ALLIANCES IN TURMOIL

In September of 1938, Adolph Hitler issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, demanding it transfers the Sudetenland, a border region, to Germany. He threatened acquisition by force if the country did not comply. This ultimatum led to the "Munich Agreement," in which Britain, France, and Italy ceded the land to Germany in exchange for a promise of peace. Czechoslovakia was excluded from negotiations. After taking control of Sudetenland, Hitler occupied the remaining Czech lands. The Nazis had already annexed Austria in March of that year, and the following year they invaded Poland. This historical context provides a potential framework for assessing President Donald Trump's imperial ambitions, which came into sharper focus after our troops executed "Operation Absolute Resolve," launching airstrikes in Venezuela, assuming control of its oil fields, and incarcerating President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, transferring them to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Trump explains his actions as a reinterpretation of the original 1823 "Monroe Doctrine," which he now re-labeled the "Donroe Doctrine," asserting that he would impose U.S. dominance over the entire Western Hemisphere. His primary objectives appear to be countering European colonization, pushing back against Russia, China and Iran's growing economic and political presence in Latin America, particularly their involvement in Venezuela's oil sector. All countries, from Canada to Argentina would have to yield to Washington; Venezuela would sell oil on terms set by the U.S.; Cuba's left-wing regime would be replaced; And troops could be deployed against the cartels "running Mexico." He simultaneously and increasingly insisted that he would seize control over Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally, "the easy way or the hard way." Mr. Trump's expansionist designs run counter to the rules-based international order established after World War II. Threatening the take-over of a NATO ally would likely be the end of NATO as we know it. NATO is considered the world's strongest and most successful military alliance, combining vast economic power - nearly half the world's - with significant military might and a collective defense commitment (Article 5) that deters attacks. Trump has openly refused to rule out leaving NATO over Greenland. A U.S. attack on the territory could force other members to ban together in active opposition, an obligation under NATO and E.U. rules. The treaty that created NATO did not contemplate an attack by one ally on another. In an attempt to force Trump to back off, at least eight European countries sent troops to Greenland. Mr. Trump was not deterred, and imposed a 10% tariff on imports from those countries. The fast moving situation is reminiscent of "Cold War" brinkmanship, a strategy developed by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in the 1950s, intended to push a dangerous condition to the verge of war to achieve a favorable outcome. Its purpose is opposing forces into conceding by demonstrating extreme resolve. It essentially takes a page out of Hitler's strategic assumptions identified in "Mein Kampf." Another organization with a stake in the outcome of this highly volatile, rapidly escalating, international crisis is the United Nations. Here again, Donald Trump does not seem to care. He considers the U.N. irrelevant. He actually signed an order in January directing the U.S. to withdraw from 31 U.N. entities and 35 other international organizations, citing that they no longer serve U.S. interests. He even invited multiple countries to join his so-called "Board of Peace" initiative, which he described as a "bold new approach to resolving global conflict," an obvious attempt at undermining the U.N.. Permanent memberships are being sold at $1 billion each. Trump is resisting that his claims run counter to international law. He insists that it depends on what your definition of international law is, and that his power is limited by his "own morality." In a jaw dropping letter to Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store he admits that his pursuit of Greenland is personal. He confessed that he is threatening to seize Greenland because he is upset that he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. "Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace --- I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland." Our descent into the fascist abyss and our disregard for long-term allies has become frighteningly close to President Trump's focused attempt at establishing an imperial presidency. Russian-born New York Times columnist Masha Gessen succinctly judged that Trump's abrupt return to a "spheres of influence" model of geopolitics would be a death blow to the law-based humanistic world order and a gift for Russia and China. By declaring his right to invade and plunder America's neighbors, he has "licensed China's Xi Jinping to seize Taiwan, and Russia's Vladimir Putin to take as much of Europe as he wants to bite off." It may seem trite to perpetually compare Donald Trump's policies and rhetoric with those of Nazi Germany, however, the similarities are intensifying and inescapable. We need to wake up and put a stop to them before it is too late. Theo Wierdsma

ICE BECOMES AUTOCRATIC TOOL

It is generally accepted that, historically, a common survival strategy for autocratic leaders includes forming a personal paramilitary support group. These groups serve to counterbalance the regular military, strengthen security services and provide an armed force loyal directly to the leaders, rather than the state or constitution. The difference between military and paramilitary is that the military consists of a nation's official state-run armed forces for external defense, while a paramilitary is a civilian force with military-like structure and training, typically focused on internal security, law enforcement, or border patrol, often under a different ministry like Homeland Security, or even operating independently. While these support groups generally engage in official functions, their purpose over time may transition into focused enforcement of the doctrine of a ruling faction or individual. Examples are plentiful. Hitler's "Schutzstaffel' (Protection Squadron or S.S.) became the most powerful and feared entity in Nazi Germany, responsible for enforcing the party's racial policy. Mussolini's "Black Shirts," the paramilitary wing of his Italian Fascist Party, morphed from internal security to being used for widely feared political terror and implementing genocide. "Fedayeen Saddam" in Iraq, "Janjaweed" in Darfur, the "Staci" in East Germany, Soviet/Russian "Spetsnaz" and others are among an overwhelming number of examples. Many of these have been credibly accused of maintaining political control by instilling fear and carrying out campaigns of ethnic cleansing. These often amount to forcibly removing unwanted ethnic or religious groups from a given territory through a combination of violence, terror and displacement. Given the political turmoil and upheaval emanating from our federal government, and the egocentric decision making process emerging from the president's cabinet, have raised the question whether Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator. His rhetoric, challenge of Democratic norms, public threats to opponents, praise for foreign autocrats, and determined pursuit of replacing non-partisan public servants with personal loyalists have many political analysts convinced that he, in fact, is. Just as important is the question whether "ICE" (the U.S. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency") is being groomed to become Mr. Trump's personal paramilitary group. ICE was created in March of 2003, as part of the new "Department of Homeland Security" following the 9/11 attacks. Its purpose was to better secure the nation by consolidating enforcement, identifying security vulnerabilities, and promoting public safety through the enforcement of immigration and trade laws. It is not an independent paramilitary group. However, under the Trump administration, ICE tactics, a significant increase in funding and manpower, and a perceived shift in mission, have led critics, including civil rights organizations and media commentators, to describe the agency as operating with paramilitary behavior and function as a de facto "secret police" or a personal paramilitary force. Secret police are a quintessential feature of an authoritarian regime. From Azerbaijan's State Security Service to Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Organization, these agencies typically target political opponents and dissidents through covert surveillance , imprisonment and physical violence. Since President Trump assumed power in January, ICE has become a far more visible and fearsome force on American streets, and, although it is ostensibly still bound by constitutional restraints, the way it has been operating bears the hallmarks of a secret police force in the making. ICE members are now targeting political opponents and dissidents. Even though the agency does not report directly to Trump, ICE is controlled by people who have shown intense loyalty to him - like DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Czar Tom Homan. Ice agents operate in secret. They have procured increasingly more sophisticated intelligence capabilities. They conduct arbitrary searches. And while it does not yet resemble history's most feared secret police force, there have been very few constraints on how it operates. The question of whether ICE actions related to the removal of immigrants amount to ethnic cleansing is a subject of significant debate, political rhetoric and legal challenges. Critics argue that mass deportations and racial profiling disproportionately affect Latino and non-white communities regardless of their legal status. In effect, Latinos make up 90% of ICE arrests. Donald Trump has made it clear that he prefers immigrants from western European countries, like Norway. He referred to immigrants from other countries, like Somalia and Haiti as "garbage," coming from "shit hole countries" who he does not want in our country. His administration appears to slant towards favoring a white population as its "master race." According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of December 10, more than 2.5 million "illegal aliens" have left the U.S. A reported 1.9 million have voluntarily self-deported. ICE operations have resulted in 605,000 deportations. The organization is operating a network of over 200 major detention facilities, including jails, private prisons and other temporary holding areas. Critics have compared some of the larger detention centers in Florida, Texas and Arizona to notorious concentration camps, because of overcrowding, poor conditions, and family separations. Moreover, human rights organizations have documented hundreds of cases where inmates have disappeared from tracking systems, making their location essentially unknown. These statistics, countless cases of abuse, excessive force, deporting migrants back to countries they had fled for security reasons, or transferring individuals to countries where they have never been, or never even heard of, would make us believe that we are gradually descending into a totalitarian abyss. When combined with its obvious shift towards targeting U.S. citizens for dissent and disobedience, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that ICE has become a tool in support of a creeping autocracy. Theo Wierdsma

OBEY OR DEFY SUPERIOR ORDERS

Since September of this year, on orders from President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the U.S. military executed air strikes on more than 21 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Many of these vessels have been identified as fishing boats, and most of the 83 casualties were believed to have been Venezuelan or Colombian fishermen. On October 16, the Commander of the Southern Command, Admiral Alvin Holsey, a 37 year veteran, after less than a year in his role, following disputes over these military strikes, announced his retirement from the navy and "serving as commander" effective December 12. His announcement came just days after the U.S. conducted its 5th known strike on a boat, killing six people. On October 31, Volker Turk, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, cited that these air strikes violated international human rights law and were executed under circumstances that suggested no justification in international law, and had to stop immediately. Although the U.S. defended its operations as part of its ongoing effort to combat drug trafficking and terrorism, Mr. Turk insisted that the international use of lethal force is only lawful as a last resort, when individuals pose an imminent threat to life. A few weeks later, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Az) , supported by five other lawmakers who had served in the military or intelligence community, speaking "directly to members of the military" posted a video telling them that they "can refuse illegal orders," and "stand up for our laws ... our Constitution." In response, President Trump called the video "seditious" and "punishable by death." He echoed "truth social" posts, including one recommending the six be hanged. All of these developments are related. The illegal, illogical military strikes in the Caribbean continued and generated world-wide reactions and expansive discussions the administration might not have foreseen. While Mr. Trump predictably continued to shoot from the hip, his Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, attempted to temper his public reaction. She suggested that the president did not mean to impose a death sentence on the six, but she cautioned that the video was disrespectful and had the potential of inciting violence. She was adamant that all military orders by Trump must be "presumed to be legal." "You can't have a functioning military if there is disorder and chaos within the ranks." However, the ensuing discussion exposed a contentious topic the administration was clearly not ready for., on a topic which may be controversial in some quarters, but one which is actually straight forward. The United States Military Academy at West Point, at its Constitution Corner, prominently displays a plaque stating: "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law." It clearly suggests that our military officers swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, not to a person or a leader. It pointedly emphasizes that our Constitution reigns supreme over any individual, breaking a principle with the historical tradition of military leaders swearing allegiance to a monarch. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would likely consider lethal attacks on fishing boats to amount to unlawful killings, or murder, unless a clear justification for the use of force exists. Attacks on suspected drug vessels are seen by many legal experts as extrajudicial killings that violate international human rights and humanitarian law. Striking a vessel in international waters can't be justified as self defense. Secretary Hegseth's demand to "kill them all" and to "leave no survivors" can legally be classified as a call to murder, and expose our operators to be charged under international law. There is no clear legal basis for using lethal force in this situation, and it underscores the argument made by Senator Kelley et al. President Trump's arguments are incredible, illogical and irrelevant. His claim that each of these strikes saves 25,000 U.S. lives because the maneuvers thwarted drug smuggling lacks veracity - there is no proof that these fishing boats carry drugs - and are illogical on the face of it. All of last year drug overdoses killed an estimated 80,000 people in our country, a 27% decrease from 2023.The math does not add up. Besides, accusations that these boats carry fentanyl are patently untrue. Fentanyl comes in from Mexico, not Venezuela. While throughout history, multiple cases of situations in which military subordinates should have questioned their superiors when confronted with illegal orders can be found, two famous cases readily come to mind: the My Lai massacre, and the heinous crimes committed by Nazi officers during World War II. The My Lai massacre is one of the gravest violations of criminal law ever committed by a U.S. soldier. More than 340 innocent civilians, including women and children were murdered at the hands of Army First Lieutenant William Calley Jr. and his subordinates. This situation presented an extreme example of the contradiction between obedience to orders and obedience to international and criminal law. The "Nuremberg defense," the argument that an individual is not responsible for crimes because they were "just following orders from a superior," famously argued, and just as famously rejected during the trials Nazi officers after World War II, established the principle that individuals are responsible for their actions, and must refuse illegal orders. As a result 161 Nazis were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death. In short, soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders, and they can be punished for following them. An order is considered unlawful if it is contrary to our Constitution, U.S. laws, lawful superior orders or if it requires the commission of a crime like targeting civilians or torture. This duty to disobey is a core principle, and refusing a manifestly illegal order can be a legal defense if a service members is later court martialed for refusing to obey an order. Theo Wierdsma

LET THEM EAT CAKE

President Donald Trump appears to have the time of his life. He made clear that the legacy he wants to leave for the White House should be one of renovation, while his presidential legacy would primarily focus on personal glory, a permanent conservative influence on the judiciary, an "America First " approach to trade and foreign policy and a direct, unmediated bond with his political base. Immediately upon entering office, he began making changes to the historic building, with the Oval Office now practically dripping in gold-rimmed portraits. His most audacious project, tearing down the East Wing and replacing it with a 90,000 square foot ballroom at a cost of $350 million, is well on its way. In addition, some of the president's staff is busily working on developing plans to erect a large, permanent, independence arch, which has already been referred to as "Arc de Trump," modeled after the "Arc de Triomphe" in Paris, at Memorial Circle near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery. Its cost is estimated at $100 million. While these projects are proceeding, bills pending in Congress seek to rename the "John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" after Trump, and the Center's Opera House after his wife Melania. In addition, three weeks before the president unilaterally demolished the East Wing of the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed plans to feature President Trump's image on both sides of a newly minted $1 coin in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026. Much, if not all of this, demonstrates the underpinning of tone-deaf overreach, fostering the unabashed impression that he believes that, since he is president , he can do whatever he wants. Essentially stating "L'Etat c'est moi"( I am the state) as uttered during the absolute monarchy of King Louis XIV in 17th century France. Just a few hours before funding for federal food assistance for 42 million of low income Americans was set to lapse, President Trump threw a lavish "Great Gatsby" themed Halloween bash at his residence in Mar-A-Lago. This "get-together" was themed "A little party never killed anybody," and was estimated to have cost $3.4 million, paid for with taxpayer funds. A week later, another opulent party at the same venue also kept those in favor preoccupied. Tickets to an overwhelmingly conservative business conference in Miami, Florida, on November 5, organized by the American Business Forum, attended by billionaires and tycoons, and headlined by Donald Trump, cost up to $1,990. Notably, in a feature that appeared to mock the widening disparity between "haves" and "have nots," organizers issued attendees a $50 gift card to spend on food to sustain themselves, while they listened to their president congratulate himself for the "golden age" his "economic miracle" had delivered. This was, again, an ill-timed insult to more than a half million Miami Dade County residents who just saw their own ability to purchase essential groceries for their family greatly reduced by the gutting of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (AKA food stamps). A massive conflict between what real people were going through and what the elite is experiencing. Even a casual observer might conclude that this extravagant display of opulence and abundance during difficult economic times for many Americans translates into socially insensitive behavior. Some of us are reminded of a phrase commonly attributed to Marie Antoinette, France's Queen and wife of King Louis XVI in France, who, when confronted with the plight of starving peasants, came up with: "Let them eat cake!" It is immaterial that the queen never actually spoke these words. The phrase can be traced to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in 1765, 24 years prior to the French Revolution. However, it acquired great symbolic importance in historical accounts by pro revolutionary commentators who employed the phrase to denounce the upper classes of the "Ancient Regime" and was especially powerful because the staple food for the working classes was bread, absorbing 50% of their income. Political commentators and historians have drawn multiple parallels between Donald Trump's behavior and the conditions and ruling style of pre revolutionary France's "Ancient Regime." They specifically call out the economic inequality of both eras; the significant gap between the wealthy and the working class; a heavy tax burden falling heavily on commoners; an out of touch ruling class; significant national debt and a declining trust in institutions. Mr. Trump's tariffs will result in costing every household about $2,400 per year in lost income. His "beautiful bill" will increase the number of uninsured by 10 million by 2034. In 2026 millions more will face higher premiums. The Affordable Care Act premiums are projected to rise by a medium of 18%. A 40 year old couple would see a monthly increase for a "silver plan" from $581 to $993 per month - an annual increase of $4,946. The expected cuts in healthcare subsidies or social programs like medicaid would disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. This year 40% of Americans have already had to dip into savings or resort to using credit cards just to put food on the table or to pay bills. And 25% of respondents to a survey recently reported that they, or someone in their household, had skipped meals to save money. The non funding of SNAP benefits will lead to increased food insecurities, hunger and negative health and developmental outcomes for children, seniors and other vulnerable populations. In 2024, 41.7 million - 12.3% of the population received SNAP benefits. In the mean time, emergency pop-up pantries distributing food are showing up everywhere, while our Department of Agriculture made a point of forbidding stores from issuing special discounts for active SNAP recipients. In addition to many openly exhibited extravagances, since his inauguration, President Trump already managed to add $1 trillion to the national debt, and thus far spent close to $26 million to support his fondness for golf. Some of the objectives of passing on historic legends, even those that don't exactly reflect entirely factual material, are to compare conditions across different time periods and to hopefully convey some ethical principles. Let's hope that, for the morale and mental stability of the country, President Trump will get the message sooner rather than later. Theo Wierdsma

NOBEL MIX OF PEACE AND POLITICS

One of the persistently recurring themes throughout President Trump's first ten months of his second term in office was his shamelessly relentless pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though the deadline to submit nominations of individuals and organizations for what the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary History described as "the most prestigious prize in the world" was January 31, just a few days after the new administration assumed office, Mr. Trump never let up. Hardly a day went by during which he did not repeat the mantra that he was solving multiple wars, ultimately "eight in nine months," proclaiming: "that's never happened before." Numerous world leaders, eager to curry favor with him, dutifully and openly supported his claim. So, when on October 10 the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced it had awarded the honor to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado for promoting democratic rights for her country's people in opposition to President Nicolas Maduro, President Trump's allies considered the fact that he was not selected an anticlimactic snub. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung accused the committee of putting "politics over peace." Notwithstanding the overdue timeline and the relentless, continuously applied, political pressure which really rankled Mr. Trump's most passionate opponents who claimed that he was entirely unworthy of the award, Mr. Cheung actually did have a point. Dr. Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, inventor, engineer and businessman who became known for inventing dynamite. More than a few of his contemporaries were of the opinion that he became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before. He died from a stroke in December of 1896 at the age of 63. At that time his estate was valued at more than 31 million Swedish kronor, about $160 million in today's currency, 94% of which has since been used to fund the Nobel Prizes he established in his will. Nobel set up his prizes to ensure that his legacy would be one of benefiting humanity rather than of being remembered as the "merchant of death" for his invention of dynamite. Each year a number of Swedish institutions award the Nobel prizes for outstanding achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Literature and Physiology or Medicine. Oddly, the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Nobel may have been influenced by his admiration for Norwegian writers and peace activists, or by his conviction that Norway was a more peace oriented and democratic country than Sweden. His will did not provide a reason for awarding the Peace Prize in Norway. Unlike the scientific awards, which typically recognize objective empirical achievements, the Peace Prize inherently considers subjective qualifications, which makes it vulnerable to criticism. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who during the previous year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences." However, Nobel's explicit mandate has repeatedly been ignored. The awarded prize frequently became a tool to encourage desired political transitions rather than actual peacemaking. The composition of the committee awarding it each year is determined by the Norwegian Parliament, which members reflect the political balance of Norway's legislature. Hence, national interests and the domestic political climate can influence the selection process. And, due to its political nature, the Nobel Peace Prize has been subject to numerous controversies. The prize has occasionally gone to war mongers and blood stained militarists. Henry Kissinger, architect of the secret carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, received the prize in 1973 for negotiating a ceasefire in the Vietnam war. His co-recipient, North Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc To, declined to accept his portion of the award. The backlash to their nomination was so intense that two committee members resigned. Yitzhak Rabin, who oversaw the "Break Their Bones " policy during the first Palestinian Intifada in early 1988, received the prize in 1994. He shared his award with Shimon Peres, father of Israel's nuclear arsenal, who was held responsible for the Qana massacre in Southern Lebanon that killed 106 civilians, and with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. As a confirmed ally of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, Maria Machado has faced criticism for supporting Israel's bombing of Gaza and for denying that Israel's disproportionately overwhelming response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks amount to genocide. And then there is the arguably premature prize awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his first term. While there is no official count, at least nine Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded that have been controversial. Examples of some that have been notably absent from the list of awardees are deserving people like Vaclav Havel, who led Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Revolution" and Mahatma Gandhi, who had a profound influence on the concept of non-violent resistance. So, Director Steven Cheung certainly has a point. However, this still raises the question of whether President Trump's record reflects the requisite criteria to merit receiving this award. The push to make Donald Trump the winner of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize already began within hours of the announcement of Venezuela's Machado's win this year. Despite his recent victory for brokering a Gaza ceasefire, his foreign policy featuring "peace through strength," the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, his threats to use military force against foreign territories like Panama and Greenland, ordering air strikes on Iran, or emboldening Israeli aggression in the Middle East, have betrayed his pledge to be a "peacemaker and unifier." Of course, none of this might stop the Nobel Committee from glossing over the traditional impediments to peace writ large. Perhaps it is time to redefine peace in terms of structural transformation and recommitting to the Prize's founding principles. Stop recognizing those who pursue peace not as a political strategy, and using power and military action, but as a principled mission rooted in justice, non-violence and human dignity. Theo Wierdsma

FRACTURED POLITICAL SPEECH NEEDS ATTENTION

President Donald Trump's recent struggle to pronounce the word "acetaminophen" during a press conference in which he advised pregnant women against using Tylenol, elicited mockery across social media. Acetaminophen is the primary ingredient in Tylenol, widely used for pain relief, which the administration alleges is connected to causing autism in children. It was not so much the content of the speech observers were reacting to, but to its inarticulate, embarrassing, rambling execution. Many Americans would probably also have difficulty pronouncing this word when they first see it. But most of us don't have a support staff to help us prepare for a speech to a national audience. We deserve to expect more. While it is not a formal requirement, there is a strong social expectation that U.S. presidents be fluent in English. Our office holder's use of language is a key tool for connecting with the public, conveying personality and projecting strength. His or her command of English, including all elements of grammar - speech, sentence structure, word order, - elements that work together to create meaningful and coherent sentences, is considered a critical part of their public persona and ability to communicate effectively with the American public and the international community. However, there is no constitutional or legal requirement concerning language proficiency for a president. Historically, many early presidents were multilingual due to their classical education or diplomatic roles abroad. That trend largely disappeared by the 20th century. The modern presidency, with its mass communication through media, places a much greater emphasis on a leader's perceived fluency in English Even though President Trump has openly considered himself to be "really smart" and a "stable genius," these are subjective qualifiers that are not always objectively measured, nor essential for capable communication. IQ tests, frequently referred to when discussing "genius," are not really useful for measuring someone's effectiveness. There are hundreds of different tests, with one study even identifying more than 200. Formats vary in their focus on specific cognitive abilities. A test used to determine a person's communication skills is the "Flesch-Kincaid" grade level formula which estimates the U.S. school grade level needed to understand a piece of text. It measures text complexity based on average sentence and word length used to insure content is understood by the intended audience. In other words, at what grade level does someone communicate with spectators or listeners. A historical review of an analysis, assessing the first 30,000 unscripted words spoken by the last 15 presidents from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that most presidential candidates speak at grade level 6 through 8. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, who were basically at an 11th grade level, made the top of the list. President Trump clocks in around mid 4th grade level, the worst since Harry Truman, who spoke at nearly a 6th grade level. Mr. Trump was judged to speak at the lowest grade level with the smallest vocabulary. Many Americans, 54%, can't read past 6th grade competency. Having said all this, it bears repeating that there is no constitutional requirement for a president to demonstrate proficiency in English or to practice effective communication skills. But it helps! Our executive branch of government is typically equipped with speech writers and policy experts whose task include translating complex policy into a clear message that reflects a president's unique speaking style and personality. This involves research, drafting, review and rehearsal. Taking advantage of this dedicated staff could prevent public embarrassment in the future. Theo Wierdsma

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS SHAPE GLOBAL TRAVEL

A few decades ago, a life-time friend of mine in The Netherlands, refused to consider visiting us in California as long as George Bush was in office. This rejection caught me unexpectedly off guard. However, in retrospect, at that time his mindset symbolized an emerging reaction to multiple adverse political factors affecting international travel into the U.S. At the time, his attitude prevailed among many potential international travelers. Foreign tourism to the U.S. was dramatically impacted by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The decline resulted from psychological factors, new security measures and restrictive visa policies. The perception that was created suggested that entry into the U.S. was difficult. Besides, the Iraq war, started in March of 2003, and the "Bush Doctrine," which held that the country would implement a policy of preemptive military strikes against nations known to be harboring terrorist organizations, further damaged the sense of international goodwill toward the U.S. Our travel industry's share of the global market dropped from a peak of 9.4% in 1992 to a low of 5.9% in 2004. This decline cost us billions of tourist dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. Since the Bush years, the political landscape has changed. However, history appears to be repeating itself. Globally, tourism contributes about 10% to the value of all goods and services produced (GDP), employing 1 in 10 people world-wide. In 2024, global tourism's direct contribution was estimated at $10.9 trillion. The sector generated a record breaking $2.6 trillion to the U.S. economy that same year. This amounted to about 8% of our GDP, supporting 20 million jobs and $585 billion in tax revenue. The tourism industry is indisputably a vital part of our economy, and foreign travel constitutes a significant slice of this. In early 2025, the "U.S. Travel Association" projected that foreign travel spending would increase to $200.8 billion this year. This would have amounted to a substantial growth of 9% over 2024. However, in May, noting a sharp and widespread drop in arrivals, the "World Travel and Tourism Council" radically revised this assessment, and projected that this level of spending would actually drop to $169 billion, 8% below 2024. In addition, the Council predicted that, out of 184 countries tracked, the U.S. would end up being the only one to experience a decline in international visitor spending. So, what happened? More than a dozen countries, from Canada to Europe to China, have published advisories about travel to the U.S.. Tariffs, immigration crack down, repeated jabs about the U.S. acquiring Canada and Greenland, visions of army units on the streets, fears of being questioned at the border, the requirement to choose either "male" or "female" on visa applications, specific risks for those identifying as LGBTQ+, the fall of the dollar against the Euro, and a significant increase in the perception of uncertainty about what might happen next, are some of the concerns expressed by potential visitors. The loss won't be felt by travel and tourism alone. It represents a direct blow to the overall U.S. economy, impacting communities, jobs and businesses from coast to coast. Canadian tourist traffic, traditionally representing 28% of the total number of international visitors has already experienced a 25% drop, seriously affecting business income in a number of northern states. Las Vegas, which is significantly dependent on international traffic, has seen 12% fewer visitors each month since May. And Washington D.C., a traditional draw for foreign visitors, so far logged 48 cancellations of large reservations and events, and expects many more. Industries relying on foreign tourists: hospitality, retail and transportation are bracing for continued declines. Every 1% drop in international visitor spending equals $1.8 billion in lost revenue for our economy. This means that we stand to lose more than $21 billion in travel related income this year. Those depending on the tourism industry for their livelihood are legitimately wondering when their sector of the economy might recover. The FIFA world cup scheduled for next year may help spark a renewed interest in the U.S. as a travel destination. However, a sustainable recovery will depend on political and policy changes. A shift in policy focus, particularly toward improving visa access and easing travel restrictions should help revive this vital slice of our economy. Until then, the country's tourism industry must grapple with the lasting effects of restrictive policies and uncertain political conditions. Theo Wierdsma