A wave of hopelessness is descending on Americans troubled by the MAGAfication of the United States. I think of the 1987 Kevin Costner movie No Way Out because, well, a convincing strategy to stop Donald Trump’s assault on democracy, civility, and truth has not yet been found. Not that a few courageous people are not trying. 

One of those people is California Governor Gavin Newsom. After Texas reworked its Congressional Districts to pick up five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections, Newsom followed suit. If Texas is going to Gerrymander, California will too. 

Newsom also writes his own social media posts, matching Trump’s skill at random CAPITALIZATION and name-calling. Newsom posts on X rival Trump’s for outrageousness. In June, for example, after Alabama Senator, former football coach, and Trump ally Tommy Tuberville called for Newsom’s arrest, Newsom responded: “Alabama has 3X the homicide rate of California. Its murder rate is ranked third in the entire country. Stick to football, bro.”

Newsom also has not hesitated to file lawsuits against Trump administration actions, including a challenge to Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

And, just to remind the public of Trump’s grift, Newsom is offering merchandise inspired by Trump, including $100 Bibles with his signature and hats reading “Newsom Was Right About Everything.”

Unfortunately, Newsom’s tactics are not likely to end the Trump regime or change his policies. Only the election of a Democratic House or Senate, and preferably both, will do that. And even if Democrats win control of Congress, there is no guarantee that Trump won’t continue to attempt to run the government through executive orders and judicial decrees issued by judges like Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge who spared Trump accountability in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Recently, the producers of the TV series South Park have taken on Trump with ridicule. An article in Slate magazine reports, “South Park’s New Episode Takes on the Ass-Kissers Surrounding Trump.” People are talking about the episodes, but will they make a difference? Trump’s artificially colored orange complexion and bizarre hairstyle failed to prevent his election in 2016 and 2024 as did reports of grift, tax-evasion, sexual assault, and marital infidelity.

For the last two months, the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein has returned to haunt Trump. Many of us suspect that not only did Mr. Epstein maintain a “client list,” but Donald Trump was on it. Trump’s campaign of distraction has motivated things like a major, albeit unsuccessful, push to end the war in Ukraine and an FBI raid on the home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton. And let’s not forget the military takeover of the Washington, D.C. police. If you are looking for a word to describe all three events, try “distraction.”

If you are counting on Epstein’s ghost to stop Trump, don’t hold your breath. The Epstein scandal is slowly fading from the public’s attention as it prepares for Labor Day. As fall approaches, Trump’s minions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and Congress will announce that all investigations of the matter are over and that everything appropriate to share with the public has been released. Case closed, or so Trump hopes.

Are we doomed to lose our Constitution? Is America fated to following the path of 1920s Italy and 1930s Germany into a “Golden Age” that destroys democracy? Let’s hope not.

I am heartened by the continued growth of the Indivisible movement. In the face of a relentless Trump, this group has not quit. I also am finding that other people, including many not yet engaged with Indivisible or any other anti-Trump movement, are questioning fines levied against elite universities, the termination of NIH research, the surrender in the fight against climate change, the ironic war against crime in D.C. (and soon Chicago and other cities, including Baltimore) launched by a convicted criminal, and all that gold decoration in the White House. 

 I sense that Trump may be edging closer to a tipping point—the point where even people who like some of his policies such as “border security,” will say, “enough” or conclude that Trump really does want to be a dictator or, due to mental illness and debilitation, think he already is one.

Let’s hope there is a way out before it is too late. The Trump administration is not the yang to the Democrats’ yin. It is an assault on democracy.

---

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. Dean fondly remembers when the Republican Party accepted democracy, civility, and the rule of law. 

Are we sure we want to know what went on in Anchorage last Friday? Yes, I know, President Trump met with Vladimir Putin, and no agreement on anything was reached. And we also know that pundits are trying to figure out what, if any, progress may have been made towards securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. But I am wrestling with the optics of what we saw. There’s a story there, and it is an ugly one.

I tuned into news coverage of the meeting at about 2:00 p.m. or so, figuring that how the two heads of state greeted each other could signal whether some sort of agreement would be reached when the meeting began. My hopes for a successful meeting evaporated when I saw how orchestrated “the arrival” was. 

Putin apparently insisted that any meeting with Trump take place on American soil. That, some say, was a victory in itself for Putin, who is a convicted war criminal (The World Court) and is persona non grata in countries other than North Korea, China, and a few others. But Putin wanted more. After Trump’s 747 arrived (the Qatari one is still undergoing renovation, and awaits a paint job and serious upgrades), Trump was left waiting in it for a half hour until Putin’s jet arrived. 

That must have angered the volatile Mr. Trump. F-bombs must have been flying.

Once Putin’s plane finally arrived, Trump awkwardly descended the steps from his plane onto a red carpet leading to a podium. A similar red carpet was provided for Putin. I would describe it as blood red, but that may be taking things too far.

Trump attempted to time his walk towards Putin so that they would meet at the podium at the same time. Trump is apparently a poor judge at figuring out how fast to walk. He took a number of baby steps and then started to zig-zag from one side of the red carpet to the other. He looked ridiculous.

Eventually, the two heads of state met. Some have criticized how Trump shook Putin’s hand, but other than to consider it awkward, I’m not sure what the problem was. Personally speaking, I would not have shaken Putin’s hand given the number of deaths for which he is responsible.

As the two leaders met, Trump had arranged a fly-over of a B-2 stealth bomber flanked with four F-35 stealth fighters. Call this a little one-upmanship by our Commander-in-Chief. To reiterate his point—that America is better armed than Russia—a few F-22 fighters were parked nearby.

Military experts have commented that it might not have been the greatest idea to give the Russian staff accompanying Putin an opportunity for a close look at the F-22, but maybe there were no new insights to be gathered. Personally speaking, I would have forgone both the fly-over and displaying F-22s.

Once the pair got to the meeting site, there were signs reading “Pursuing Peace” prominently displayed. These were nice signs, but Putin is not pursuing peace. That is why the one outcome of the meeting that was figured out quickly was that Trump is no longer demanding an immediate ceasefire as a prelude to peace negotiations. 

The two leaders spoke for three hours, but when they held what was billed as a press conference afterwards, no details of what they talked about were shared. Putin gave a short lecture on the history of Russia, including a reference to the fact that Alaska was once part of Russia. As Putin spoke, Trump looked alternatively angry and disturbed.

Once Putin shut-up, Trump recited a few pleasantries before the pair of “world leaders” left the stage. No questions were answered.

Did Putin humiliate Trump at the meeting? I would not go that far. What I would say is that America was disadvantaged by having a negotiator who has little respect for foreign policy experts. Trump has yet to learn that the types of negotiations he did as a New York real estate developer don’t work when negotiating with former KGB officers.

So, where are we? The war in Ukraine goes on. Putin, best I can tell, has not made any concessions other than to say that he will end the war when all his demands are met. More Ukrainians—and Russians—will die. If there is a “light at the end of the tunnel,” I don’t see it yet.

Do I blame Trump for the war continuing? No. I blame Putin. (But I disagree with the claim that the war is “Biden’s war” and choked when Putin expressed agreement with Trump’s claim that the war would never have started had Trump been president.)

Monday: An Intervention or Progress Towards Peace?

Much to my surprise, Friday’s debacle in Anchorage was followed by another, more serious meeting on Monday. This meeting offered hope, but unfortunately, not the expectation that the war would end soon. 

I watched the string of black Chevrolet Suburbans pull up to the South Portico of the White House Monday as more than a half dozen European Leaders arrived to support Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his meeting with Donald Trump. My theory is that the various heads of state, Secretary General of NATO, and the President of the European Union were there for two reasons—to prevent Donald Trump from inflicting another round of humiliation and abuse on Zelenskyy and, more importantly, to host an intervention with Donald Trump.

Intervention? Think about the interventions taken to rescue alcoholics from destroying their own and other lives. In Monday’s case, the goal was to stop Trump from acting as Putin’s agent in the “negotiations” to end the war in Ukraine. The intervention was prompted by Trump’s sudden reversal on the question of whether a ceasefire must precede the start of peace negotiations and Trump’s advocacy for Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia in exchange for an end to the war. 

The Europeans were successful in saving Zelenskyy from more abuse, at least more abuse of the public, televised kind. Unfortunately, Trump continues to push Putin’s criminal agenda. 

There will be no ceasefire this week. And as the discussions in Washington were taking place, Putin’s military continued its destruction of Ukraine. Every new inch of territory won by Putin before a peace agreement is reached (if it is ever reached) makes the Russian Empire a little bigger.

Trump remains in full appeasement mode, ala Neville Chamberlain. That is one reason a video (who knows if it is real?) was posted on the web of a Russian military vehicle racing down a Ukrainian road with both Russian and American flags waving from it.

Putin has a friend in Trump and that should trouble us all.

All that having been said, everyone that I have spoken to, hopes that despite (or because) of Trump, the war will eventually end. My problem with giving Putin his entire wish list is that in short order he will develop a new one that could include annexing Estonia, parts or all of Poland, and the rest of Ukraine.

---

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. Dean fondly remembers his last trip to Kyiv, taken before Vladimir Putin’s ongoing campaign to obliterate it. 

What a busy week President Trump is having. Yesterday he “federalized” the District of Columbia police force, effectively ending Home Rule for D.C.’s estimated 695,000 residents. And then there’s his meeting with war criminal and dictator Vladimir Putin in Alaska, where Trump hopes to end the war in Ukraine by declaring Putin the winner. It is almost as though the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is over.

The ghost of Mr. Epstein has not yet been banished, but let’s give the president a gold star (the only type acceptable to him) for trying. Many of us disagree on almost everything with our MAGA friends and neighbors, but we all agree that sexual assault of young girls is heinous. 

But what about declaring an emergency to legitimize a federal takeover of D.C.? For me, and many of us on the Eastern Shore who have lived or worked in D.C., this is also heinous.

D.C. crime is not out of control. Violent crime has decreased 26 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Robberies have decreased by 26 percent. The Trump administration, as you might expect, challenges these statistics, which were reported by the D.C. Metropolitan Police. 

Violent crime was and likely would have continued to drop even without the deployment of the National Guard and officers from the Park Police, ATF, Secret Service, ICE, and FBI to the streets of D.C. (I am relieved that U.S. Space Force Guardians are not part of Trump’s show of force.)

I lived in D.C. for several years and worked there for more than 30 years. Like President Trump, I did not like seeing drunks, homeless people, or beggars on the streets, but I never once wanted to see homeless people “removed immediately, far away from our beautiful capital city” or 14-year-olds prosecuted as adults even if charged with violent crimes. 

In coming weeks—and maybe even before you read this column—you will read or hear White House officials announce that the takeover of D.C. has resulted in hundreds of arrests and a sharp drop in violent crime. But I also suspect there will be instances of people—some involved in committing crimes—who will be shot and killed and other instances where people will get arrested or “roughed-up,” as the President likes to say. Those instances, representing civil rights violations and police abuse, are not acceptable, to me and many others.

As has already been pointed out, National Guardsmen are not trained police officers. Neither are FBI agents, who, it must be noted, did not seek careers at the Agency to be deployed to fight street crime in D.C. Thus, I worry that many officers, some of whom will be sweltering in bullet-proof vests in 95-degree temperatures, will not be happy. And unhappy police officers are more likely to make bad judgments than appropriately trained happy ones.

I recall driving to work in 2001, right after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There were National Guardsmen with M-16s on what appeared to be every corner for blocks in downtown Washington. The sight of the U.S. military patrolling D.C. streets was deeply disturbing, but necessary. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were an emergency that necessitated the actions taken. There is no emergency justifying Trump’s actions in D.C.

Trump’s takeover of D.C. will go down in history as unjustified and unwise. Hopefully, that history will not include police violence and unjustified shootings. I also wonder if historians will come to see the “D.C. crackdown” as part of the campaign of distraction now underway directed by a failing 79-year-old president who can’t shake the Epstein scandal.

As someone with special ties to D.C, that include being born there, attending college and law school there, and working there for decades, I want D.C. residents to control their city—just like I want Eastern Shore residents to enjoy self-rule. 

Donald Trump is denying Washingtonians a basic right, but he doesn’t care. D.C. voters rejected Trump in 2024. He won only 6.6 percent of the vote, 21,076 votes, as compared to Kamala Harris’ 92.5 percent. D.C. residents are throw-aways to Trump. I can imagine Trump saying they are too stupid be allowed to govern themselves.

---

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.

I remember watching one of Karoline Leavitt’s news briefing where she stated that Donald Trump, one of the most successful businessmen of all time, loves America so much that he stepped away from the businesses that made him billions to serve as America’s President. 

Leavitt went on to describe the $200 million ballroom the President was donating to the American people which Leavitt claimed that Trump is paying for it out of his own pocket. 

If one calculated the gifts made by every U.S. President other than Trump, none of them compare. Abraham Lincoln may have saved the union and ended slavery, but I ask you did he put up giant American flags on either side of White House at his own expense or think of building a ballroom?

As an American citizen I don’t want the “gifts” Trump keeps on giving. I didn’t want a Mar-a-Lago-esque ballroom any more than I would want Trump’s face chiseled into Mount Rushmore–even if Trump volunteered to pay for it. I also don’t want the Qatari 747 curiously donated to the United States to serve as a new Air Force One after over $100 million in government-paid-for upgrades, and subject to transfer to the Trump Presidential Library once Trump leaves office. 

 Gifts are not always a good thing. We all know this whenever we are given something that may have ulterior motives. 

Over the years, I never read anything that suggested Trump is a generous man. I read about his rebuilding of the Wollman Skating Rink in New York, but that was done to pressure officials to grant building permits for developments that otherwise might not have been approved. 

I also understand that Trump University sometimes gave out scholarships . . . Let’s not go there. Trump University was proven to be a fraud.

So, has Donald Trump suddenly become one of the world’s greatest philanthropists? Of course not. The author of The Art of the Deal doesn’t do anything without the expectation of getting something bigger—usually something much bigger—in return.

Here’s a theory. Trump is making billions while serving as President. Many of those billions are through involvement in cryptocurrency. Trump Media and Technology, the company that gave us the ironically named “Truth Social,” has a “treasury” of more than two billion in Bitcoin. 

Thanks to Trump’s regulatory policy, Bitcoin is booming. It is Springtime for Bitcoin. Trump has created an ideal regulatory environment for Bitcoin investors, including himself and his family. 

When critics—never Trumpers like myself—suggest Trump is enriching himself through official acts as president, Trump’s press secretary and others can point to the ballroom and ask, “Can you name another President who has given so much to America?”

And I suspect that Trump thinks he is owed something—a cut—from all the “governmental efficiencies” that DOGE implemented. Think of the money saved by effectively ending USAID and rescinding funding for public broadcasting. Isn’t it only fair that Trump spends some of the “savings” on himself?

Trump is not only making a lot of money as President for himself, he is spending a lot of Americans’ money on himself. Nearly every weekend Trump flies to Mar-a-Lago or to Bedminster, New Jersey to play golf. These trips have cost taxpayers more than $30 million. (Trump’s trip to Scotland alone to open another golf course is estimated to have cost American taxpayers more than $10 million.) Another example was the Washington, D.C. military parade held ostensibly to honor the U.S. Army but coincidentally held on Trump’s birthday with estimated costs of more than $25 million.

How can you fault President Trump for playing a little golf when he has given America so much out of his own pocket?

And let me also share one other perspective, one offered as a response to another piece I wrote criticizing Trump wanting to hold a G20 summit meeting at one of his golf clubs. (Trump proposed holding such a summit at his Doral golf facility during his first term as President, but the idea was shot down. He just made the same proposal for the G7 meeting to be held next year.)  The perspective offered was that even if it is unethical for Trump to hold government meetings at his facilities to generate revenue for them, the practice is legal because Trump “can do anything he wants.” 

Trump has made government ethics—at least those applicable to the White House—a joke. But he will never be prosecuted for it. The Supreme Court has ruled that anything Trump does as President is exempt from prosecution. 

If Trump chose to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York, he is immune from prosecution provided he could argue that the act was done in his official capacity. 

America is in trouble. If everything that appears to be going on, is going on, a gangster resides in the White House. 

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.

I was in Europe last week, welcoming a respite from the chaos of American politics.  I had feared a frosty reception from the locals, but never heard the word “Trump” once from anyone but Americans during the trip. Unlike in a similar trip I took during President Trump’s first term in office, Europeans now seem to know who Trump is.  The need to ask Americans, “How on Earth did this man get elected?” or “Did he really say that?” no longer exists.

I sense that Europeans, kind souls that most of them are, do not hold regular Americans responsible for the tariff wars and consider the worst of Trump’s second term (to date) something other than their business.  I’m talking about things like attacks on the independence of American higher education, brutal practices to enforce border security, and the cascade of bizarre cabinet appointments and executive orders.  

If Europeans are amused or even just curious about things like Trump pushing to rename the Opera House in the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after his wife, they did not ask me about it.

My conclusion is that Europeans are acclimated to Trump, but also afraid of him. The tariff war, America’s support for Netanyahu in Gaza, and the progressive decline in support for Ukraine have convinced Europe that Trump is not their friend. 

Mr. Putin is much hated in Europe. The locals I met with think he is mad and fear him. Many Europeans believe that their country could be next on Putin’s list, meaning that despite the revival of NATO, they lack the confidence that Putin, like Hitler 85 years ago, can be stopped.  And it gets worse. Europeans believe that Russian aggression would continue even if Putin were “taken out,” as one historian explained. They agree with Ronald Reagan’s assessment that Russia is an evil empire.  (Yes, I know Reagan was talking about the Soviet Union.)

I did not hear one European comment that they were lucky because America had their back.  My fear is that Europeans don’t believe we do.  They are keenly aware of the shift in U.S. support for Ukraine and believe, I sensed, that it is only a matter of time before Ukraine is defeated.

If you live in a tiny country like Estonia, the fall of Ukraine would be scary indeed.  Would the U.S. honor its NATO commitments and attack Russia should it decide to add Estonia, a country of only 1.5 million people, to its portfolio?  Fortunately, nobody asked me to opine on that question.

As I left Europe to return home last Friday, my thought was that the temperature is rising in Europe, meaning that I wondered if my trip could be my last for a while.  War is not good for tourism.

Upon returning to the U.S. I “plugged back in” to American news.  I had skimmed the news while in Europe but did not watch a single newscast (via internet) or read American newspapers while on the trip.  I was in for a shock when I caught up.

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal was just starting when I left.  You know where it is now.  I also had not read the latest about Trump’s declining physical and mental health.  

I could say that the “Trump News” is nothing new. All of us, including those who think of themselves as supporters of the President, now expect the President to say weird things, stick his nose in subjects where it has no business (think of Trump’s demand that Washington’s football team restore its former, racist name), launch wild accusations against former President Obama, or get caught cheating at golf in Scotland during a trip costing taxpayers more than $10 million.

I’d say the temperature is rising for Donald J. Trump.  Even his supporters are asking questions Trump doesn’t want raised.

But Putin and Trump are not the only people feeling the heat.  I am not enjoying the weather on the Eastern Shore this week.  It’s been miserable—it makes me miss the “cool” 80-degree temperatures I experienced in Europe.  

Don’t forget that Donald Trump denies climate change and, between rounds of golf, is dismantling both efforts to address it and the means to monitor it.  

---

J.E. Dean writes on politics and 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.

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.