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

IS CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM RESHAPING GOVERNMENT POLICY?

The Establishment Clause is the first of two religion clauses in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause forbids our government from establishing an official religion, and also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. As a general matter, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Establishment Clause's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion" not only prevents the government from establishing an official religion, but also bars other types of support "respecting" an establishment. The "Establishment of religion " clause, at a minimum, means that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. (See e.g. "Everson v. Board of Education " (1947)). In short: the Amendment appears to have been firmly cemented in constitutional law. Enter the Trump Administration, Project 2025 and Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is a political ideology which advocates for a legal and cultural fusion between Christianity and a nation's government. In the U.S., it's adherents believe the country was founded on Christian principles, that the government should actively promote these values, and that Christianity should hold a privileged place in public life. It excludes some Americans following other religious traditions, or those who are not religious at all. The explicit aim of Project 2025, which has guided much of the early work of the Trump administration, is to infuse biblical principles across the federal government. Calls to protect Christianity, make America more Christian, and align this country with the Bible are all common phrases associated with Christian Nationalism. It is generally understood that conservative Christians behind this point of view form the bedrock of President Trump's Republican support. A prominent, though awkward, focus of the movement's pursuit of it's objectives has been it's insistence on removing the concept of empathy, a deeply rooted Christian value, from our government's decision making process The conflict surfaced prominently during Mr. Trump's high profile clashes with Pope Leo XIV, which centered on questions of empathy and leadership, specifically sparked by the Pontiff's vocal opposition to the war in Iran, mass deportation and military conflict. The debate over empathy has become a prominent focal point for many Christian Nationalists. The latter's critique is rooted in some specific ideological, cultural and theological beliefs. Among others: The fear of moral compromise - the thought that untethered empathy can blur the lines between right and wrong, that fully identifying with someone's pain might lead to condoning or validating actions the Bible defines as sin - i.e. LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, etc.; Priority of objective truth - the believe that truth, defined by biblical scripture must always take precedence over feelings, which may replace scripture as the ultimate moral guide; and "Woke politics"- the thought that empathy may be weaponized as a progressive political tool. The Trump administration has gone "all in" in support of Christian Nationalist ideology, and has actively worked to expand religious expression in public life and loosen restrictions on faith organizations. Some key policy and cultural actions include: establishing Executive branch task forces like the White House Faith Office, the Religious Liberty Commission and a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. Efforts also include targeting LGBTQ+ and gender identity issues, curbing abortion access and engaging in cultural battles with universities, the Smithsonian Institution, and Public Broadcasting all the while singling out opposition to DEI programs. These moves, while celebrated by the religious right, eroded the separation of church and state. To some the growing prevalence of Christian Nationalism in our government is innocuous, harmless. However, the movement's objective no longer simply focuses on the defense of liberty, it targets the accumulation of power. As such, it endangers constitutional values, impregnates governmental policy, and provides a justification for the lack of empathy in our government's pursuits. It is using its enhanced influence to impose its will on Christian organizations it identifies as "woke" or opposed to President Trump's agenda, as exemplified by its role in defunding religious groups that have been providing life saving care to many of the most vulnerable people in the world. If we are not careful, while we appear intent on demolishing a theocratic regime in the Middle East, we could end up gradually easing into the semblance of one right here. Theo Wierdsma

NOTHING HOLY ABOUT THIS WAR

After President Trump's military executed "0peration Midnight Hammer" June 22 of last year, he proclaimed that "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news." So, when the administration initiated "Operation Epic Fury" on February 28 this year in conjunction with Israel as an extension of the "Ramadan War," ostensibly to prevent the country from developing nuclear capabilities, the resulting devastating activity appeared counter intuitive. The "operation" resulted in an estimated economic damage of between $50 and $300 billion, or roughly 40% of Iran's pre-war GDP, while killing 13 U.S. troops, and 2,000 Iranians. Iranian fatalities included almost 175 young girls between the ages of 7-12 at the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls school in Minab killed by a U.S. Tomahawk missile strike. It is hard to imagine that these kids posed a threat to our security. Since critics managed to debunk the rationale behind the initial justification for this war the administration gradually began rebranding its military activity as a "holy war," heavily invoking Christian nationalist rhetoric to justify its action. Some of Trump's allies now portray the U.S. - Israel war against Iran as a "modern crusade," with some military commanders actually telling troops that the conflict is ordained by God to trigger a divine return. The idea of invoking a holy war is not new. It refers to an armed conflict justified by religious causes aimed at defending, spreading or reclaiming sacred beliefs or lands. an early instance of this concept was initiated by Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called for a reclamation of the holy land, framing military action as a "just war," a crusade with the rallying cry "Deus Vult" - God wills it, which, by the way is tattooed on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's bicep. Secretary Hegseth has framed the Iran war as a Christian "holy war" or "modern crusade" which emphasizes overwhelming violence and divine sanction. On April 15, at a Pentagon worship service he prayed in the name of Jesus that U.S. soldiers might use " overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy." He followed it up with "Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation." Dressing up the devastating military action as a bible based divine mission in which God is on the side of the U.S. arose almost naturally within an environment where Trump is regularly deified. During the White House Easter prayer event Paula White Cain, Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office, Trump's long-time spiritual advisor, a Pentecostal televangelist, compared the president to Jesus himself, suggesting that he had been persecuted, unfairly accused, and had risen again. She expressed that, in her opinion, "God is using you to defeat evil." In an earlier video she had opined that "Saying no to Trump is the same as saying no to God." Whichever justification the administration uses to convince the voting public of its right to pursue this illegal, brutal, unprincipled war, its human consequences are dramatically illustrated in a short story, written by Mark Twain around 1904-1905, the "War Prayer," in which he issues a scathing indictment of war targeting the Spanish American War (1898) and the Philippine American War of 1899-1902. He expressed his disgust with the patriotic fervor and the "Christian" justification for the violent destruction of foreign peoples. Twain insisted that prayers for victory in battle ignore the suffering inflicted upon the enemy. His "prayer" is still very relevant today: "O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their fields with the pale forms of their patriotic dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their un-offending widows with unraveling grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst - for our sake who adore thee lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives." Secretary Hegseth ought to take note. Twain told his publisher not to print it "for it would be regarded as sacrilege." His prayer was ultimately printed after his death in Harper's Magazine of November of 1916. With midterm elections on the horizon, one wonders whether the Trump administration is grasping at straws to protect its slight electoral majority. All and all, not a very Christian effort. Theo Wierdsma

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

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

CHARLIE KIRK'S TRANSITION TO MARTYRDOM

Charlie Kirk's assassination on the Utah Valley University campus on September 10 forcefully reminded us of a macabre American ritual featuring the combination of gun violence and toxic politics. The right-wing political activist, founder of the youth organization "Turning Point USA" had not been elected to any political office. However, given his status as a prominent supporter of President Trump's MAGA movement he touched a chord of nearly biblical dimensions, to some degree resembling the response traditionally anticipated after the assassination of prominent political personalities. It is uniformly understood that, in civil society, regardless of political affiliation, deadly violence generated by political viewpoints, can never be tolerated or justified. But, as a country, we have periodically cycled through times of upheaval, discord and division which, unfortunately, have culminated in a spree of politically motivated killings. During the 1960s we witnessed the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. During the early part of this century we experienced deadly encounters and assassination attempts of former Representative Gaby Gifford, Representative Steve Scalise, Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, an attempt on the lives of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, an arson fueled attempt on the life of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and family, and multiple attacks on, then candidate, Donald Trump. A significant difference between the toxic environment of the 1960s and today is the influence of social media. Its reach not only helps to amplify extreme viewpoints, it can also be used to positively prevent adverse responses. To his credit, President Trump's initial reaction to Charlie Kirk's unconscionable execution was commendable and presidential. He pointed out that "It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequences of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most despicable way possible." This could have been the beginning of an attempt at proactively calming an anticipated national response. However, he could not help putting his foot in his mouth. Before any motive for this abhorrent act was even apparent, he reverted to his established mantra, and continued by accusing "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop now!" The president appeared unwilling to acknowledge that he was part of the problem. He routinely refers to his opponents as "vermin" that need to be rooted out. He calls judges "monsters," and identifies those who oppose his policies as "scum," radical left thugs that lie and cheat on elections, and will do anything to destroy America and the American Dream. He threatened to put Liz Cheney, "a radical war hawk," in front of a firing squad, shoot protesters "in the legs or something," and so on. In the mean time he spearheaded the public veneration of Charlie Kirk and "the American values for which he lived and died. While largely ignoring to acknowledge the recent threats, violent attacks and killing of Democrats. He similarly ignored the myriad of highly controversial hate filled viewpoints espoused by his "deceased" supporter. He ordered the American flag to continue to be flown at half staff past the remembrance of 9/11 "in honor of Charlie Kirk." He sent Vice President Vance to escort Kirk's remains from Utah to Arizona on Air Force 2. And he posthumously awarded Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our highest civilian award. Many conservatives view Kirk's death as a galvanizing force for years to come, an opportunity to supercharge the movement he started and to cement conservative Christian values into American life. Jackson Lahmeyer, a pastor in Oklahoma, founder of the "Pastors for Trump" network, contributed: "Charlie died for what he believed in, he died for something greater than just himself. The shooter's motive could have been political, religious or something else. Regardless, he was a martyr." Politically, leading figures on the far-right now feel empowered to call for a crackdown on their ideological opponents. Many call for the administration to "prosecute every single leftist organization." On the defensive, many others now fear that Mr. Trump and his allies will use Kirk's killing as a pretext to attack their political opponents, suppress liberal political activity and suspend democratic rights. Lilliana Mason, political science professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, is one of many who worry that to the extent that leaders are framing this assassination as something that needs to be retaliated against creates a huge opportunity for bad things to happen. "If the cycle of retaliatory violence gets started, it's really hard to stop it." Both sides in our polarized political world will need to lower the temperature of our agitated discourse or find an off ramp before it gets worse. Designating a "chosen one" and elevating him to "MAGA Sainthood" won't solve our perennial problem. Theo Wierdsma

RESHAPING THE FOCUS OF HISTORY

From the first day his administration assumed office this January, President Trump broke all records issuing executive orders. He generated 26 on his first day alone. These presidential directives covered a wide swath of topics, from sweeping changes in how the federal government works to signaling his intention to reshape how the country's stories are told. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, creators of Mr. Trump's blueprint "Project 2025," especially welcomed the new administration's push to influence history and culture, combating what it referred to as "the totalitarian cult identified as the great awokening." The president's "White House Executive Order" of March 27, titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" serves as a case in point. It calls for the removal of "divisive, race centered ideology" at the Smithsonian Institution, and instructs the Interior Secretary to revoke recent changes to landmarks and monuments if they are found to "perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history." It calls for "withholding federal money from programs related to diversity, equality and inclusion or promoting gender ideology," while it also mandates including a "patriotic" curriculum into K-12 education, accusing schools of indoctrinating children in anti-American ideologies. Jefferson Cowie, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at Vanderbilt University, suggests that Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" points to how he wants to portray history. The idea is that he "works on nostalgia for a golden age," that there is some version of America we need to get back to. This approach hints at an essential divide when interpreting the story of the United States: Is America a country striving to return to former glory, or a nation on a continuous arc of self improvement? The "Organization of American Historians," the largest professional society dedicated to U.S. history, warned that Trump's order to rewrite history to reflect a glorified narrative downplays or erases elements of American history - slavery, discrimination, division - while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups. Angela Diaz, Associate Professor of history at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, observes that a large majority of Americans - for instance women, people of color, the impoverished - did not in fact flourish during the so-called golden era of the past. For many groups, a return to the past would mean "erasing a lot of the legal, economic, political, technological, and social progress that the country has made and calling all of this into question." It is, of course, not uncommon that in times of social and political upheaval political leaders seek to refocus the lens of history. History is replete with attempts at erasing unwanted philosophies, often by burning books and documents containing content controversial for the time and threatening established authority. These events took place as recently as the Nazi book burning organized by students during the 1930s and focused on purging literature representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. Even in our own country data shows that since 2021, more than 15,000 books have been banned from libraries across 43 states. Most of these feature characters or stories about people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and those dealing with race and racism. This does not mean that historical revisionism is somehow illegitimate. The reinterpretation of a historical account by challenging established views using new evidence, questions or perspectives is a legitimate process essential for historiography. However, distorting the past, deliberately misrepresenting historical events to serve ideological agendas or fit a particularly political viewpoint without scientific foundation is not. The perceptive works of social critic George Orwell illuminated how the control of history could lead us down a slippery slope towards autocracy. He astutely projected that: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The main character in his dystopian novel "1984", Winston Smith, who secretly rebels against the totalitarian regime of "Oceania" complaints pointedly: "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute to minute. Nothing exists except our endless present in which the party is always right." The Trump administration's push to rewrite American history is stirring up significant controversy, but what kind of lasting effect might it have? According to Vanderbilt's Cowie: "As long as the data is not lost, it all seems reversible. Essentially, since they are executive orders, they can be reversed by a new regime." Theo Wierdsma

GASLIGHTING THE EFFECTS OF TARIFFS

President Donald Trump continues to "gaslight" the country about the effects of his ever shifting tariff policies. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation designed to intentionally mislead someone. When used over a considerable amount of time, we begin to doubt ourselves, believe an alternate truth, and we even start to wonder if we are losing our mind. President Trump's repetitive enunciation of his mantra that "billions of dollars are flowing into America" as a result of his policies, and his claim that tariffs will restore jobs and cut trade deficits, are attempts to manipulate public perception and downplay the negative economic effects of his tariff policies, and seem self serving and substantially without merit. Tariffs are taxes governments impose on imported goods. They are traditionally used to protect domestic industries by making foreign products more expensive, and encourage consumers to purchase locally manufactured commodities. However, if a country lacks competing merchandise, for instance coffee, these taxes only increase their costs without available alternatives. Besides, Mr. Trump's persistent declarations that foreign governments pay his tariffs is either naively or deliberately off the mark. U.S. importers, not foreign governments pay these tariffs. They generate the revenue for our government. The higher cost of imports create trade barriers which increase prices, which reduce the available quantity of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers. According to the largest and most complex financial institutions in the country, J.P. Morgan Chase, tariffs not only raise prices, they slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Aside from his, however naive misplaced pursuit of traditional trade objectives, President Trump has used tariffs as a tool to advance various policy goals. He threatened to use tariffs to influence countries on issues like immigration and deportation policies. For example, he linked tariffs on Colombian goods to that country accepting deported migrants; he threatened increased tariffs on Mexico and Canada to pressure them to curb the flow of migrants and fentanyl; and he issued a 50% tariff on Brazil because he was unhappy about that country's trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro. And there are other examples of this questionable use of economic policy. What is true is that tariffs are generating tens of billions of dollars each month. In July, the government collected nearly $30 billion, a 242% increase over the same month last year. However, this increase in revenue does NOT come foreign exporters, it is paid by domestic importers. Aside from threatening the continued viability of many small businesses that are unable to absorb the effects of these ill-advised policies, they will predictably end up significantly increasing annual expenses for the average American household. The Yale Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research center which provides in-depth analyses of federal policy proposals for the American economy, estimates that this increase could be between $2,400 and $3,800 in 2025. Since current tariff policies seem to result overwhelmingly in higher prices for goods and services, we, at a minimum, ought to stop believing the propaganda coming out of the White House. In the mean time, let's tighten our belts. Theo Wierdsma

DEMONIZING IMMIGRANTS THREATENS OUR CORE VALUES

A foundational aspect of our national identity is the widely regarded notion that the United States is a nation of immigrants. While the country has also seen periods of restrictive immigration policies, our history is deeply intertwined with the movement of people from other nations. No other state has as large an immigrant population as does the United States. With the important exception of those descended from native peoples and/or enslaved Americans, few people in this country cannot trace at least part of their ancestry to an immigrant either recently or centuries ago. Today, almost 15% of our population is foreign born. Nevertheless, immigration has persistently remained one of the most contentious social and political issues in our history. The policies and activities initiated by the Trump administration serve as a case in point. Historically, from roughly 1607 to around 1830, immigration into this country began with colonial patterns shaped by diverse motivations, including religious freedom, economic opportunity, and the forced migration of Africans through the slave trade. Early settlers predominantly arrived from England, followed by waves of Germans, Scottish and Irish. The second wave of immigrants, of over 10 million people, arrived during the period dominated by the idea of "Manifest Destiny," the belief that the United States was destined to expand its territory and spread its political, social and economic influence across the North American continent. This idea fueled a westward expansion, which required a constant flow of reinforcements to expand, secure and defend the frontier. Immigrants filling this need consisted predominantly of Anglo protestants, later followed by Northern and Western Europeans. Around the mid 19th century, immigration was influenced by multiple foreign and domestic events. The potato famine suffered by Ireland, around 1846, brought almost one million new immigrants from that country. The California Gold Rush of 1849-1855 prompted an infusion of fortune seekers. And the Homestead Act, signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862 allowed any citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S., to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land, drew millions of settlers and shaped the demographics of the American West. The introduction of Irish Catholics challenged the dominance of native Protestants, spurring the rise of an anti Catholic "Know Nothing" movement in Massachusetts and elsewhere. During the 1860s and 1870s opposition to Chinese migrants culminated in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the entry and reentry of Chinese immigrants for more than 70 years. And the Immigration Act of 1924 added literacy tests and country specific quotas. The motivation behind these restrictive measures was mostly cultural, the fear that allowing foreign cultures would increasingly dilute and pollute the demographic make-up of the native population. However, much of cultural prejudice was converted to expressions of economic concerns, suggesting that new arrivals would give the native population disadvantageous competition. The "Immigration and Nationality Act" of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, eliminated the national origins quota system that had favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe. It opened the door for new immigrants seeking better economic opportunities and escaping political turmoil. As a consequence, over 70 million immigrants arrived in the U.S., 18 million from Mexico alone. Although not all stayed, and many were ultimately reclassified, by 2023 more than 48 million foreign born individuals lived in the U.S.. Not unexpected, the volatility of the issue has proven to be fertile political fodder for our elected representatives. The racist, draconian and selectively demonizing policies of the Trump administration, spearheaded by Stephen Miller, the president's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, has been decisively one sided feeding into a manufactured anti-immigrant frenzy. Unsurprisingly, the administration has ignored the beneficial impact and positive contribution provided by adding new immigrants into our cultural mix. An often overlooked statistic is generated by the reality that our population is rapidly aging. This trend is driven by increased longevity and lower birth rates. By 2030, adults over 65 are expected to outnumber those under 18. This poses significant complications for the economy, health care and social security systems. The accepted population replacement level is 2.1 births per woman. And this would only result in zero population growth. Our current fertility rate is just 1.7%. Immigration can help rectify this situation. Foreign born women tend to have much higher birth rates than those born in the country. Immigrants, including those who are undocumented, help businesses fill positions vacated by retirees. Their taxes help fund the governmental social security programs upon which retirees depend. In their totality, in 2022, immigrants contributed $382.9 billion in taxes. Of this $59.4 billion came from the undocumented segment of this population. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.) Immigrants posses skills that are complimentary to those of natives, who end up specializing in jobs that have higher earnings prospects. They are also more mobile than U.S. born workers. They move to areas of relatively high labor demand. Besides, immigrant labor keeps prices low, while immigrant demand for goods and services stimulate growth in the economy. Moreover, the foreign born start new businesses at significantly higher rates than U.S. born individuals. The question remains: Are we a nation of immigrants, or should we be? History established the relevance of immigrants during the development and growth of our country. We actively recruited them when we needed help during our post colonial westward expansion, as a necessary supply of labor during the period of rapid industrialization, and as fieldworkers for our agricultural production. Besides, in the famous words of Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a plaque connected to the Statue of Liberty, we have taken in many of the millions of "tired and poor" refugees passing through Ellis Island, which, in many ways, cemented welcoming immigrants as one of our core values. Independent analyses convincingly established the significant net benefit immigrants contribute to our economy. While nativist expressions of discomfort with the influx of immigrants have surfaced periodically, the current administration's approach appears unnecessarily mindless and demonic in concept and execution. Immigrant contributions to our history and culture should be celebrated and revered, not trivialized and vilified. Theo Wierdsma

PATRIOTIC CELEBRATION AND CONTROVERSY

June 14 is a significant date in our country's history. On June 14, 1777. the Second Continental Congress adopted the "United States Flag Act" resolution. This resolution stipulated that the official American flag should have 13 stripes, alternating between red and white, 13 stars to represent the states in the union, and a blue field to represent the new constellation. In 1949, President Truman signed an act of Congress officially designating the date a national holiday. The Continental Congress was the governing body established in May of 1775 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from the thirteen colonies. It served as the de facto government during the Revolutionary War, adopting the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. It managed the war effort, which included forming the Continental Army. Per chance, also on June 14, be it two years earlier in 1775. The Continental Army was the army of the United Colonies, representing the thirteen colonies during the Revolutionary War. It was created to coordinate military efforts of the colonies in the war against the British, who sought to maintain control over their American possessions. General George Washington was appointed Commander in Chief. It is perhaps a coincidence that the date of the founding of our first military forces and the certification of the most powerful symbol of the freedoms of our country are one and the same. Traditionally, Flag Day is a recurring event, celebrated across the country with a variety of activities, including parades, essay contests and picnics. It is not a military holiday like Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day and Veterans Day. This year its observance is overwhelmed by the 250th, anniversary of the formation of our armed forces, which is unique because of its scale and historical significance. One would think that the combination of these two commemorations would create a powerful opportunity to celebrate a festive patriotic focus manifested by a planned massive parade in our national capital. So, what is the controversy all about? With the exception of its price tag, the legitimate patriotic celebration was never controversial until our current president decided to infuse the festivities with a celebration of his 79th birthday, which also shares this specific date. The focus shifted. The image of 6600 soldiers, 28 Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley fighting vehicles, 28 striker vehicles, a B-25 bomber, horses, mules and 50 helicopters overhead, in the minds of many of Trump's opponents, conjure up visions of parades pointedly and publicly reviewed by autocratic leaders like Putin, Kim Yong Un, Xi Jinping and others. The price tag for this massive military display, touted as the biggest military parade in American history, is estimated at $45 million, in addition to the cost of repair for Washington D.C.'s streets, which could run an additional $16 million. To some, these costs seem absurd when juxtaposed against the administration's mass firings at federal agencies and it's plans to affect deep cuts to federal programs many Americans rely on. Add significant inconveniences like the suspension of airline operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport for part of the day to accommodate fly-overs and a planned fireworks display, which forces travelers booked to fly from or through D.C. to rearrange their flights, and the total loss of parking at the Pentagon, and more unhappiness sets in. Not unexpected, massive nationwide so-called "No Kings" protests are scheduled to hit the streets in more than 1500 cities that day. More than 100 pro-democracy advocacy groups are reportedly partnering to organize events to run counter to President Trump's military parade in D.C. Given the recent explosion of confrontations in multiple municipalities, it may be too much to hope that peaceful coexistence will prevail. In many locations emotions have become incendiary. Troops are standing by, not just in D.C.. Confrontations may not be avoidable. We ought to aspire to maintain our focus on the patriotic importance of the date, ignore the additional infusion of celebrating a fragile ego, and preserve civil discourse. We can only hope. Fingers crossed. Theo Wierdsma

ARE WE IN THE MIDST OF A CULTURAL REVOLUTION?

Since the 1960s, the U.S. has become a more inclusive country. This necessarily meant that white men lost some part of their privileged positions in education, employment and entertainment. By the 2000s, in the wake of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, anti-racism books were on the best sellers list, major corporations were examining their hiring and promotion policies, and educational institutions were beginning to address structural racism. The backlash has been intense. Using his “Project 2025” blueprint, following his election, President Trump and company have been more than eager to rewind the clock to before the various civil rights movements, back even to before the Fourteenth Amendment that added “Birthright Citizenship” to the Constitution in 1868. The intensity of the administration’s attack on dominant values and structural elements of our society has convinced analysts and observers that its objective is to dramatically reshape our cultural norms – in fact to create a cultural revolution. The term “Cultural Revolution” is most closely associated with China’s Proletarian Revolution, spearheaded by Mao Zedong between 1966 and 1976, and Iran’s Cultural Revolution from 1980 to 1987 – two radical movements that upended institutions, targeted intellectuals and reshaped society to fit ideological purity tests. These revolutions led to the purging of educators, the rewriting of history, and the persecution of those who refused to conform. President Trump is currently involved in executing a cultural revolution as thoroughgoing in its ambitions and potential destructiveness as what Mao unleashed in China during the mid-1960s. During its revolution, China purged its intellectuals, universities were gutted, professors were publicly humiliated, research was shut down, and expertise was replaced with ideological loyalty. Similar patterns are emerging in the U.S. Although from a different ideological angle, we are beginning to observe a resurgence of ideological purges in education. Books are banned in dozens of states, from works on race and civil rights to literature about LGBTQ+ experiences. Universities are being defunded, and research grants are disappearing. Professors are targeted for their political beliefs. Teachers are being dismissed or intimidated for teaching so-called “divisive” subjects like systemic racism, gender studies and the history of oppression. Words like diversity, equity and climate change are erased from curricula. Entire academic fields are under attack for being “woke.” And the Department of Education is likely to be axed. Educators now face losing their jobs for acknowledging historical truths that some find uncomfortable. Federal employees have been directed to report colleagues engaged in D.E.I. initiatives, with warnings of “adverse consequences” for non-compliance. Team MAGA wants a “second American Revolution” that roots out all vestiges of progressivism, liberalism and secularism, which, according to Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, “will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” President Trump and his supporters borrowed some of their strategy from his good friend Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, who turned his country’s political system from being based on liberal principles into a patronage system run along illiberal lines, meaning a system where individual rights are no longer protected. Orban’s compliant legislature allowed him to concentrate power in the executive, deconstruct the Hungarian political system from the inside by stacking the courts, suppressing civil society and controlling right-wing media. The Trump administration is doing an admirable job emulating Orban’s “accomplishments.” During China’s Proletarian Revolution between 1 and 2 million people lost their lives. We are certainly not there. However, many thousands have already unceremoniously lost their livelihood and we are only a little more than four months into this process. Sit tight! Theo Wierdsma