25TH AMENDMENT ASSUMES CENTER STAGE

At a July 8 NATO press conference President Trump claimed that the Islamic Republic of Japan had shot 111 missiles at aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. During that same press conference our president repeatedly referred to Ukraine President Zelensky as President Putin. These utterances were some of the more recent erratic comments by Mr. Trump that prompted a growing concern about his mental health, leading some to suggest that the time has come to invoke section 4 of the 25th Amendment of our Constitution and remove him from office. Mental health professionals and critics argue that the increasing incoherence and loss of impulse control exhibited by our president are signs of potential degeneration. Verbal missteps and rambling monologues have fueled ongoing debates. While some analysts attribute the changes to a long-standing, unique, rhetorical style that resonates with his base, experts in psychology and medicine have raised alarms over what they view as a clear deterioration in language skills, overall coherence, and exhibition of attention deficit disorder. More than 70,000 mental health professionals signed petitions and open letters organized by groups like "Duty to Warn" warning about Donald Trump's psychological fitness and potential dangerousness. This movement has run parallel to smaller, focused statements by senior medical experts submitting formal warnings to Congress. (Psychology Today, Nov 17, 2025). A group of 30 senior doctors specializing in psychiatry or mental health entered a letter into the Congressional Record on April 30 of this year, entitled: "Medical concerns about President Donald J. Trump and his fitness for office." They argue that the president is mentally unfit, showing signs of cognitive decline and should be removed from office. And, as far back as 2017, Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist, violence expert and president of the World Mental Health Coalition, edited a book containing essays by 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals describing the "clear and present danger" that President Trump's mental health poses to the "nation and individual well being." They generally observed a distinct shift from concise, logical speech to rambling tangential digressions, including a linguistic and cognitive decline indicating various exhibitions aligned with a variety of forms of Alzheimer's or dementia. While for many invoking the 25th Amendment of our Constitution appears to be a rational, albeit political resolution of this fairly well documented problem, its application is neither simple nor universally endorsed. Section 4 of the Amendment stipulates that "If the Vice President and a majority of the President's cabinet believe the president is physically or mentally unfit to do their job, they can inform Congress in writing, immediately making the V.P. the "Acting President." If the president disagrees, they can attempt to take their power back, but Congress has the final say. Given the current composition of Mr. Trump's cabinet, this maneuver does not appear viable. In fact, it has never been used successfully. Over the years, numerous resolutions have been introduced to mandate a procedure for medically and psychiatrically evaluating a president who is suspected of being unfit to perform their duties. However, none of these attempts have been successful. In general, psychologists and mental health professionals remain deeply divided over Donald Trump. While many experts point to traits aligning with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and some have organized petitions arguing that his behavior poses a threat, other prominent professionals vehemently disagree. They contend that evaluating public figures from afar violates the American Psychiatric Association's "Goldwater rule," a guideline enjoining psychiatrists from professionally diagnosing someone they have not personally evaluated. They contend that political action should be addressed through the ballot box rather than through psychiatric diagnoses. (Psychology Today). Theo Wierdsma

REVIVING RED SCARE RHETORIC

More than three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a U.S. president is again casting the threat of Communism as one of the biggest issues facing American voters. At rallies and campaign-style speeches across the country this summer, President Donald Trump is increasingly portraying Democrats as Communists, betting that his message will sharpen the ideological contrast heading into November's midterm elections. Even though polls continue to show that voters remain mostly concerned about the economy, the cost of living, and Mr. Trump's aggressive military posture internationally, most recently displayed during his unabating war with Iran, Republican strategists consider these losing electoral issues for the party. Some are beginning to see recent primary victories of young Democratic Socialists as an opportunity to transition the narrative equating Democrats, Democratic Socialist and essentially everybody contesting MAGA rule as Communists and reviving the Red Scare propaganda which dominated much of the political propaganda during the 20th century. The "Red Scare" was a deliberate government and media campaign used during the early 20th century and the Cold War to stoke an intense fear of Communist subversion. By portraying leftists, labor organizers, and minorities as threats, it fueled widespread xenophobia and mass civil liberties violations. The first Red Scare (1917-1920) was triggered by World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. It demonized striking workers and immigrants, connecting legitimate labor struggles with "radical terrorism as threats to American society" incited by foreign agents. The government capitalized on these fears by passing the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, legally n in B criminalizing disloyal or anti-war speech. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer used this climate to conduct the "Palmer raids," arresting and deporting thousands of suspected radicals without warrants. Following World War II, the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, anti-Communist fear reached a fever pitch, resulting in what is commonly called as McCarthyism. Congressional committees like the "House Un-American Activities Committee interrogated writers, actors, and directors. Publications like "Red Channels" essentially destroyed careers by accusing hundreds of professionals of harboring pro-Soviet sympathies - often without evidence. Faced with potentially devastating electoral outcomes as the result of the upcoming November elections, President Trump took a page from the politically successful "Red Scare" campaigns of the 20th century, and revived its rhetoric by framing the political landscape as an apocalyptic battle between "common sense" and "hardcore, godless Communists." This strategy aims to rally his conservative base ahead of the mid-terms and combat progressive Democratic - Socialist victories. He has equated Democrats to Communists, conflating mainstream Democratic policies with Marxism, while portraying left-wing extremism as an existential threat to the American way of life. In his Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore he actually made the point that "the Communist menace is a mortal threat to liberty. A person cannot be a Communist and a patriot." It is a fact that, recently, Democratic Socialist candidates have significantly increased their representation in our electoral politics. Candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have won 35 primary elections so far this year, building on 250 DSA members holding elected public office across 40 states. The organization reached 120,000 dues paying members, marking the largest Socialist organization in U.S. history, surpassing the Socialist Party of America's 1912 peak. However, equating the organization and the Democratic Party with being Communist, and labeling them existential threats to American values smacks of empty revisionism. Communism as a political force no longer has the electoral pull it once had. Even in generally more receptive European countries its strength currently registers in the low single digits. President Trump's empty rhetoric can't be described as anything more than campaign propaganda designed to revitalize a fear palpable during much of the last century. It can no longer point to viable existential threats we ought to be concerned about. In reality his new campaign amounts to a "Hail Mary" pass, containing manipulative, hollow language created to bypass critical thinking and trigger strong emotional responses. We won't know until November 3 if his approach is successful. Some of his Republican followers might well be persuaded to overlook the substantive foundation of what they are asked to believe. For the rest of us, be aware! Empty propagandistic rhetoric has a proven, often successful, track record. Theo Wierdsma

FIFA AND PATRIOTISM ON FULL DISPLAY

With the 4th of July and our nation's 250th anniversary right around the corner, tradition dictates that we will erupt in patriotic fervor. However, given our increasingly divided country, the intensity with which our citizenry is expected to approach our cultural celebration this year may well be diminished or even controversial. This is not meant to suggest that, in general, people are less patriotic today than they were in the past. It merely presumes that, given current political schisms, for many, our definition of what we understand the substance of how we should express our patriotism differs markedly from that of our national leadership. "Patriotism" simply refers to the love, pride and devoted support of one's country. Key characterizations include nationalism, loyalty and allegiance. It does not mean unquestioned obedience to national leaders, hatred of others or an excuse to ignore the nation's flaws. It is not a mythologized spectacle that celebrates our nation's promises while ignoring historic and current injustices. However,a significant segment of our citizenry has lately accused our current national leadership of promoting substantially exactly much of the latter. Consequently, our exhibition of patriotism at large might well be diminished in intensity as a result of our growing political divide. Dominant objectives of patriotism include uniting diverse factions under shared values, fostering national unity by giving a population unity of purpose, and, in the process, promoting a sense of civic responsibility and inspiring citizens to actively support and improve their country. However, lately we appear unable to rally around widely shared objectives to accomplish anything close. Freedom 250's flagship event, "The Great American State Fair" on the National Mall, was kicked off by a campaign-style rally from Donald Trump who is scheduled to deliver another on July 4. This has drawn criticism for turning a national celebration into a political event, prompting at least seven Democrat-led states and multiple musical acts to pull out of the affair. Adding to the controversy, the U.S. Mint plans to issue a 250th commemorative gold coin bearing Donald Trump's likeness. Beverly Gage, a Yale University historian, observed,"The very idea of celebrating has become political and partisan. What is striking about our moment is how widespread the pessimism seems to be." A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that one in five Americans will not celebrate Independence Day. Many are grappling with fundamental questions of whether partisanship has fractured voters to the point of questioning if there still are unifying principles or whether partisanship has superseded patriotism. This state of affairs could be depressing, if not for the coincidentally well-timed concurrence of the unifying exhibitions of support for national soccer teams during the FIFA world cup. While by no means comparable to our traditional history-based celebration the world cup offers an exciting unifying distraction for many of us to grab on to. The competition unites the world by transforming a shared global passion into a universal language that transcends borders, politics and cultures. It literally brings billions of viewers and fans together, fostering international camaraderie and mutual respect. It brings nations together by bridging cultural divides creating vibrant hubs where supporters from dozens of countries proudly wear their colors, share traditions, and celebrate side by side. Notably, even though the Trump administration attempted to make participating challenging for them, even Iran fielded a national team, which played their group-stage matches in Los Angeles and Seattle. No other sporting event compares in size. The global stage commands massive viewership, uniting roughly half the world's population to watch a single shared event, connecting strangers everywhere. The exuberance associated with the world cup could serve as a timely replacement for the wanting intensity traditionally linked to our national independence celebration. The sport transcends our political divisions and helps unite us in support of a national endeavor. Theo Wierdsma