IS THE POPULIST FAR-RIGHT BEGINNING TO LOSE SUPPORT?

A shocking political event took place in Europe last month. On the strength of a 74% turnout - the largest in Hungary's history - prime minister Viktor Orban's 16 year tenure came to an abrupt end when opposition leader Peter Magyar and his Tisza party defied the odds and scored an overwhelming electoral victory over Fidesz, Orban's party, securing a 2/3 majority in the incoming Hungarian parliament. This victory will allow the new government, if it wants to, change the Hungarian constitution, and will greatly facilitate a comprehensive sweep of state institutions to eliminate the "state capture" imposed during Orban's rule, which significantly weakened the independence of these institutions. Tisza benefited when all centrist and left-wing parties voluntarily withdrew from the election campaign, giving Magyar a clear one on one contest against Fidesz and Orban. Outside of Hungary, the biggest immediate beneficiary of this result will likely be Ukraine, which is now set to receive a 90 billion Euro E.U. loan which, up to now, had been blocked by Orban. In addition, Hungary will soon receive 17 billion euros - about 8% of its GDP - in return for the incoming government undoing actions and laws implemented under Orban that were incompatible with EU rules. This outcome appears to highlight how opposition movements can challenge entrenched regimes and offers lessons for democratic recovery. Tisza's electoral victory prompted multiple analysts to consider whether it could be an indication that far-right political populism is losing ground, that the pendulum is about to swing back. After the 2008 great recession, right-wing populism surged in western democracies. The movement gained increased momentum during the mid 2010s because of growing anti-immigration sentiment, euro skepticism, and a backlash against globalization and political elites. During the mid 2010s political factions increasingly focused on immigration issues, and moved from the fringes to the mainstream, supported by a migrant crisis, which fed into cultural concerns about identity, border security and opposition to "woke" ideologies, economic concerns, globalization and disillusionment with the status quo. Many of these issues emerged within the destabilizing environment of rapidly accelerating social change, amplified by a targeted use of social media and news outlets. It became relatively easy for charismatic politicians to champion any or all of these political wedge issues. The political pendulum refers to the theory that power and public sentiment naturally swing back and forth between ideological extremes - most often between left-leaning progressivism and right-leaning conservatism. After one political ideology remains in power for an extended period of time, the theory is that voters tend to become frustrated with its perceived excess or failures, generating a natural correction toward the opposite side of the spectrum. Observers are suggesting that this is what we are seeing take place in a growing number of countries governed by right-wing populist parties or coalitions. Far-right populist governments have frequently failed to deliver for many constituencies. They frequently did not manage to fulfill their radical promises after assuming office and face practical governmental requirements. As voters begin to focus on personal economic concerns rather than culture wars, populist parties often struggle with mismanagement, internal scandals, and reliance on charismatic leaders who lack depth. Primary examples of countries with personality dependent governments include Italy with Georgia Meloni, the U.S. under Trump and Hungary under Orban and Turkey with Erdogan. Aside from these primary distractors challenging populist governments, mainstream parties are beginning to get better at addressing the grievances that fueled the populist surge of the past number of years. Indications that an ideological shift may be forthcoming appear to be growing. Aside from Orban in Hungary, Meloni in Italy recently lost passage of her flagship referendum designed to initiate judicial reform; in France centrist and left-leaning forces won elections in Paris, Lyon, Marseille and other right-wing footholds; in Slovenia liberal prime minister Robert Golob's Freedom Movement edged out the right-wing former prime minister Janez Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party; and in The Netherlands in a late 2025 election resulted in a significant shift toward the center and left when its far-right led coalition collapsed. Under these circumstances it may be tempting to predict the beginning of a major political shift. However, as Professor Gabor Scheiring at Georgetown University in Qatar cautions, the steam may be running out of the far-right populist movement, these indicators could also reflect isolated setbacks, not necessarily a pendulum swing. Stay tuned. Theo Wierdsma

REWRITING AMERICA'S HISTORY

George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" contains the famous slogan: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." This quote from Orwell's book is intended to mean that those in power manipulate historical records to shape public perception, justify current actions, and dictate future beliefs. By rewriting history, authorities ensure total, long-term control. Even though it seems doubtful that President Trump ever read Orwell's masterpiece, his Executive Order "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which aims to combat what it describes as "ideological" and "divisive" historical narratives in public institutions, appears to be a close fit. Mr. Trump articulated that by advancing his policy his administration would "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and America's greatness." His ideologically driven overhaul intends to remove "divisive" content, specifically targeting history he deemed anti American. His expressed aim is to align museum content with patriotic, traditional narratives in advance of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, with reviews focusing on eliminating subjects covering systemic racism or specific "woke" ideologies. The order instructs V.P. Vance to work with Congress to restrict funding for exhibitions that "divide Americans," and it calls for a comprehensive, 120-day review of all public facing materials, including placard text and digital displays. White House spokesman Davis Ingle remarked that "President Trump is ensuring that we are celebrating true American history and ingenuity instead of corrupting it in the name of left-wing ideology." Mr. Trump's blatant attempt at historical revisionism is candidly designed to expunge our perspective on the academic underpinning of the history we grew up with. He wants to accomplish this by replacing the scientific, more complex, interpretive studies of history with a whitewashed straightforward conventional narrative, by, among other things, erasing the examination of contributions from marginalized or overlooked groups. His approach includes abolishing D.E.I. programs, deleting "racial indoctrination" as a subject from K-12 education curricula, calling instead for "patriotic education." He envisions rewriting every course outline to emphasize a victor's or native's version of history, downplaying or denying abuses by former leaders, recreating myths through a narrative of a glorious past that was destroyed by internal and external "enemies," and removing or replacing monuments and landmarks that do not fit the new, official narrative. Historical revisionism refers to the academic effort of re-examining and updating established historical narratives based on new evidence, perspectives, or evolving contemporary values. Reinterpreting history is a perfectly legitimate endeavor, and one to which historians devote much effort. There is, however, a very big difference between critically and academically re-examining history, and deliberately rewriting or obliterating history to make it conform to what you want it to be. Political ideologues using the "Orwellian method," may use the process to make it conform to their agenda or to deny established truths. They frequently tend to believe that inconvenient facts should not get in the way of a convenient narrative. It might sound inconceivable that Donald Trump's endeavor to reconstruct our historical narrative stems from a comprehensive ideology. However, his approach to governing arguably encompasses elements of "populism" and "nativism," both of which political scientists classify as "thin-centered" ideologies rather than comprehensive theories. "Populism," an approach to governing, not an ideology, divides society into two antagonistic camps: the pure people and the corrupt elite. Its objective is to restore sovereignty to the people and overthrow a, perceived, "broken system." "Nativism" holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by the native population, defend a nation's culture, identity and territorial integrity against perceived threats from outsiders. Populist politics of history generally involve an anti-elitist stance against academic historians. Nativist revisionists tend to frame a nation's history as a story of pure unbroken greatness, while minimizing or denying the contribution of outsiders, cultural change or systemic injustice. They will argue that newcomers "spoil" or "threaten" the existing social fabric, and focus on "adjusting" the country's history to protect the status of the native born population. The Trump administration has adopted elements from both of these doctrines. Donald Trump has certainly not been the only notable national leader to attempt to rewrite history. The phenomenon has cultivated followers in numerous countries, such as China, Russia, Hungary, Poland and Japan. During the past decade, nativist populist ideas have gradually entered the mainstream of political parties across the European Union. As these ideas evolved, attempted state-sanctioned erasure or distortion of historical events tended to follow as well. Major examples include: Holocaust denial - A systematic attempt to deny or minimize the genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazi regime; Denial of the Armenian genocide - Turkish government long-standing refusal to recognize the 1915 systematic killing of Armenians; Rewriting the narrative of the brutal Franco regime - Spain's right-wing and far-right parties are working diligently to re-frame the history of the 1939-1975 Franco regime, challenging historical memory laws and preventing removal of Franco-era symbols. The attempted rewrite of history by political parties is nearly universal, serving as a common tool for power, legitimization, and mobilization of support across different political systems. While particularly prevalent in authoritarian regimes, this manipulation is also endemic to democracies, where parties frequently re-frame past events to suit current political narratives. This phenomenon, often termed "historical negationism," rampant or not, nevertheless refers to illegitimate manipulations of historical facts to fit specific political agendas. The Organization of American Historians has gone on record to submit that under the Trump administration, institutions such as museums and historic parks are now "under assault." The 6,000 member group calls the president's Executive Order "a disturbing attack on core institutions, the public presentation of history, and indeed on historians and history itself." George Orwell's expertly developed description of a dystopian nightmare remains relevant today and implies a clear warning - totalitarianism relies on altering the past to control the present, making objective truth irrelevant. Theo Wierdsma

CHAOS AS POLITICAL STRATEGY

Donald Trump's approach to governance is frequently analyzed through chaos theory, where calculated unpredictability, disruption, and rapid, impulsive shifts are used as strategic tools to manage, dominate, or reshape political environments. This tactic aims to keep opponents off balance, control the agenda, and overturn established norms. President Trump's approach does not model chaos theory in a scientific sense, which is an interdisciplinary field of mathematics and science, but it appears to weaponize chaos in a calculated strategy. Observers argue that his game plan is aimed at ensuring that he remains the center of attention and in charge of the narrative. The constant conflict and perceived fighting against "the establishment " serves to energize his political base. More specifically, as of early 2026, Trump's chaos strategy appears designed to influence the midterm elections by disrupting standard political and electoral operations. These include federalizing elections, aggressively gerrymandering congressional districts, hawkish immigration enforcement, and voter roll purges among others. A by-product, and perhaps even the objective of this calculated strategic approach has been the escalating eruption of ever more confrontational protests across the country. In the September - October 2025 issue of "Mother Jones Daily," it's national voting rights correspondent Ari Bergman writes: "From nationalizing voter suppression to flooding the streets with federal agents, the president and his allies are using all the tricks in the authoritarian playbook to tilt the midterms in their favor." During an episode of the "Politics War Room" podcast, veteran journalist Al Hunt asked an increasingly common question from Democratic strategist James Carville: "Is Trump looking to spark enough protest to justify declaring martial law in 2026, thus suspending the election?" Carville responded that we ought to be concerned about this eventuality and remain on "high alert." The presumed ultimate objective of the administration's chaos strategy is to make use of the National Emergency Act to justify employing the Insurrection Act or declare martial law. The president can declare a national emergency without initial congressional approval. The Insurrection Act is a specific statute allowing military assistance in domestic law enforcement. It empowers the president to deploy active duty military or federalize the National Guard to suppress civil disorder, rebellion, or insurrection in the U.S. It has been invoked about 30 times in our history. The last time was in 1992, during the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King beating trial. Martial Law, rooted in the president's constitutional Article II powers as Commander in Chief, involves a wholesale suspension of civil liberties. When invoked, military commanders can issue orders to civilians, as well as arrest and dispense punishment based on tactical needs of war rather than the civilian laws on the books. The only time this was tried on a national scale was when Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War to silence dissenters. Ceta Mitchell, a former Trump lawyer with 50 years of legal experience, who helped him attempts to overturn the 2020 election, ominously predicted that Trump would exercise some emergency powers to take control of the federal elections. However, even if President Trump's presumed strategy works to the extend that he feels justified in invoking emergency powers to respond to ever expanding volatile demonstrations, none of these authorizes him to suspend elections or alter their administration. A president remains in office during martial law. However, declaring it does not allow him or her to extend the term of office or bypass the Constitution. The "Election Clause" - Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution charges state and local offices with that responsibility. It appears that President Trump is beginning to recognize that. Nevertheless, he still believes that, in his mind, his administration has been so successful that he maintains that "When you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election." Since current polling tends to identify significant challenges for his Republican base in November, he has been busy amending his initial strategy. Aside from pressuring Texas to pass a redistricting plan that would add 5 more Republican seats in the House, he has vowed to "get rid of mail-in ballots" and " seriously controversial voting machines" through Executive Orders. As he explains on his own social media platform "Truth Social, " "If we do these two things, we will pick up 100 more seats." No matter where we place ourselves ideologically on the political spectrum, we have to remain vigilant. We could wake up one day to find out that the system we trust and grew up with has strategically been manipulated out of existence. Theo Wierdsma

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