashli Babbit, who was killed trying to enter the Capitol’s Speaker’s Lobby through a smashed window. Babbitt’s estate will receive around $5 million from the federal government. 

Had Babbitt made it into the Speaker’s Lobby and found Speaker Nancy Pelosi or another Democratic lawmaker, what would she have done? 

These pardons and the Babbitt settlement are disturbing, but why did Trump pardon the Culpepper, Virginia Sheriff, Scott Jenkins, who appointed “deputy sheriffs” in exchange for $75,000 in bribes? And why did the “celebrity couple” reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted of fraud and tax evasion, get pardoned? The couple defrauded banks out of more than $36 million in loans. 

Are these pardons political moves? Are we to believe that the “Trump base” somehow identifies with corrupt sheriffs, fraudsters, and tax cheats so much that pardons of people convicted of these crimes will score political gains? (If this is true, America is in seriously bad trouble.)

Apparently, the coming months will see a cascade of pardons to more white-collar and celebrity criminals. The Washington Post reports that Sean “Diddy” Combs may get a Trump pardon. Wow. This will ironically take place while Trump and the Justice Department threaten prosecution for posting pictures of seashells on Instagram and admitting the wrong students to a university. 

I wonder if Vladimir Putin and his advisors regularly read Truth Social to learn about Trump’s pardons and news about his love of cryptocurrency and other “money-making endeavors?”  If they do, Putin may see an opportunity. If Russia concludes that the President of the United States is corrupt, maybe it will take a new tack in its relationship with him. Would Trump throw Ukraine and, for that matter, democracy, under the bus for a few billion more dollars? 

Is this President a Bonafide crook? If so, how can we make the grift and other abuses of power stop?

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Most of us, beyond the age of 40, have friends who have attended several Bruce Springsteen concerts. My wife has attended 15. I have a friend who claims to have attended 20. There is something about “The Boss” that has made him the most popular and revered rock star of our times.

Last Friday, I was perusing Truth Social and learned that the President of the Free World, the Chairman of the Kennedy Center, disagrees. More about that in a bit. First, what did Springsteen say to earn the President’s wrath?

 Last week, Bruce gave a concert in London, the first on his European tour. Introducing his song, Land of Hopes and Dreams, Bruce commented, “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration.”  He added, “Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring.”

Later in the concert, Springsteen commented: “The last check on power after the checks and balances of government have failed are the people, you, and me. It’s in the union of people around a common set of values now that’s all that stands between democracy and authoritarianism. So, at the end of the day, all we’ve got is each other.”

Bruce also, in introducing his song, My City of Ruins, told the audience: “In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now… in America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. This is happening now.”

If you are not familiar with Bruce Springsteen, you are missing a lot. He deserves a statue in Trump’s planned “Garden of American Heroes.”  I imagine The Boss’ Born in the USA playing at 90 decibels at the opening of the Garden. I can see Springsteen shaking the hand of a future President and maybe even singing a song in the Garden.

Our President doesn’t share my appreciation for The Boss, maybe because the President believes there can be only one boss in America. Maybe it is because Springsteen has captured the soul of America so well in his catalog of songs. And maybe because Springsteen is far, far more popular than Trump. (So is Taylor Swift.)

Apparently, Karoline Leavitt, the uber-loyal White House press secretary, read about Springsteen’s comments and reported them to Trump. Or maybe the woman known in the White House as the Human Printer, Natalie Harp, printed out an article reporting Bruce’s comments and gave him a copy. In any case, once Trump heard what was said about him, he exploded in a most un-presidential way.

Trump posted this attack on Springsteen on Truth Social:

“I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States. Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics, and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy — Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country. If I weren’t elected, it would have been GONE by now! Sleepy Joe didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing, but Springsteen is “dumb as a rock,” and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out “prune” of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just “standard fare.” Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

Trump is outraged that someone would speak ill of the President of the United States. Didn’t Trump, his two older boys, and his closest aides do that for the entirety of the 2024 presidential election? Apparently, what is good for the Goose is not good for the Gander.

And apparently, Trump is no champion of the first amendment, at least as Bruce Springsteen practices it. 

The President also does not envy Springsteen’s “atrophied” skin.

And, of course, Trump closes his social media post with a threat. Is Trump hinting that he might seek some form of retribution against Springsteen? (If you can threaten former FBI director Jim Comey for publishing a photo of seashells forming the number, “8647” because he believes the image may incite someone to attempt to assassinate him, anything is possible.)

Towards the end of his concert, Springsteen assured the audience that, “We’ll survive this moment.”  He added, “Now, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ Let’s pray.”

Bruce, I’m praying for you and the United States. If given the choice of The Boss and Donald J. Trump being president, I vote for Bruce. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

Sometimes I forget the sun will rise tomorrow even if the news is bad. Yes, we live in challenging, uncertain times that find Americans deeply divided and worried. And when I say worried, that means everyone these days, even the President’s supporters.

But I also find that reading and writing about what I call “troubling news” doesn’t do much to change that news. I can post the highly offensive image of the President dressed as the Pope on the web and get lots of approval from people of like mind. But I don’t think that image troubled many of the President’s supporters. They apparently think the picture is funny and enjoy seeing “libs” complain about it.

So, maybe it’s time to take a break, at least a short one, from complaining about things and do two things.  First, revisit the beauty of the Eastern Shore that surrounds us. Instead of complaining about Trump or Musk, spend some time looking out for a mallard like the one that waddled up to my front door last week. That duck made me smile more than anything on MSNBC last night. 

On Sunday morning of this week, there was a torrential downpour for over an hour. Water gushed in torrents off my roof, and I watched it from the sanctuary of my screened porch, nice and dry, a cup of coffee in hand. I loved watching the rain, and not just because we needed rain on the Eastern Shore. I knew that with what seemed like a few inches of rain, there would be more flowers coming. And I like green grass better than brown.

After the sky cleared, the world looked clean. I imagine dirt and everything else bad being washed away when we get a hard rain. Sunday was no exception. The TV stayed off long after the storm had passed—and stayed off for the rest of the day. I read the newspaper, but interspersed reading about the tariffs while looking through the screens of our porch at an osprey make a low pass over our house. 

Spring is a season not just of flowers and birds, but also of hope. Spring tells us that the bleakness of winter is not permanent and that, eventually, good triumphs over bad, although calling winter evil is a bit of a stretch given the joy that winter’s first snowstorm brings to most of us.

Life, regrettably, is not about the weather or the four seasons. It includes what our community is doing (or not doing), how we treat one another, and whether, as a community, we remain resilient enough to stand up and do something that we cannot do to the weather—help guide it to the “right destination.”

That brings me to the second thing we should do to replace just complaining about Trump. Do something. I don’t mean anything violent, of course. I will say that watching television or scanning the web for the next stupid thing President Trump has done, is not the answer. 

This morning, I stumbled across the image of Trump with a Star Wars light sword. That image is a distraction from the things that are important.

The thus-far not-too-happy 2025 is now more than a quarter over and, to date, there are few signs that the trouble and uncertainty of 2025’s first quarter won’t last the rest of the year. But there’s hope. In the last few weeks, people are simultaneously starting to ignore the Trump administration’s bizarre activity and starting to do things—things like attending town halls, writing letters, supporting groups that are registering voters, encouraging good people to run for office, and talking to each other to reinforce the truth.

The sun will rise tomorrow, but today’s clouds need help leaving town. 

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government but, too frequently, on President Trump. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

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.