How far will Trump go in the Iran War?

A remorseful update on Trump’s war in Iran

Bob Sheak, Sept. 20, 2026

Introduction

Trump set the stage for the war in Iran by withdrawing from an earlier agreement between the US and other states in which Iran allowed robust inspections of suspected sites and agreed, as Iran has consistently done, not to develop a nuclear weapon.

The terms of the agreement

The Arms Control Arms Control Association identifies some of the highlights of the agreement (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa-glance).

“The nuclear deal between Iran and the multilateral group of states known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) was endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015.

Iran’s compliance with the nuclear-related provisions of the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) according to certain requirements set forth in the agreement.

July 14, 2015, Finalization Day: conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement. Finalization day triggers Iran and the United States to begin domestic review processes of the JCPOA. Iran also begins providing the IAEA with information necessary for the agency to complete its investigation into past activities related to nuclear weapons development.
October 18, 2015, Adoption Day: 90 days after the passage of the UN Security Council Resolution endorsing the deal (July 20, 2015). Adoption day triggers Iran and the P5+1 to take steps (outlined below) to meet the commitments to fully implement the JCPOA.
January 16, 2016, Implementation Day: the IAEA certifies that Iran has taken the key steps to restrict its nuclear program and has put in place increased monitoring. The IAEA’s report on implementation day triggers U.S., EU, and UN sanctions relief. The duration of the nuclear commitments begins on implementation day (for example 15 year commitments expire Jan. 16, 2031.)
October 18, 2023, Transition Day: Eight years after adoption day (or the IAEA reaching its broader conclusion on Iran’s nuclear program, whichever is sooner). Transition day triggers the UN to lift missile restrictions, Iran to seek ratification of its additional protocol, the EU to terminate all remaining nuclear sanctions, United States to remove certain entities from the sanctioned list, and the United States to seek legislative termination of certain sanctions.

The U.S. Congress never formally approved the JCPOA, but they also never passed a bill to block the deal. Iranian assets frozen under a variety of previous sanctions were released. The U.S. delivered about 1.7 billion in cash to Iran, representing money that Iran had paid the U.S. before the 1979 Iranian revolution for military equipment that was never delivered.

Trump withdraws the U.S. from an Iran nuclear deal and gives him an excuse for the later attacks on that country.

Amy Sherman, Jon Greenberg, John Kruzel report on this ill-considered decision during Trump’s first presidential term, in early May 2018

(https://politifact.com/article/2018/may/08/trump-withdrew-us-iran-nuclear-deal-heres-what-you).

On May 8, 2018, Trump delivered a statement announcing, “the United States would exit a nuclear pact with Iran and re-impose sanctions on Tehran, saying the Obama-era deal failed to contain the regime’s nuclear ambitions and regional meddling.” Trump did this without any evidence that Iran was creating a nuclear weapon, the key provision of the agreement.

Sherman and his colleagues offer additional information on Trump’s decision to abandon the deal. They write,

“Trump believed the deal should have allowed international weapons inspectors to have greater access to Iranian military sites. He’s also hammered the deal for not covering Iran’s missile program and repeatedly underscored the need to stop the country from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

“Finally, Trump criticized the deal for failing to rein in Iran’s support of sectarian violence in places like Syria and Yemen, despite the deal’s promise to contribute to ‘regional and international peace and security.’”

“A last-ditch effort by leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom to address Trump’s concerns failed to persuade him to remain in the deal.”

Was Iran in compliance on nuclear weapons development?

Sherman and his colleagues found “that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran.

They add: “Over the 28 months the deal has been in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the foremost authority on the matter, said it found Iran committed no violations — aside from some minor infractions that were rectified.”

What is the practical impact of Trump’s decision?

The White House renewed sanctions targeted “critical sectors of Iran’s economy,” including its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.

“Prior to the deal, American and international sanctions shackled the regime. From 2012-15, the Iranian economy shrank by 9 percent per year, oil exports fell by more than half and more than $120 billion held in overseas banks were frozen.

“The lifting of sanctions had roughly the opposite effect. It spurred around 7 percent growth over the past two years, returned oil exports to nearly pre-sanctions levels and unfroze the country’s foreign assets.”

In response to Trump’s decision, former President Barack Obama defended the Iranian agreement and “called Trump’s announcement a ‘misguided’ decision that ‘risks eroding America’s credibility’ and warned that walking away from the deal could make conflict more likely.

“‘If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost,’ Obama wrote, ‘we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat or going to war to prevent it.’”

Trump’s war is unlawful,

Trump launched the war with huge bombing attacks without consulting Congress or considering the UN Charter’s views on what makes a war lawful. The Charter says this:

“The United Nations was established in 1945 to prevent war and promote peace, human rights, and social progress. Its Charter emphasizes that all member states must settle disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or when acting under Security Council authorization (UN Charter Articles 1 and 2.”

Experts agree that, from the onset, the US war on Iran constituted a war crime”

JAMEY KEATEN considers that UN-backed experts cite possible US war crimes in Iranian strikes, AP, Sept 17, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/un-human-rights-us-iran) …. Keaten is the chief Associated Press reporter in Geneva, focusing on Switzerland, diplomacy and U.N. institutions.

Here’s some of what Keaton reports.

“Experts commissioned by the U.N.’s top human rights body say they have found ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the United States committed war crimes in two strikes in Iran, including on a school in the southern city of Minab.

“They also accuse Iran’s theocratic government of carrying out crimes against humanity against its own people, in a report published Thursday.

“The report, while not binding, adds to international evidence gathered about crimes in the war in Iran, and could eventually be used in efforts to reach justice in international courts.”

Keaton continues. “The fact-finding mission on Iran, chaired by jurist Sara Hossain of Bangladesh, is made up of independent experts and was created in 2022 by the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s top human rights body, which is based in Geneva.

“The experts were expected to present their findings on Monday to the council, which is made up of 47 U.N.- member countries.”

In anticipation of the report, the White House’s spokesperson Anna Kelly rejected the report in advance saying the human rights body has “accomplished nothing for human rights while spouting unserious nonsense for decades.”

The UN experts report that the US launched “indiscriminate” attacks on Iran that constitute war crimes on Feb. 28 with special attention to “a pair of U.S. airstrikes that killed at least 178 civilians, including women and children.”

Keaton points out, “At the start of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran in February, at least one U.S. missile hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, according to an Associated Press investigation.” Iranian state media have said 168 people were killed in the strike, most of them children.

The UN experts “found reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects,” a U.N. statement about the team’s findings said about the Feb. 28 attacks by the U.S. and Israel.

Bottom of Form

“The U.N.-backed team based its allegations on two strikes — one involving Tomahawk missiles that hit the ‘clearly identifiable’ school, and another in which Precision Strike Missiles dispersed tungsten pellets over a ‘clearly identifiable sports complex and residential area’ in the southern city of Lamerd, also on Feb. 28.”

The UN experts also cite “crimes against humanity’” by Iran’s government. Keaton continues. “The team found that killings by state security forces in Iran have occurred on a ‘staggering scale,’ and civilians faced ‘gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity committed by their own government.’”

Both the US and Iran should provide reparations, they say

The experts said the United States and Iran should halt all rights violations and crimes and provide “full reparations to victims.”

The U.S. House has tried to limit Trump’s power to attack Iran

Caitlin Yilek reports for CBS News, Sept. 16, 2026, on how the U.S. House has voted three times to limit Trump’s power to strike Iran (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-approves-limiting trump-on-iron-for-third time). Here’s some of what she writes.

“For the third time, the House voted Tuesday [Sept. 15] to block President Trump from taking further military action against Iran, with seven Republicans breaking with the president.

“The vote ended in a 220 to 204 tally, marking a symbolic rebuke of the president over the largely unpopular war.

“Tuesday’s resolution drew more GOP support than the previous two efforts to limit Mr. Trump’s war powers in June and July.

Yilek continues. “Three new Republicans voted yes: Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn of Iowa. The four who supported the prior resolutions were Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

“Nunn, who is in a competitive reelection bid, said in a post after the vote that he will ‘not support another open-ended war.’”

“Miller-Meeks, another vulnerable Republican, added Wednesday, ‘The President needs to present a plan to Congress and the American people for how this end so we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.’”

“A war powers resolution that cleared the House in July has yet to see any movement in the Senate. Both chambers adopted another resolution in June, though the White House has argued against its validity.

“The resolution, introduced by Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”

Yilek points out that after six months of the war, “the Trump administration has yet to lay out an exit strategy as it seeks tens of billions in additional funding for the conflict that Mr. Trump initially predicted would last four to five weeks. The Pentagon has said Operation Epic Fury — the military’s term for the initial strikes against Iran — ended in May, but the U.S. and Iran have continued to exchange fire for months, and a ceasefire intended to bring the war to an end fell apart in July. Oil shipments from the region are still constrained, keeping global energy prices high.”

Meanwhile, Yilek writes, “Republicans are trying to provide up to $73 billion in new funding for the war through the party-line reconciliation process. The House adopted a budget blueprint in July to initiate the process, but it stalled in the Senate over the inclusion of funding for Mr. Trump’s voting regulations bill known as the SAVE America Act.”

The war is costly. “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis Tuesday that estimated the war with Iran could cost approximately $2 billion to $3 billion per month for as long as it continues. Between Feb. 28 and Aug. 1, the war is estimated to have directly cost the U.S. about $38 billion.” Other estimates indicate the cost to be over $44 billion by September. Trump started this war with no idea of how long it would last, how much it would cost, and the inflationary effects on American consumers.

In short, Trump falsely believed it would be an easy war to win, and that Iranian citizens would rise and transform their oppressive government. The number of Iranian casualties did not matter to him. He expected there would be few if any American casualties. He gave little thought to the costs of the war or its domestic economic effects.

The relevance of the Strait of Hormuz was absent in his war impulses.

The cost of the war

Dave Jamieson reports on the financial cost of the war for MSN, Sept 17, 2026

(https://www.msn.com/news/other/iran-war-has-cost-pentagon-436-billion-politics) ….

Jamieson writes, “President Donald Trump’s war in Iran has cost the Pentagon at least $43.6 billion so far, according to a Defense Department assessment obtained by Politico.

“That estimate comes in several billion dollars higher than a different one released this week by the Congressional Budget Office, which pegged the tab at $38 billion.

The CBO estimates that price of the war going forward to be anywhere from $2 to $3 billion a month, depending on whether fighting flares up or dies down.

The CBO estimates “only cover direct military costs from fighting. They do not include indirect costs that U.S. families bear in the form of higher fuel prices. Researchers at Brown University estimate those to be roughly $110 billion and counting.” Gas prices have soared, along with prices for a host of essentials.

Ecocide in Iran

Ashley Gate reports on the environmental effects of the war for The Intercept, Aug 31, 2026 (https://2026/08/31/iran-war-environmental-toxic-chemical-exposure).

Gate’s main point: “The U.S.–Israeli war has caused massive environmental devastation, adding to the long history of American wars with toxic legacies.”

Trump started the war, claiming falsely that it would take less than two weeks to end it on US terms and that it would bring “PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” But after more than six months and two failed ceasefires later, the floundering conflict sputters along. And you may have noticed that world peace has yet to be announced.

Gates continues. “Trump’s other stated war aims, like Iran’s unconditional surrender and seizing its oil infrastructure, have also fallen by the wayside. In the end, the major accomplishments of Trump’s war seem to be limited to death and destruction: hundreds of U.S. casualties that the Pentagon has sought to downplay and cover-up, and thousands of Iranian deaths that the Pentagon is loath to mention or investigate, including a family of eight — five of them children, one a 20-day-old infant.

“But the almost 40,000 Iranians killed or wounded in the war may only scratch the surface of the true toll.”

Gates writes, “The rough outlines of the ecological devastation are only just coming to light. And if history is any guide, the environmental fallout of the war may reach far into the future, affecting untold numbers of Iranians who survived the conflict and many others in generations to come.

The Toxic Inheritance of America’s Wars

Gates continues. “Esmaeil Baqaei, the spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, recently warned of the increasing environmental damage caused by the U.S. war, drawing attention to oil contamination in the Persian Gulf that has begun washing up on Iranian shores.

“This incident is only one visible example of the extensive pollution — both overt and concealed — that has degraded the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman,” he wrote on X. “Who bears responsibility for compensating these damages? Is it the nations that consume the inexpensive energy exported from our region, the shipping insurers, or the aggressors and their partners who have transformed the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman into a theater for military operations and the testing of highly destructive weaponry?”

“Alongside death and destruction that has killed or wounded tens of thousands of Iranians, the U.S.–Israeli war has caused massive environmental devastation. By March, attacks had already resulted in more than 300 incidents of potential environmental harm, documented across 12 countries in the region, according to a report by the Conflict and Environment Observatory. These toxic exposures threaten not only today’s war victims, but also future generations who will grapple with the knock-on effects.”

Additional facts.

“According to research by the Climate and Community Institute, U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran in the first 14 days of the war emitted roughly 5 million metric cubic tons of greenhouse gases. Put another way: In two weeks, coalition strikes produced roughly the same amount of carbon emissions as the country of Iceland does over the course of a year. And as the war dragged on, missile facilities, weapons depots, oil infrastructure, nuclear facilities, dual-use and civilian infrastructure including power stations and desalination plants were also increasingly struck.

The catastrophic effects to come

“The environmental threats these targets pose is enormous. Damaged desalination plants jeopardize the civilian water supply and flood nearby land and marine environments with harmful chemicals like sulfuric acid. Bombed infrastructure fills urban streets with asbestos-contaminated rubble and dust, heightening the risk of respiratory illness and cancer among exposed populations. Damaged weapons facilities pollute surrounding areas with explosives, highly toxic liquid propellants, and heavy metals. And the targeting of nuclear facilities risks radiation exposure or worse, an uncontrolled nuclear disaster, like a meltdown.

“Fossil fuel infrastructure has also remained a key military objective for all belligerents. Israeli strikes on more than two dozen Iranian oil depots in early March engulfed the capital city of Tehran in a cloud of toxic smoke that rained black carbon and sulfuric acid on the city’s 9 million residents. Attacks on oil tankers and other commercial vessels have leached oil and spilled fuel into myriad waterways from the Egyptian port of Damietta, where Iran struck two liquefied natural gas vessels, to the coast of Sri Lanka, where the U.S. sank an Iranian frigate. And such environmental damage is likely to increase as the conflict continues to sporadically flare up.”

US troops have been victims

“And for decades, U.S. troops have paid for it with exposures to toxic substances, including defoliants like Agent Orange, an herbicide the U.S. sprayed across Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s; smoke from oil depot fires that dotted the landscape in and around Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War; and the military base burn pits of the post-9/11 forever wars. The PACT Act of 2022 extended healthcare access to millions of veterans who served from the last half of the 20th century to today and now suffer from a wide range of conditions related to such wartime exposures, including cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reproductive issues likely caused or exacerbated by their military service.”

Higher prices in US from the War drives Trump’s popularity down

Dave Jamieson reports on this for MSN on Sept 10, 2026

(https://msn.com/en-us/news/other/added-fuel-coss-of-trumps-war-in-iran-estimates-100-billion-for-us-families/ar-AA2bOXkw).

President Donald Trump’s war of choice in Iran has cost U.S. consumers at least $100 billion in added fuel expenses since Feb. 28, according to Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab.

“Researchers estimate that the war has created an additional burden of $55 billion due to higher gasoline prices and $45 billion due to higher diesel prices as of Labor Day. They arrive at that figure by setting actual prices this year against estimates of what prices would have been without the war-induced surge in oil prices, then multiplying it by expected fuel usage.

“The tab translates to an average hit of $750 per household, though families with multiple cars and long commutes would bear more.

“‘Energy price shocks function as an economy-wide, unacknowledged tax on American households, with costs comparable to large federal programs and policies,’ the group said in a statement Tuesday.

“Oil prices have shot up since the U.S. and Israel launched their war and Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping way that carries about a quarter of the world’s oil supply. Prices have dropped at times only to bounce back up, just as they did on Tuesday, nearing $100 per barrel again due to the standoff in the strait.

“The price of gasoline was below $3 per gallon on average before the war and now hovers at $4.15 as of Tuesday, according to AAA. The higher prices at the pump have helped drive public support for the war to just 31% and Trump’s approval rating to a mere 33%, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey.

“Though less visible than the price of gasoline, the higher cost of diesel fuel has also squeezed Americans’ wallets since the war began. Diesel fuel is used in large trucks, farm machinery and power generation, so households ‘bear these increases through higher prices from their grocery stores, utility bills, and across the economy,’ the Brown researchers noted.

US troops killed and wounded in the region

“On top of the financial cost, the war has led to 18 service member deaths and roughly 800 wounded. Trump recently downplayed those losses by comparing them to the much larger toll of the Vietnam War.

“I’ll tell you what, a lot of people don’t call it a war,” Trump said of the fighting in Iran.“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us. It’s not a big thing. We did Venezuela, and we did this. In Venezuela, we lost nobody, and this we lost 18 people. In Vietnam, you lost a hundred thousand people, and in other conflicts you lost tens of thousands of people.”

“It certainly doesn’t feel like small potatoes, Mr. President,” replied ABC News’ Rachel Scott. “Eighteen people have died in this.”

Trump’s popularity has plummeted

This in part reflects Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resultant rise in prices for gasoline and many other items vital to the life of the majority of Americans. Prices began to rise before the War because of Trump’s imposition of tariffs on countries. His popularity has suffered. Fernando Cervantes Jr. presents the results of a recent poll on Trump (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/09/08/trump-approval-rating-poll/916625007). Here’s some of what he reports.

“President Donald Trump’s approval rating fell to a new low of 32% in a Focaldata/Financial Times poll released over Labor Day weekend, reflecting declines among both the general public and Republicans as midterm elections approach.”

“The president’s continued struggles in the polls come ahead of a vital midterm season as his party seeks to hold slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

Given all the bad news, would a desperate Trump authorize the use of nuclear weapons on Iran?

The Peril of Trump’s Final Act: Would He Use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon in Iran?

Robert L. Borosage considers this question in The Nation, Sept 18, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-iran-war-tactical-nuclear-weapon).

He is a leading progressive writer and activist.

Here’s some of his reply.

“Donald Trump is trapped: His war of choice against Iran is lost, an abject strategic catastrophe. Now Trump has to choose sustain another forever war until Iran breaks, a strategy his own generals oppose, or produce a grand finale to get out without admitting defeat. And there is the rub.

“Reality has shattered Trump’s conceits. Instead of a few days, the war has lasted six months and counting. Instead of regime change and popular uprising, the Iranian regime stands with new hardened leadership. Instead of another display of US military prowess, the US military has been driven out of major bases across the region, stockpiles of vital offensive and defensive missiles have been depleted, and

the US Navy has been overstretched and exhausted.

“And Iran keeps ratcheting up the pressure. It controls the Strait of Hormuz, and its Houthi allies have just seized control of the alternative route through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and blown-up Saudi Arabia’s key east-west pipeline. Crude oil is now over $110 per barrel and rising; the price of diesel—the fuel of commerce—is at record levels. The cost of fertilizer, fuel, and virtually anything that requires transport is going up, with the global economy at risk.

Borosage continues. “In response, Trump grows ever more delusional. ‘The failing Nation of Iran,’ he claims, ‘wants to make a deal, quickly and badly.’ He suggests that Iran is waiting until after our midterm elections to sue for peace, at which point the price of gasoline will ‘drop like a rock.’ Then he muses that we might just stay in Iran:

‘We’ll ultimately get out, unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela.’ He turned to Oman as a mediator on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then threatened that if it ‘gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them.’

“He dismisses the war as ‘small potatoes,’ claims full control of the Strait, suggests that the ‘Countries of the World…should and will reimburse the United States of America when this SCAM Confligration [sic] is over,’ and jokes that he might rename the Strait ‘Trump Strait,’ saying, ‘I should get something out of it.’

Trump has no good options

“The real straits of Trump are dire: He is trapped in a war that has already been lost, a reality that he will never allow himself to admit. Under Republican control, the House has voted repeatedly to end the war. With Democrats likely to take the majority in the midterms, Trump faces the prospect minimally of investigative hearings that will bare the true extent of the losses, costs, and internal military opposition to his folly. He has to find a way to declare victory and get out, and soon.

“Many experts report that the United States and Israel are gearing up to launch another full-scale operation, probably just after the US midterms. The Trump administration has just approved a $2.8 billion Israeli arms package that includes 40,000 bombs, half of which are 2,000-pound bombs. Even so, skeptics question how much a new bombing wave could achieve, given the depletion of US weapons stocks, naval power, and base support, without the use of nuclear weapons.”

Hegseth’s Pentagon has been moving to integrate tactical nuclear weapons into conventional war strategy. The aim, as Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby put it in the chilling language of the megadeath intellectuals, is to provide ‘credible, rational nuclear options that a President of the United States adopting the simple principle of being a normal human being with common sense would actually implement.’”

Trump’s recklessness and mental instability

“The United States, the only country ever to drop a nuclear weapon, has repeatedly refused to adopt a “no first use” policy. The president has sole authority to order the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. Neither Congress nor the public would be given prior notice. Would Trump use a tactical nuclear weapon on relatively isolated Pickaxe Mountain in Iran as his exit line?

“According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear nation is a violation of international customary law. But Trump, as his noxious deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, infamously asserted, dismisses international law and treaties as ‘international niceties,’ arguing that ‘the real world…is governed by strength, by force…by power.’ Trump boasts that the only limit on his international power is’one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’”

Borosage continues. “Dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran would not only be criminal; it would be incredibly dumb. Iran would respond by unleashing an assault on oil and desalination and energy platforms across the Emirates and an unprecedented assault on Israel.

“It would also set off a race for nuclear weapons, as countries across the globe would understand that the reason Iran was targeted and not North Korea is that the latter has nuclear weapons and the former does not.”

“Use of a tactical nuclear weapon would set a precedent for Russia or China to invoke if they chose to use or threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or Taiwan or other adversaries. It would put the nuclear arms race, already gaining dangerous momentum, into hyperdrive. And it would indelibly brand the US as a dangerous, pariah nation, feared but despised across the globe.

“For these and other reasons, it is hard to imagine any president making that decision. But Trump, trapped, desperate, angry, delusional, intent on punishing his enemies and displaying his prowess, could well be tempted. And the anticipated Democratic election victories this fall will corner him—and that will make him even more dangerous, as we saw with the sacking of the Capitol after his 2020 loss in the presidential race.”

Borosage concludes. “The last weeks of reduced military activity and apparent stalemate have been misleading. The economic costs of the war—now with oil transport through both Hormuz and the Red Sea constricted—are escalating. The pressure on Trump to escalate, to unleash another round of bombing in order to declare victory and get out, is rising. Without a concerted movement toward a settlement, the unimaginable is becoming more conceivable.

Concluding thoughts

Trump has shown time and again how reckless, stupid, and narcissistic he is. A growing majority of Americans have also come to such conclusions. At the same time, he still had the power of the presidency. He is currently trying to rig elections in favor of Republicans to avoid any challenge to himself by Democrats. He spends much time thinking about how to put his name on monuments and ballrooms and other public places. He is still committed to waging the Iran War and adhering to his belief that the US military will ultimately open the Strait of Hormuz and end the war in favor of the US. Currently, it all sounds like bluster. But if there is no agreement with Iran to end the war, there is a concern that he could order the use of nuclear weapons in the Iran War. We can only hope that in such an eventuality, military officers will disobey.

Increase or reduce military spending?

Bob Sheak, September 12, 2026

Trump wants to spend unprecedented sums of money on the military. According to a Whitehouse report, President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength’ but, as documented later in this post, much of this spending is wasteful or is going to ineffective weapon systems (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/rebuilding-our-military-fact-sheet.pd).

The proposed 2027 military budget

Trump’s FY 2027 Budget proposes “$1.15 trillion in discretionary (28% increase) and $350 billion in mandatory bringing total resources for defense to $1.5 trillion (including a 44% increase for the Department of War (DOW).” This includes an order of 41 ships, “the largest demand signal to the maritime industrial base since the administration o Franklin D. Roosevelt. It includes billions for building the Golden Dome, a controversial and probably ineffective system on the West Coast to intercept incoming nuclear weapons from enemies. The budget proposals also calls for the elimination of millions of dollars in “egregious spending related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and other ‘woke’ programs that are part of “the more than $1.6 billion in reductions that the Administration has already identified.”

Spending on the Iran War

Meanwhile, Trump’s government is spending a huge amount of money in the Iran war. Roman Kukhalashvili reports that as of September 10, 2026, the government had spent 42,573,971,775 on the Iran War, with the spending rapidly increasing (https://militaryspend.org/us-iran-war).

US national debt climbs above $40 trillion

This unprecedented post-WWII spending is increasing the national debt.

Steve Benen, reporting for MSN, Aug 20, 2026, is among those who consider this issue (https://finance-yahoo.comeconomy/policy/articles/u-national-debt-reaches-40-130421237.html).

Benen points out that “eight years ago, Donald Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and reflected on the nation’s fiscal health. ‘We have $21 trillion in debt … a number that is unthinkable,” the president said in July 2018.

But that will go down very quickly.’”

But in early August of 2026, “Americans learned that this year’s budget deficit had reached nearly $1.8 trillion, which is already higher than all last year’s deficit, and that’s with two months still remaining in the fiscal year. This week, the public received some related news: The United States’ national debt, which Trump considered “unthinkable” when it reached $21 trillion, has now crossed the $40 trillion threshold.”

Trump’s misleading promise

Benen writes, “we’re racking up debt faster than earlier independent analyses, thanks almost entirely to the cost of GOP tax breaks, the war in Iran and the White House’s failed tariffs agenda. The article added, “The faster accumulation of debt comes at a perilous moment. An array of concerns, including inflation, the war in Iran and rising debt levels around the world, are driving investors to dump government bonds.”

Benen continues. “Trump promised voters a very different outcome: As a candidate in 2016, the Republican told voters he had unique expertise in budgetary issues, which would enable him to eliminate the deficit and start paying off the debt. Trump delivered the opposite results, adding nearly $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just one term. As a candidate in 2024, he repeated his earlier promises, before again delivering the opposite results: Trump has added nearly $4 trillion in debt since returning to the White House a year and a half ago.

“Trump and congressional Republicans are to blame: There’s no great mystery here. The debt is growing quickly as a direct result of GOP policies. Military spending is one major part of the rising debt, reducing it is one major part of a solution.

Cutting military spending

In their new book, The Trillion-Dollar War Machine, William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman analyze how wasteful and inefficient the military budget is and how to make it less so.

Where the spending goes

“More than half of the Pentagon budget goes to private firms, not military personnel.” (p. 3)

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars “cost US taxpayers a staggering $8 trillion, according to estimates by the Cost of War project at Brown University. Much of that spending went directly to Pentagon contractors. The ‘Big Five’ contractors alone – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman – split an astonishing $2.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts in the two decades after the 9/11 attacks as they benefited from soaring military budgets”

(p. 3)

They lobby big time – “…in 2024 alone, Pentagon contractors spent more than $148 billion on lobbying and had more the 945 lobbyists work on their behalf, nearly two-thirds of whom have gone through the ‘revolving door,’ which prior experience in the legislative or executive branch. Taken together, today’s war machine fields almost two lobbyists – and more than $275,000 in lobbying spending – for every individual member of Congress. Given that nearly all representatives and senators have a salary below $200,000 per year” (p. 4)

The arms makers

CEOs make tens of millions. Hartung and Freeman write: “Millions of dollars of the new money flowing to the arms makers will be diverted to pay for exorbitant executive salaries. The top five contractors pay their CEOs an average of more than $20 million per year. Adding in other key executive at these firms brings the total to above $287 million per year, enough to create more than 2,800 jobs in the green energy sector or hire more than 6,100 new soldiers” (p. 70)

Trump’s two big projects in his second term, though there are other ineffective weapon systems in the works

Hartung and Freeman make important points.

The F-47 combat aircraft

“…the next generation combat aircraft known as the F-47, which will involve a down payment of at least $20 billion to develop and buy the initial round of planes, with untold billions beyond that depending on how many the Pentagon chooses to build and how many problems arise in building the aircraft. The F-47 award is a win for a big traditional firm, Boeing….” (p. 7). It has a “dismal record of cost overruns and performance problems.”

The Golden Dome project – “a frequent talking point of President Trump – could develop into one of the most wasteful programs in Pentagon history, soaking up enormous amounts of taxpayer money without adding much to the defense of the United States….if it gets up and running, it could consume hundreds of billions of dollars in the decades to come pursuing the impossible dream of an impenetrable shield against everything from hypersonic weapons and next-generation drones to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).” (p. 7)

Other problematic weapons

ICBMs would not make the US safer

Hartung and Freeman write, “with a ‘dyad’: a nuclear force make up of nuclear-armed bombers and ballistic missile-firing submarines but no ICBMs” (43)

“Former Secretary of Defense William Perry….coauthored a book with Tom Collins of the Ploughshares Fund that recommends phasing out ICBMs rather than building new ones. Their rational is that doing so would eliminate the need to launch nuclear weapons upon warning of an attack, which undergirds a ‘use ‘em or lose ‘em’ mentality that increases the risk of an accidental conflict. At they further note, ICBMs are not needed for defense. ‘The U.S. nuclear submarine force is sufficient for assured deterrence and will be for the foreseeable future” (p. 60)

The F-35 fighter

“Today…the F-35 is doing none of its required missions well. It’s too fast to provide effective support for troops on the ground, too light to carry large numbers of bombs, inferior to prior-generation planes in aerial dogfights, and so difficult to maintain that is spends almost half its time in the hangar being repaired” (p. 63)

The Boeing KC-46 refueling tanker

“…a poster child for the war machine’s shoddy performance and massive cost overruns is the Boeing KC-46 refueling tanker. At a cost of $6.9 billion more than original estimates, the KC-46 program is already seven years behind schedule yet still plagued by technical problems” p. 74) ….

Boeing V-22 Osprey

“Another example of poor production and faulty maintenance is the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, an aircraft that is supposed to be able to both hover like a helicopter and fly like a plane” – “As of December 2023, about four hundred of the aircraft were in use by the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Yet the Osprey has proven to be as dangerous to its crew members as any adversary, perhaps even more dangerous. The aircraft has been involved in ten fatal crashes that have killed a shocking sixty-four people” (76)

Ways to rein in the influence of the war machine

Hartung and Freeman offer this “preliminary” list.

“…campaign-finance reform; tighter restrictions on the revolving door between government and the arms industry; greater transparency about the activities of the arms lobby, including full transparency of its contribution to think tanks and academia; candid disclosures whenever the US military or Pentagon contractors are involved in the production of movies, TV shows, video games, or any other form of entertainment; increased investment in other areas of urgent national need as alternatives to economic dependency on the Pentagon; and, most importantly, a new vision of America’s role in the world that favors dialogue and diplomacy over war and preparations for war” (p. 262)

Concluding thoughts It’s not often that we are fortunate enough to have an in-depth, expert analysis of the military-industrial complex or war machine. But this is what Hartung and Freeman give us in their book. It is an incisive rebuttal to those who support Trump’s huge military budget or believe that only war and war preparedness keep us free from foreign domination. But, to the contrary, they provide the evidence and rationale for something very different, a reenergized peace movement, a focus on diplomacy, and a smaller more efficient milita

The regretful saga of nuclear weapons

Bob Sheak, Aug 16, 2026

The Nuclear age begins as WWII neared its end

Mitchell Zimmerman reminds us that “the nuclear age began 81 years ago” (https://www.commondreams.org/opinionnuclear-weapons-lies). He writes, it all began with a lie. Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author. Here’s some of what he writes.

“Eighty-one years ago this week, a single American airplane, flying almost unnoticed over a Japanese city, dropped a single bomb that destroyed the entire city. Three days later another American plane destroyed a second city.

“The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 killed 100,000 people outright. By the end of the year another 100,000 succumbed to radiation sickness, burns, and other injuries from the blasts.” Some 90% were civilians.

Zimmerman claims they were the first victims of the bomb but overlooks the effects that people in the US and Marshall Islands suffered from previous tests of the bomb before they were dropped on Japan.

Was it necessary to drop the nuclear bombs?

One side argues that it was necessary to drop the bomb with all its horrendous death and destruction to avoid launching an invasion that would have cost thousands of American soldiers their lives. The other side contends that the Japanese would have surrendered if the Americans had agreed to leave the Emperor in place.

Zimmerman’s position is that we did not have to drop the bombs to force the Japanese government to surrender and to avoid American casualties.

His argument. “Because the United States had broken Japanese military codes, American intelligence learned in July 1945 that the Japanese government had already contacted the Soviet Union, America’s World War II ally, to discuss surrender. The Japanese hoped, above all, to ensure that the Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender did not require the Japanese Emperor to abdicate….”

Zimmerman points out that this was a condition that US eventually agreed to in the end, but only after the bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.

Zimmerman insists, those who made the decision knew that Japan was seeking to end the war and believed that the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, after the Allies’ victory in Europe, would likely be enough to precipitate Japan’s capitulation. He continues.

“A long-hidden, top-secret US intelligence study in 1946 confirmed that the atomic blasts were not what ended the war—it was Russia’s August 8, 1945 declaration of war against Japan and Soviet troop movements.

“US war leaders confirmed the atomic bombing was not needed. The Supreme Commander of Allied Forces General Dwight D. Eisenhower (later President Eisenhower) concluded that ‘Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary… no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.’”

—–

It’s complicated

Science Insights [SI] contends that the question of why the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan is complicated (https://scienceinsights.org/why-did-the-us-use-atomic-bombs-on-japan). The article was published on March 26, 2026. Here’s some of what you find there.

“The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to force Japan’s immediate surrender and avoid a ground invasion that military planners estimated would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

“But that single sentence, while accurate, compresses a decision shaped by military strategy, diplomatic failure, Soviet rivalry, and intense internal debate. The full picture is more complicated than any one justification suggests.

The Military Case for the Bombs

By mid-1945, the war in the Pacific had already killed tens of thousands of American servicemembers in brutal island-hopping campaigns. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, fought in the first half of that year, offered a preview of what an invasion of the Japanese mainland would look like. Okinawa alone produced over 12,000 American deaths and more than 100,000 Japanese military and civilian casualties.

SI continues. “Against that backdrop, a new weapon offered something no amount of conventional bombing had achieved: the possibility of ending the war in days rather than months. The U.S. had already been firebombing Japanese cities for months, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Tokyo was, in the words of the military’s own Target Committee, practically ‘rubble.’ The atomic bomb was not a moral departure from existing strategy so much as a dramatic escalation of it, concentrating destruction into a single device.”

How the Decision Was Made

SI – “The decision to use the bomb was not made in a single meeting. It developed through a series of committees and conversations over the spring and summer of 1945. The most important was the Interim Committee, a group of senior officials and scientists convened by Secretary of War Henry Stimson in May 1945 to advise President Truman on nuclear policy.

“After extensive discussion, the committee reached several conclusions that shaped how the bombs would be used. They agreed the Japanese could not be given advance warning, because a failed detonation or a forewarned defense would undermine the weapon’s impact. They agreed the target should not be a purely civilian area, but that the goal should be to ‘make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible.’ In practice, this meant selecting cities with military or industrial significance that were still intact enough for the bomb’s power to be unmistakable.”

The Target Committee, a separate group of military officers and scientists, had been meeting since April to identify suitable cities.

Japan’s Rejection of the Potsdam Declaration

“On July 26, 1945, the United States, Britain, and China issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and warning of ‘prompt and utter destruction’ if it refused. The declaration did not mention the atomic bomb specifically, nor did it clarify whether Emperor Hirohito would be allowed to remain on the throne, a point of enormous significance to the Japanese government.” Japan’s Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro issued an ambiguous statement that was interpreted by the U.S. as a rejection of their proposal.

Why the Debate Persists

SI – “Historians have argued over this decision for eight decades, and the disagreement is not just about facts but about how to weigh competing values. Those who defend the bombings point to the enormous projected casualties of an invasion, the refusal of Japan’s military leadership to accept surrender, and the fact that conventional bombing was already killing civilians on a massive scale. Those who criticize the decision point to the Franck Report’s warnings (most of which proved correct), the possibility that Japan was already close to surrender, the role of Soviet entry in pushing Japan toward capitulation, and the moral weight of deliberately targeting cities full of civilians.

“The question is further complicated by the fact that multiple justifications existed simultaneously and reinforced each other. Ending the war quickly, saving American lives, demonstrating the weapon’s power to the Soviet Union, and justifying the $2 billion cost of the Manhattan Project were all factors operating at once. No single explanation captures the full reality. The decision emerged from a convergence of military urgency, diplomatic calculation, technological momentum, and the psychology of leaders who had been at war for years and saw a way to finish it.”

—–

Why drop a second nuclear bomb?

James M. Lindsay addresses this question, Aug 9, 2026 (https://www.cfr.org/article/the-bombing-of-nagasaki).

Did the United States act too hastily in dropping a second atomic bomb on Japan?

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. That first-ever use of an atomic weapon killed an estimated 140,000 people, most of whom were civilians. Three days later, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. Some 40,000 people, again mostly civilians, died instantly. Another 34,000 died agonizing deaths from radiation poisoning, flash burns, and other injuries in the weeks that followed.

“The decision to use atomic bombs against Japan remains hotly debated. Both attacks subjected civilian populations to horrific devastation with long-lasting effects. The bombing of Nagasaki comes with the additional criticism that it happened too soon after the Hiroshima attack to allow the Japanese government to fully assess what had happened and possibly quit fighting.”

A survey Lindsay conducted on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations with members of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) ranked the bombing of Hiroshima as the fifteenth-worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history. SHAFR members ranked the bombing of Nagasaki as the tenth-worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.  

The Interim Committee

Lindsay continues. “In May 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson established an Interim Committee composed of himself and seven other high-ranking officials to advise Truman. They considered and rejected as impractical the suggestion that the United States conduct a non-combat demonstration of the new weapon to warn Japan of what it faced. Their reasoning was straightforward: The United States initially would have only a few working weapons. The demonstration test might be a dud, which could embolden Japan to fight on. If Japan knew the intended target, it might move U.S. prisoners of war to the site or shoot down the U.S. plane carrying the bomb. The Interim Committee instead recommended on June 1, 1945, that the atomic bomb “be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.”

Some Manhattan Project scientists argued against using their creation. The Manhattan Project created the atomic bombs. On June 11, the scientists argued in what became known as the Franck Report that “the release of this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind” would “precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” Leo Szilard, who had been instrumental in persuading FDR to launch the Manhattan Project, organized a separate petition that seventy Manhattan Project scientists signed. It urged Truman not to drop an atomic bomb on Japan unless Tokyo was first informed of the weapon and given an opportunity to surrender.

Neither the Franck Report nor Szilard’s petition swayed the Interim Committee. In a meeting on June 21, it reaffirmed its recommendation to Truman.

“Truman accepted the recommendation to use what he called ‘the most terrible thing ever discovered’ against Japan. He was in Potsdam, Germany, meeting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, when he learned of the successful Trinity Test. On July 26, 1945, Truman and Churchill issued, with the concurrence of Chinese President Chiang Kai-shek, the Potsdam Declaration. Among other things, it declared:

‘We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.’

Japan’s military-dominated government rejected the Potsdam Declaration.

Hiroshima

The United States carried out the Potsdam Declaration’s threat of “prompt and utter destruction” on August 6 when a B-29 bomber named the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb known as Little Boy on Hiroshima, a city of some 350,000 people. As many as 80,000 people died instantly.

Later that day, Truman announced to the world that the United States had developed an atomic bomb. He went on to warn:

“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.”

Despite Hiroshima’s destruction, Japan refused to surrender.

Nagasaki, the second target

“A specially equipped B-29 bomber named Bockscar departed from Tinian in the Northern Mariana Islands early on August 9. The crew had nicknamed its cargo, a bomb of a different design than the one dropped on Hiroshima, Fat Man. The crew’s orders were to target Kokura, now Kitakyushu, a city of 130,000 that was home to one of Japan’s largest weapons factories. U.S. bombers had yet to hit Kokura with conventional bombs. That meant that the United States could measure Fat Man’s full destructive power.

“When Bockscar reached Kokura, clouds and smoke obscured the target, the city’s weapons factory. On the plane’s third bombing run, it began to attract heavy antiaircraft fire. Following a pre-established procedure, the B-29 redirected to its secondary target, Nagasaki, a port city with a population of more than 250,000 people. The clouds over Nagasaki broke just as Bockscar arrived. The plane dropped its cargo at 11:01 a.m. local time. Fat Man fell for 47 seconds and then exploded at a height of 1,650 feet.

Japan’s Surrender

The Japanese government communicated its surrender to the United States and its allies on August 10. That morning, Truman had ordered that no further atomic bombs be dropped on Japan. Vice President Henry A. Wallace wrote in his diary:

Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids.’”

“Japan’s surrender came with one condition, that the emperor be allowed to remain as Japan’s ceremonial head of state. Several days of negotiations on the details followed. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito went on national radio to announce Japan’s surrender. It was the first time that most Japanese heard his voice.”

The Ambiguous Legacy of Nagasaki

“The question that hangs over the bombing of Nagasaki, even more so than over the bombing of Hiroshima, is whether it was necessary. Even some people who supported attacking Hiroshima believe the answer is no. As the famed physicist Hans Bethe, who worked on the Manhattan Project, put it: ‘I think it was necessary to drop one, but the second one could have easily been avoided. I think Japan would have capitulated anyway.’”

“Critics of the decision to bomb Nagasaki ask difficult questions. Was three days sufficient time for Japanese leaders to absorb the enormity of what had happened to Hiroshima? Could the United States have done more to persuade them that Japan faced additional atomic bomb attacks? Was the Soviet entry into the war sufficient by itself to convince Japanese leaders to surrender?”

—–

We must remember the enormous harm done by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan as recent treaties are ended.

William D. Hartung and Mari Faines maintain the Anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Have Special Meaning in a World Out of Control. August 7, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/world/hiroshima-nagasaki-under-arms-race).

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Mari Faines is the manager of external affairs and coalitions at Democracy Forward. She previously advised on strategic communications and congressional strategy at the US State Department’s Office of the AUKUS Senior Advisor, and held leadership roles at Global Zero and Physicians for Social Responsibility focused on nuclear nonproliferation and social justice. She holds an MSc from SOAS University of London and a BA from Colgate University.

Here’s some of what they write.

“As the last US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty expires, the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki carry renewed urgency for a world edging toward a new arms race.”

“This August marks yet another anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but 2026 carries a special weight—for the first time since the Cold War, the United States has no active nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, following the expiration of the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement.

Hartun and Faines continue. “The story of nuclear weapons is more than just the story of scientists working away in secrecy at Los Alamos, or leaders wielding nuclear threats—and, in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. It is the story of devastation, disease, and death caused by the development and deployment of those weapons, even if they are never used again in warfare. The deadly consequences of nuclear development have fallen most heavily on communities of color, from the dire health consequences of mining uranium in the Congo and the American Southwest, to the generational cancers in communities downwind from nuclear tests, from the Marshall Islands to the American West; communities of color have been disproportionately affected by nuclear testing and warfare.”

“The stories of the civilian victims of nuclear arms racing are increasingly at risk of being rewritten, sanitized, or erased from official histories altogether. The risks posed by the lack of arms control measures and the concerted effort to whitewash the dangers of possessing nuclear weapons, as well as the catastrophe that would come from using them, make nuclear use at some future date more likely. With no treaty framework in place, active global conflicts like the runaway wars in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine, and coordinated efforts to erase the history of nuclear dangers, we need to treat this anniversary as more than a commemoration or an expression of regret. We need to treat it as a turning point for humanity.

—–

The Genocidal Weapon and the Nuclear Exception

Eric Ross, analyzes “the genocidal weapon and the nuclear exception” on Counter Punch, Aug 11, 2026 (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/08/11/the-genocidal-weapon-and-the-nuclear-exception).

“It has been eighty-one years since the atomic bombings delivered an unmistakable message. From the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity was faced with a choice that Martin Luther King Jr. would later describe as one between ‘nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.’ The intervening decades have made our answer painfully clear.

“As a result, today we live as prisoners consigned to a permanent death row, having organized our world not around a commitment to collective sanity, safety, and security but around the perpetual preparation for collective destruction. The nuclear threat has predictably returned to the center of world politics, from Ukraine and Taiwan to Palestine and Iran.

“From their first use, the atomic bombs were immoral and illegal. Within a matter of years, such weapons would come to be described, in the words of their own architects, as a ‘weapon of genocide,’ one which serves no military end beyond the slaughter of civilians.

“As such, states that possess nuclear weapons cannot be understood as guardians of the international order, represented by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but as its greatest threats, outcasts from law and humanity. They are, in the words of Daniel Ellsberg, adherents to no recognizable ethics other than perhaps “a form of Satanism, a worship of unbridled power that gives national leaders the right to gamble with forces that can undo creation.”

“Yet instead of banning the bomb, the postwar international legal order accommodated it, failing to proscribe nuclear weapons, as it has for chemical and biological weapons. The result has been a world in which the capacity to exterminate millions, even billions, of people is treated not as the ultimate international crime but as the ultimate marker of international prestige and a currency of geopolitical power. So long as some states insist upon the legitimacy of their own atomic arsenals then, efforts to abolish them will remain, however well intentioned, little more than ‘rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.’”

“Instead of being prohibited, the bomb was rendered outside the law. At Nuremberg and Tokyo, the U.S. established a legal exceptionalism that insulated nuclear weapons, and the strategic bombing that first made them conceivable, from meaningful scrutiny. Prosecutors opted to omit these crimes entirely, rendering them beyond the reach of law. Universal justice, in short, was subordinated to political expediency.”

——

The Delusion of Strategic Stability in a Nuclear World

John Burroughs argues there can be no way to exist peaceably as long as nuclear bombs exist, Aug 16,2026 (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/delusion-nuclear-stability).

Burroughs is senior analyst for the New York City-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Here are excerpts from his article.

“Suppose for a moment that reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other nuclear powers will produce “strategic stability” for the rest of this century. That is, that there will be no nuclear war or war on a major scale between the nuclear powers.

Burroughs poses questions. “Is that a world we should want to live in, a world where security depends on the potential for the devastation of entire societies, a world where we are supposed to live moral lives in the context of an immoral system of global security? My answer is no.” Is the concept of “deterrence” sufficient to prevent a nuclear? Again, no.

“It is a fantasy that reliance on nuclear arms can be counted upon to produce stability indefinitely. That can be demonstrated just by looking at today’s conflicts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in violation of the United Nations Charter was preceded by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to resort to nuclear weapons should Western states intervene in support of Ukraine. Then in the fall of 2022, it was credibly reported that that the Biden administration believed that the Russian government was operationally moving toward the use of nuclear weapons.

“The US attack on Iran, another violation of the UN Charter, has been accompanied by President Donald Trump’s bluster about wreaking society-ending devastation on Iran, evoking the possibility of use of nuclear weapons. Whether or not his nuclear bluster is specific and credible enough to be considered a “threat” as a matter of international law, it certainly runs counter to the notion that use of nuclear weapons is out of the question.

Burroughs continues. “Nuclear deterrence involves the readiness to inflict massive devastation on other societies, even if targets are said to be military. It is planning and preparation for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and in some cases crimes against peace. Crimes against peace concern aggressive war. The use of nuclear weapons to initiate an aggressive war would certainly be a crime against peace. But there is a good case that the first use of nuclear weapons by a state defending itself would be so escalatory and disproportionate as to be a crime against peace.

“A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war. That can be done in many ways. One is non-violent protest, as took place August 6 outside the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California.

“Reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other states means that the world is in a state of risk, immorality, and illegality. The imperative is to end that state of affairs. These bombs must be abolished.

“One positive example. “In 2017, non-nuclear weapon states negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). One hundred states are now signatories, not including, however, any nuclear-armed states. Whether the TPNW will serve as a vehicle for the nuclear-armed states to accomplish the elimination of nuclear weapons is open to doubt; they probably would create their own vehicle. Without question, though, the TPNW is a marvelous statement of the principles that should motivate and guide the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons. The first review conference of the TPNW will be held late this year.”

Burroughs concludes: “the reality is that nuclear abolition, probably in conjunction with other arms control and with changes in global governance, is by far the best way to address the risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.”

—–

Concluding thoughts

The story of nuclear weapons begins in the United States. The U.S. government under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the greenlight for the Manhattan project to build a bomb to commence, the first atomic bombs were then created and tested, and, under dubious assumptions, the bombs were subsequently used to blow up two Japanese cities, causing massive destruction, death, and lasting radiation illnesses. The testing and development of nuclear bombs continued, as did the costs to people and the environment. Sadly, the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are now in the process of “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals. This is despite the fact that the majority of countries in the U.N. General Assembly have voted to ban nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. unfortunately maintains a ‘first use’ policy with respect to nuclear weapons and, as president, Trump has the power to launch nuclear weapons.

Trump, the “winner”

Bob Sheak, Feb 15, 2026

Arlene Sheak edited

Trump takes a position in the campaigns prior to the elections in 2016 (won), 2020 (lost), and 2024 (won), that if he wins, the election was fair, but if he loses, it was rigged against him. He insists that, if the votes had been counted as they should have been in 2020, he would have – should have – won the presidency. But whether he eventually wins or loses, he always tells the public prior to an election that any defeat is due not to his unpopularity but to unfair tactics by the other side. The same is true after a lost election.

In other words, Trump tells us he lost the 2020 presidential election because it was rigged by Democrats against him. His opponents call this “election denialism.” It goes this way. If he loses, as the evidence indicates he did in 2020, it was not a legitimate loss because, in his view, many votes were cast illegally and/or poll workers failed to do their work honestly. If he wins, then the election is a conformation of his prowess and intelligence. Either way, he thinks of himself as the winner. This logic applies to all elections, policies, and issues of public importance. With respect to the 2020 election, the overwhelming verifiable evidence tells the 2020 election was conducted fairly, as confirmed by dozens of state audits and re-audits of the voting.

A record of Trump’s Election Denialism

Tal Axelrod examines this issue in an article published on Sept. 8, 2022, (https://abcnews.com/Politics/timeline-donald-trumps-election-denial-claims-republican-politicians/story?id=88168408). He writes,

“Trump himself, from the 2016 primary through today, has made election denialism a central part of his campaigns and of Republican politics — and also helped make it a motivating issue for other politicians, including those who once had criticized him for it.”

“And while ABC News/Ipsos polling this year showed a majority of Americans sharply disapproved of Trump’s role in attacking the 2020 election, including a fifth of Republicans, that same survey also indicated a majority of Republicans believed he didn’t really lose,” according to Axelrod.

But Trump denialism goes back even before he entered policies.

Axelrod: “Trump has a long history of crying foul in contests he doesn’t win, including previously saying that the ‘Emmys are all politics’ after his reality TV show, ‘The Apprentice,’ never won an award. He also labeled then-President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection ‘a total sham.’”

It was in the 2016 presidential election, ‘in which he lost the popular vote to Clinton but won the Electoral College, that he began making claims of fraud more consistently.’ Axelrod continues: “In the final weeks of the 2016 race, he refused to confirm whether he would accept a defeat. Afterward, he insisted, despite the evidence to the contrary, that he had only lost the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

Axelrod gives the example of how Trump said before the 2020 election that

“the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”

‘After his defeat by Joe Biden, his claims became more frequent, with Trump swiftly leveling vocal yet baseless allegations in the early hours after Election Day.

“On Nov. 7, 2020, as news organizations correctly projected that Biden had defeated him, Trump tweeted the opposite: ‘I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!’ he claimed. In a statement, he vowed that ‘this election is far from over’ and promised to pursue legal challenges. (Ultimately no such court cases affected the 2020 race.)”

“And in mid-December 2020, after the Electoral College had officially selected Biden as the next president, Trump continued to say the result should be overturned: “This Fake Election can no longer stand. Get moving Republicans,” he tweeted.”

———-

In protest of the “stolen” 2020 election results, Trump incites attacks on the Capitol

The Jan. 6,2021, assault on the Capitol is a glaring and unprecedented example of the lengths to which Trump will go in rejecting the widely authenticated 2020 presidential election.

Trump did not accept any of this evidence at the time and went on to encourage thousands of people, including extremist groups, to come of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, the day on which the election results were to be certified. In short, Trump and his close associates wanted to do all they could to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power, thinking their cause was righteous.

Author Nora Neus documents what occurred during that day in her book, 24 Hours at the Capital: An Oral History of the January 6^th Insurrection (publ. 2025). Here are a few telling points from the book that implicate Trump and demonstrate that the attempted insurrection would not have occurred without Trump’s encouragement. For example, she quotes Jacob Glick, investigator for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capital. Glick told Neus, “You need the paramilitary movement to exist. You need the white power movement to exist. But you also need Donald Trump to be seen as an ally. And you also need Donald Trump as that ally to tell them to do something. And without all of those things happening, January 6^th wouldn’t have happened” (pp. xii-xiii).

The rioters breached the police barriers and reached Senate side of the Capitol building on 2:10 P.M. They first entered the building at 2:11 P.M. Trump watched the television coverage of the events. It wasn’t until 4:03 P.M. that Trump made a videoed statement to the insurrections,

“I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from me. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now….we love you, you’re very special.”

Neus points out, “Almost immediately, rioters saw the video and began to disperse” (p. 141).

———-

An update on the “loving” relationship between Trump and the insurrectionists

When Trump narrowly won the presidential election in 2024, one of the first things he did as president was to pardon about 1,500 men and women who had been convicted for their participation in the Jan. 6 riot. Sasha Abramsky considers the implications in an article for Truthout, Feb. 3, 2025 (https://truthout.org/articles/traumps-january-6-pardons-were-a-green-light-to-far-right-paramilitaries).

Sasha Abramsky is a freelance journalist and a part-time lecturer at the University of California at Davis. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including The Nation, The Atlantic Monthly, New York Magazine, The Village Voice and Rolling Stone. He also writes a weekly political column. Here are excerpts from the article.

“With President Donald Trump’s pardoning of more than 1,500 people charged with offenses relating to the January 6 insurrection, and his description of them as ‘hostages”’ rather than as insurrectionists, paramilitarism is now firmly back on the national agenda.

“Trump’s actions in freeing these men and women and lionizing their actions in 2021 was made all the more shocking by the fact that, with a few exceptions, Republican members of Congress — many of whom themselves had to flee the mob on January 6 — largely responded without criticism.”

‘That silence in the face of a relentless attack on the judicial system speaks volumes, suggesting that it has become a policy goal of the GOP to historically rehabilitate the perpetrators of that shameful attack four years ago — and those who egged them on — and to normalize the truly ghastly idea of a paramilitary praetorian guard standing ready to do the ‘Great Leader’s’ dirty work.”

“Now, with Trump running roughshod over his political opposition, and the full force of the federal government being mobilized to rewrite the history of January 6 and lionize its perpetrators, not-very-subtle signals are being sent that Trumpism welcomes violence — just so long as it is violence carried out on its behalf.”

“By pardoning the January 6 insurrectionists, the president has effectively condoned those who commit violence on his behalf….”

———-

Trump now worries 2026 midterms will be stolen from him

There are echoes of the 2021 attack reflected in Trump’s current concerns about upcoming congressional and senatorial elections to be held in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump and the Republican Party are doing what they can to bolster Republican candidates. They are gerrymandering congressional districts in ways to favor Republicans. They are talking about sending ICE enforcers to voting places in Democratic strongholds to intimidate voters. With Democrats gaining political momentum in early 2026, Trump has even talked about possibly taking the extraordinary step of instituting “The Insurrection Act,” which would postpone elections altogether because of public turmoil and disruption.

The Insurrection Act

Juliana Kim, Alana Wise report for NPR about Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act (https://www.npr.org/2026/01/15//nx-s1-5678612/minneapolis-insurrection-act-trump-threats). They write,

“The act is one way the president can send troops to states to restore law and order…allow armed forces to carry out law enforcement functions, such as making arrests and conducting searches.” The law could also permit the military to protect federal buildings and carry out immigration enforcement.”

Kim and Wise refer to statements Trump made on Truth Social: “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.”

In response to Trump’s comments, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said the president triggered the demonstrations by sending thousands of federal agents to Minnesota. He argued there were no grounds to invoke the Insurrection Act.” Ellison added, “If Donald Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act, I’m prepared to challenge that action in court.”

According to William Banks, professor emeritus of law at Syracuse University and the insurrection act is loosely defined and gives broad deference to the president. He adds, “It’s incredibly open-ended and grants him a dramatic amount of discretion to federalize an incident.” Furthermore, “The law also does not mention time constraints on the troop deployments. Nor does it involve Congress in the process to maintain checks and balance.”

It could also be instituted to buttress Republican campaigns in 2026.

———-

Trump’s fear of being impeached if Democrats win midterms

He is particularly worried about the 2026 midterm elections. Journalist Megan Lebowitz reports that Trump believes that if Republicans lose the midterms he will be (https://www.abcnews.com/politics/2026-election/trump-predicts-impeachment-if-republicans-lose-2026-midterms-rcna252604). The article was published on Jan. 6, 2026. Here is some of what she writes.

President Donald Trump had a warning for Republicans on Tuesday [Jan. 3]:

“‘You got to win the midterms, because if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just going to be — I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me,’ Trump said in a speech at a House Republican policy retreat. ‘I’ll get impeached.’”

Lebowitz reminds readers that Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice in the House, adding that supporters of the move in the Senate didn’t have the necessary two-thirds supermajority of votes to convict him in either of the cases. For details on how the process works, go to https://usa.gov/impeachment.

Previous impeachments

“Trump was first impeached in 2019 on charges stemming from accusations that he tried to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, in part by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved military aid, as a way to damage Biden’s election chances. Trump was impeached a second time, in 2021, for his role in the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as he tried to overturn his loss to Biden.”

———-

Concluding Thoughts

Given his record, Trump will utilize every means available to him to buttress his and Republican upcoming political prospects. The 2026 midterm elections will have a great effect on whether Trump will gain or lose some power. If there is a Democratically controlled House and/or Senate, his chance of advancing his right-wing agenda and power will be significantly reduced.

Child separation during Trump’s two administrations

Bob Sheak

Arlene Sheak edits

Nov 24, 2025

Introduction

This post offers a position against Trump and his administration policies during his first and second presidential terms of authorizing the separation of children from their families and treating them in abhorrent ways. It’s part of their efforts to deport immigrants and the promises they made to their base to do so. Such policies deserve our criticism and scorn. There is also something new currently, that is, to push for the end of birthright citizenship.

———-

Looking Back to Trump’s first presidential term

Caitlin Dickerson looks Back at the Family Separation Policy of Trump’s first term, writing for the American Immigration Council, Oct 30, 2025

(https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/family-separation-policy). Here are comments and excerpts.

Family separation during the first Trump administration

“In the spring and summer of 2018, the first Trump administration sought to deter migrants from coming to the United States through the cruel practice of separating children from their parents. To do this, they implemented the zero-tolerance policy, which aimed to prosecute all adults who crossed the southern border without inspection. If a family was apprehended, the parents were taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security, while their children were taken into custody by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”

Dickerson continues.

The children were often sent to shelters thousands of miles away from their parents, without a way for the children and parents to contact each other.

“In many cases, these kids were sent to shelters thousands of miles away from their parents, without a way to contact them.”

Then government had difficulty in reuniting them and thousands of the children remained without their parents

“Later, the government struggled to reunite families, in part because there was no centralized database of where the children had been sent or who their parents were. Years later, some of the nearly 3,000 children taken by the government during the zero-tolerance period had still not been reunited with their parents.

The harms to the children

The American Immigration Council and partners filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for records to better understand how the government was doing. “In 2020, the Council published a tranche of documents highlighting the harms and trauma to children caused by the separations. After years of continuing litigation, the Council received tens of thousands of additional pages from government documents about this policy.”

There is new evidence, Dickerson points out.

“This site showcases a new subset of the records obtained.” It reveals how journalists, attorneys and members of Congress fought to expose this horrific policy and hold the government accountable for the pain and havoc it created.

Further evidence from the report on the past

“In trying to deter migrants from coming to the United States, the first Trump administration implemented one of the cruelest tactics of its tenure.” The government implemented a “zero-tolerance policy,” resulting “in thousands of children being torn away from their relatives. To this day, many still have yet to be reunited with their families.”

A New Analysis of the effects of Trump’s zero-tolerance policy

Dickerson continues. “The Trump administration ended the zero-tolerance policy after just six and a half weeks, thanks in part to the actions of journalists, legal advocates, and representatives from other branches of government. The purpose of this new analysis—produced after years of litigating public records requests—is to look at the interventions that contributed to the end, at least officially, of this shameful policy. The documents featured here serve as a stark reminder of the government’s actions during the time, and in the aftermath, of family separation. They also show how entities opposed one of the most egregious anti-migration policies of the first Trump administration.”

Government Records Show that Journalists, Advocates, and other Government Representatives Sought Transparency and Accountability

“This chronicle is based on government documents and correspondence provided in response to the Council and our partners’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As such, the records contain limited information about the personal experiences of those who were affected, such as separated children and parents; attorneys and social workers; journalist witnesses; and impacted communities.

“These key stakeholders—immigration and children’s advocacy organizations and others— sought transparency and accountability. Journalists published photos and stories on the plight of separated families. A wave of public outcry forced Congressional leaders to demand answers from government agencies. On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order mandating the end to categorical family separation, a little over six weeks after it had begun.”

The “Legal” Framework for Family Separation

“In the early days of the first Trump administration…key officials were fixated on deterring families from crossing the southern border. To carry out this plan, they announced their intent to prosecute everyone who crossed the border without permission…. Family separation was the intended consequence of this so-called zero-tolerance policy.”

“The Trump Administration criminally charged thousands of parents with misdemeanors for entering the United States without proper authorization, requiring prosecution of parents and directly causing family separation by treating parents and their children as unrelated. The goal was to achieve deterrence through en masse family separation.

Dickerson writes: “By designating all adults, including those traveling with minor children, as subject to prosecution, the administration triggered a process by which children were immediately sent to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a subagency of HHS. The government took the position that because parents apprehended by Border Patrol were likely to go into criminal custody (even for a short period of time), they would become unavailable to care for the children. The children were then classified as unaccompanied… and sent to ORR custody, often thousands of miles away from where their parents were detained. The children were relocated even if their parents had spent only a few hours in criminal custody or were never actually prosecuted.

Reunification made difficult

“Parents had to follow cumbersome processes to reunify with their children. Under the Trump administration, agencies were adamant that parents who had already been removed from the United States could not re-enter the country to reunite with their children (though a limited number of parents were eventually paroled into the United States for this purpose). Furthermore, U.S. agencies had to coordinate with embassies and consulates in the families’ home countries to secure travel documents and arrange for parents to reunite with their children at an

Efforts of the ACLU

“The Ms. L case, filed in 2018 by the ACLU on behalf of a separated mother, helped establish significant measures to ensure family reunification, including following a 2023 settlement agreement.

“In 2020, two years after the official end of the family separation policy, hundreds of the 4,368 children the U.S. government identified as taken from their parents remained separated.”

———-

A valuable source

Jacob Soboroff wrote a book titled Separated: Inside an American Tragedy (publ 2020) about these years. It covers the time from March 2017 through October 2019, years of the first Trump administration. Here are two examples from the book.

“The Trump administration’s deliberate and systematic separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents was, according to humanitarian groups and child welfare an unparalleled abuse of the human rights of children. The American Academy of Pediatrics says the practice will leave thousands of kids traumatized for life” (xiii)

Soboroff quotes Dr. Colleen Kraft, the head of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the irreparable harm caused by breaking up families. Prolonged exposure to highly stressful situations – known as toxic stress – can disrupt a child’s brain architecture and affect his or her short- and long-term health” (p. 245)

———-

How the system works presently

Hamed Aleaziz, a reporter for The New York Times delves the issue in the first months of Trump’s second presidential term (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/politics/trump-administration-family-separation.html).

He opens his article with an example of a family caught up in the US immigration system and illustrates how the options they have are all bad.

Evgeny and Evgeniia, who fled their native Russia to seek political asylum, have been separated from their 8-year-old son, Maksim, since May. It is now August. They face “an excruciating choice.”

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers told the couple they could leave the United States with their child and return to their native Russia, which they had fled seeking political asylum. Or they could remain in immigration detention in the United States — but their 8-year-old son, Maksim, would be taken away and sent to a shelter for unaccompanied children.” They chose to stay in the U.S. in a condition of what ICE officials call “interior separation.”

“Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, insisted [falsely] that ‘ICE does not separate families and placed the onus on the families themselves, saying that the parents have the option of staying with their children by leaving the country together.”

“Previous administrations separated undocumented families for reasons including national security concerns, public safety and child endangerment. But Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations, said that previous administrations, to her knowledge, did not use the threat of family separation as leverage to get people to leave the country.”

Encouraging deportation

Now, with illegal crossings notably low, the Trump administration is focusing on immigrants who are in the United States and have been ordered to leave.

The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating the legality of the separations, said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the group.

“That the Trump administration has found a new form of family separation is hardly surprising given they have yet to acknowledge the horrific harm caused by the original policy and are now blatantly breaching provisions of the settlement designed to provide relief to those abused families, many of whom to this day still remain separated,” he said.

———-

Trump’s administration wants to eliminate Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

The Trump administration wants to do away with the constitutional right of birthright citizenship, that is, the doctrine that says if you are born in the U.S., then you are automatically deemed a citizen. The Supreme Court is presently considering the issue and may well side with Trump.

The right is specified in Section 1 of the 14th amendment of the Constitution and has long been understood to grant American citizenship to anyone born on US soil. Here is how the Constitution states it.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Samuel Breidbart and Maryjane Johnson offer a review of the concept and point out that there is considerable opposition to what the administration wants (https://www.brennancenter.org/research-reports/birthright-citizenship-under-us-constitution). Their analysis was published on July 29, 2025. Here are excerpts.

The original intent

“When Congress debated the language of the Citizenship Clause in 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard explained that the clause was ‘simply declaratory of . . . the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.’ Several lawmakers expressed concerns that such a broad guarantee would extend citizenship to the children of immigrants. Sen. John Conness affirmed that the proposed language ‘declare[s] that the children of all parentage . . . should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.’

In line with Howard and Conness’s understandings, the final text of the Citizenship Clause featured no language barring the children of immigrants from citizenship. The Supreme Court affirmed this understanding in Wong Kim Ark, where it rejected claims that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents were not themselves citizens.”

Breidbart and Johnson continue.

What Trump wants

“On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.

The president’s “Executive Order 14160 purports to deny citizenship to any baby born in the United States to a mother who is present ‘unlawfully’ or ‘lawful[ly] but temporar[ily]’ and a father who is ‘not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.’ In other words, under this order, the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and the children of parents residing in the country under temporary legal authorization, such as student visas and work visas, would not be considered U.S. citizens.”

Breidbart and Johnson add: “The order directs federal departments and agencies to deny ‘documents recognizing United States citizenship’ to these children. While the order doesn’t specify what this means, its express mention of the secretary of state and the commissioner of social security suggests that it would bar affected children from receiving passports and social security numbers, among other documents. The children would still presumably get birth certificates, which are issued by local governments, but these would no longer necessarily be considered proof of U.S. citizenship.”

Opposition to Trumps Executive Order

“State attorneys general, civil rights organizations, and immigrant rights groups soon filed lawsuits challenging the order in federal courts around the country.” But the administration remains undeterred.

Breidbart and Johnson also consider the problematic consequences of ending birthright citizenship

They write: “Trump’s executive order would cause major problems across the country if it were allowed to go into effect. Lawyers challenging the order believe that hundreds of thousands of children in the United States would be denied citizenship, thereby creating a new subclass of people lacking the full rights and protections long enjoyed by citizens.

“Additionally, without U.S. citizenship, some of these children could be rendered stateless, meaning they would not be recognized as citizens of any country. As the United Nations Refugee Agency has noted, people who are stateless often lack access to basic rights and services, such as health care, education, and the ability to travel freely. Without U.S. citizenship, these children could also end up deported to foreign countries where they have never lived and where their welfare would be endangered.”

———-

Concluding thoughts

Child separation is one disturbing aspect of Trump’s immigration policy, as indicated by the information examined in this post. It is harmful to the thousands of children and families affected by the policy. It is – or has been – unconstitutional. And it overlooks the evidence on how productive immigrants are and how important they are to the American economy, especially as the American population ages.

Trump’s dubious claim for compensation

Bob Sheak, Oct 23, 2025

The Washington Post quoted Trump on Tuesday, Oct. 21, that “the federal government owes him ‘a lot of money’ for prior Justice Department investigations into his actions and insisted he would have the ultimate say on any payout because any decision will ‘have to go across my desk’” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21025/10/21/trump-fbi-justice-department-47b2c9ac-aed0-11f0-ab72-a5fffa9bf3eb_story.html). The implication is that Trump thinks he can use the power of his office and his control over the Justice Department to ensure that he will be given this money. And it is a substantial amount of money.

The Post story further explains the issue in question.

“Trump’s comments to reporters at the White House came in response to questions about a New York Times story that said he had filed administrative claims before being reelected seeking roughly $230 million in damages related to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents….”

The flaw in Trump’s views of the case is that he did break federal law when, after the end of his first presidency, he took boxes of public documents to his Florida private estate. At the time, there were news stories about the case. One of the news reports was written by CNN journalists Kaitlan Collins, Kevin Liptak, Katelyn Polantz, Sara Murray, Evan Perez, Gabby Orr and Dan Berman, CNN, Aug 9, 2022 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/21/trumlp-fbi-justice-department/4 7b2c9ac-aed0-11f0-ab72-a5fffa9bf3eb_story.html). Here are excerpts.

“The FBI executed a search warrant Monday at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, as part of an investigation into the handling of presidential documents, including classified documents, that may have been brought there, three people familiar with the situation told CNN.”

”The search began early Monday morning and law enforcement personnel appeared to be focused on the area of the club where Trump’s offices and personal quarters are, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“The FBI’s search included examining where documents were kept, according to another person familiar with the investigation, and boxes of items were taken. Following the National Archives’ recovering of White House records from Mar-a-Lap..”

It’s worth noting, as Collins and her colleagues point out,

“Christina Bobb, Trump’s attorney, said the FBI seized documents. ‘President Trump and his legal team have been cooperative with FBI and DOJ officials every step of the way. The FBI did conduct an unannounced raid and seized paper,’ Bobb said.”

“The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort – including some that were classified.”

The journalists also note, “It is a federal crime to remove classified documents wrongly.”

———-

Ali Velshi’s book, The Trump Indictments: The 91 Criminal Counts Against the Former President of the United States (publ. 2023), includes one having to do with the documents (pp. 54-57). Here is some of what Velshi reports.

“1. Defendant Donald J. Trump was the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. He held office from January 20, 2017, until January 20, 2021. As President, Trump had lawful access to the most sensitive classified documents and national defense information gathered and owned by the United States government, including information from the agencies that comprise the United States Intelligence Community and the United States Department of Defense.

“2. Over the course of his presidency, Trump gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he keeps in the White House. Among the materials Trump stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents.

“3. The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United Cto a foreign attack. The authorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the Untied States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.”

Velshi makes other points, including this one: “On August 8, pursuant to a court-authorized search warrant, the FBI recovered from Trump office and storage rooms at the Mar-a-Lago Club 102 more documents with classification markings.”

———-

Concluding thoughts

Given the official record of Trump’s handling of classified documents, it appears that his demands for $230 million in compensation border on the absurd. However, the question remains whether in the present context, in which he and his party have something like total control over the federal government, he may get away with it.

Trump wants all the power and riches he can get out of the presidency

Bob Sheak, August 22, 2025

The record shows that Trump will do anything to get and retain presidential power, regardless of their effects.

2020 Election

When he lost the 2020 election to Biden, he encouraged his supporters to intervene in the congressional certification process and to stop it, so that electors favorable to him would count the votes.

Thousands of his followers came to the Capitol on January 6, 2020, to carry out his wishes. Then, amid the rioting, he waited over three hours before telling his thousands of rampaging followers – he called them patriots – to stop their rioting and go home. Some 1,500 of them were eventually imprisoned.

2024 Election

When the electoral votes were counted after the 2024 presidential election, Trump ended up with a very narrow, and controversial, victory over the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.

The authors of the book titled 2024 argue that Harris lost primarily because then-president Biden took too much time before deciding to give up his presidential run, leaving her with too little time to put together an effective campaign. (Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America).

Trump ascendant

On Trump’s first day in the White House (January 20, 2025), he ordered outrageously that the 1,500+ rioters who were serving time in a federal prison for the Jan. 6 riots to be released. This is an indication of how he sees little value in the law. Indeed, Thom Hartmann argues that “Trump wants to turn America into a police state” with Trump as all-powerful leader who now even wants to use military forces to takeover Democratic cities, which he describes without evidence as crime-ridden places (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-creating-police-state). Hartmann’s article was published on August 10, 2025. Here’s some of what he considers.

Trump has initially focused on Washington D.C., “despite the fact that crime in Washington DC is at a 30-year low and the city already has the largest police force, per capita, of any municipality in America.”

Hartmann continues. “A leaked memo from inside the Department of Homeland Security reveals what many of us feared but hoped we were wrong about: that the military is no longer a last resort in American governance. It’s now the first tool. A central player. A political weapon, just like in Russia.” The memo

“was written, circulated, and discussed at the highest levels of DHS and the Department of Defense and it spells out, in clinical, terrifying language, a plan to normalize and expand the use of the United States military within our own country, on our own soil, against our own people.”

“The memo, obtained by The New Republic, outlines a coordinated strategy to embed military forces into immigration enforcement not just at the border but across American cities. It calls for replicating the recent Los Angeles deployment ‘for years to come.’ It uses phrases like ‘homeland defense’ and paints immigration threats as akin to Al Qaeda or ISIS. It pushes for ‘new ideas’ on how DHS and DoD can work together on ‘national security’ threats inside the United States.”

For example, Trump ordered “4,000 National Guard troops — federalized, not state-controlled — into Los Angeles to back up ICE raids. He followed that with 700 active-duty Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines.”

The memo includes the following.

— Urges DHS to persuade top military brass to view immigration enforcement as a ‘homeland defense mission.’

— Seeks to embed armed, kill-trained military personnel inside ICE and CBP to ‘increase information sharing’ and support ‘nationwide operational planning.’

— Frames transnational gangs and cartels as equivalent to Al Qaeda, a dangerous, dishonest leap that pretends to justify extreme, deadly force.

— And it admits, in its own words, that due to the ‘sensitive nature’ of the meeting it documents, minimal written policy or background’ should be preserved.

Translation: They know what they’re doing is legally and morally criminal. So they’re minimizing the paper trail.”

Hartmann adds: “Joseph Nunn at the Brennan Center warned that this could create a permanent ‘domestic Forever War,’ a campaign of endless militarization justified by fear and manufactured crises. Soldiers — including armed, masked ICE agents answerable only to the president — terrifying civilians on their own streets and in their own homes: a military occupation of The United States of America.

“This isn’t just Trumpism. This is textbook authoritarianism in the mold of Putin’s Russia and Orbán’s Hungary. It embodies the early stages of all the horror stories of 1930s Europe.”

“That’s not just a skirmish over jurisdiction. That’s an open attack on the sovereignty of states, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. That’s a president saying, ‘Your Guard is my army now.’”

Hartmann warns us, “unless we act — loudly, urgently, relentlessly — it will become a permanent force in American civic life. Not a protector of freedom, but a tool of control, just like in Orbán’s Hungary or Putin’s Russia.”

————-

Deployment of Troops into Washington D.C.

Nick Turse reports for the Intercept on August 12, 2025 on Trump’s use of Troops for policing in Washington D.C. and in other Democratic cities (https://theintercept.com/article/politics/trump-dc-military-deployment-civil-war). He notes that “Trump’s Use of Troops for Policing Hasn’t Been Seen Since America Was Ruled by a King.” Here’s some of what he writes.

“The United States crept closer to becoming a full-blown police state yesterday when President Donald Trump made good on a promise to further militarize the nation’s capital. Trump threatened to employ similar tactics in cities across the country as the Pentagon evaluates plans for a ‘Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force’ composed of hundreds of National Guard troops poised to surge into American cities.”

Trump’s made-up justification

Turse continues. “‘Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals,’ Trump said at a White House news conference on Monday (Aug 11), painting the city [falsely] as a hellscape filled with ‘drugged out maniacs’ and ‘caravans of mass youth’ who ‘rampage through city streets’ day and night. ‘I’m deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, D.C.,’ he declared.”

Contrary to Trump, “Justice Department figures show violent crime in the nation’s capital is at a 30-year low.”

“‘If we look at both practically the way the Trump administration is using the military around the country and also formally, in what they are asserting about their authority — the ability to use the military anywhere, anytime, for any purpose — it’s absolutely unprecedented,’ said Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program who focuses on the domestic role of the U.S. military.”

“Approximately 800 National Guard soldiers were activated as part of the ‘D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force,’ with about 100 to 200 of them supporting law enforcement at any given time, according to a statement provided to The Intercept by the Army.”

“D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said she did not believe it was legal ‘to use the American military against American citizens on American soil’ at a press conference on Monday evening.”

Turse continues. “The National Guard deployment is one facet of Trump’s efforts to put the District of Columbia under federal authority; he also declared that he is temporarily taking control of the city’s police department. Hundreds of officers and agents from more than a dozen federal agencies — including the FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the U.S. Marshals Service — have also fanned out across Washington in recent days.”

Trump “said Attorney General Pam Bondi would oversee the federal takeover of the capital’s Metropolitan Police Department and, with Hegseth at his side, added that he was prepared to send the military into Washington ‘if needed.’”

“In a Monday memorandum, Trump directed Hegseth to coordinate with governors of states and “authorize the orders of any additional members of the National Guard to active service, as he deems necessary and appropriate, to augment this mission.”

What will the courts decide?

Turse reports, “This is the second time this summer that Trump has deployed troops to a Democratically governed city. A federal trial began on Monday in San Francisco to decide whether Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June without the approval of California Gov.r Gavin Newsom.

For now, it’s government policy

“In his first seven months in office,” Turse writes, “Trump has overseen the deployment of around 20,000 federal troops on American soil, including personnel from the National Guard, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines, according to the Pentagon. But the true number of troops deployed may be markedly higher. U.S. Northern Command has no running tally of how many troops have been deployed around the country.

“These federal forces have been operating under Title 10 authority, or federal control, in at least five states — Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas — in service of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.

“Around 5,500 troops — Marines and California National Guard members — have also been deployed to Los Angeles since early June. The forces were sent to LA over the objections of local officials and Newsom.”

“‘Though the rhetoric is sometimes different, from Los Angeles streets to ICE detention centers to our nation’s capital, President Trump is repeatedly acting to turn the National Guard into the first-choice implementers of his authoritarian agenda,’ Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, told The Intercept. ‘Whether it is assaulting immigrant communities or seizing control of law enforcement in DC, his goal for these deployments is the same: using state violence to strip power, safety, and dignity from people. Members of the National Guard should be under no illusions about what they’re being sent to do in Washington.’”

“On Monday, Trump took aim at numerous cities led by Democratic mayors in states with Democratic governors, threating authoritarian power grabs similar to his effort in Washington. ‘If we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster,’ Trump said. ‘You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore. They’re so far gone,” said Trump. “We’re not going to let it happen. We’re not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further.’”

————-

Trump’s Worst Crimes, Dangers, and Destructions Are Yet to Come

Ralph Nader offers an overview of Trump’s effects of his anti-democratic plans and actions in an article for Common Dreams, Aug 9,2025 (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-attacks-on-democracy-institutions).

“The worst crimes of Donald Trump and dangers to America from the unstable, monomaniacal, lying outlaw in the White House have yet to come. He is not satisfied with tearing apart our country’s social safety net for tens of millions of Americans (e.g., Medicaid and food program cuts); wrecking our scientific/medical systems, including warning people about pandemics. He is, by wrecking FEMA et al, failing to address the impact of mega-storms, wildfires, and droughts; and allowing cybersecurity threats to increase while giving harm-producing big corporations immunities from the law, more subsidies, and more tax escapes. Recall how he always adds to his attacks on powerless people that ‘This is just the beginning.’”

“He just took the next step in his march to madness and mayhem by announcing more concentration camps holding immigrants, arrested without due process, for deportation to foreign countries that want U.S. taxpayer cash for each deportee.”

Immigrants play a crucial role in the U.S. economy

Recent immigrants are crucial to millions of small and large businesses. Consider who harvests our crops, cares for our children and the elderly, cleans up after us, and works the food processing plants and construction sites. Already, businesses are reducing or closing their enterprises – a political peril for Dangerous Donald.

“If all immigrants to the U.S. from the last ten years, documented and undocumented, went on strike, our country would almost shut down. Yet Trump, who hired 500 undocumented workers for just one of his construction sites in New York, and had similar laborers at his New Jersey golf course, promises deportations of millions more.

“Always bear in mind the self-defined characteristics of corporatist Trump’s feverish, hateful, outlaw mind: (1) He has declared he ‘can do whatever he wants as President,’ proving his serial violations of law and illegal dictates every day; (2) He always doubles down when indicted, convicted, caught, or exposed, falsely accusing his accusers of the exact transgressions they are reliably charging him with; (3) He brags about lashing out at criticism with foul defamatory invectives; (4) He never admits his disastrous mistake; (5) He boasts that he knows more than leading experts in a dozen major areas of knowledge (see, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All”); and (6) He asserts that every action, policy, or program he launches is a spectacular success – the facts to the contrary are dismissed. He is gravely delusional, replaces realities with fantasies, breaks promises that are made to defer any reckoning or accountability, and, like an imaginary King, finds no problem with saying ‘I rule America and the world.’”

————

Concluding thoughts

The evidence shows that Trump is a destructive and delusional force in the U.S. and worldwide, that is, when he can get away with such behavior. As one recent example, Steve Benen reports that Trump, who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, has declared himself a “war hero” (https://msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-trump-declaring-war-hero-rcna226096).

Currently, his poll numbers are low among Independents and Democrats, reflecting his counterproductive tariff policies, his past relations with Jeffrey Epstein and the criminal acts on very young girls (see

https://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/07/inside-white-house-trump-epstein-strategy/683604), his support of cutting the staff of federal agencies and services, his reckless and often lawless anti-immigrant policy, and the unequal impacts of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, with its huge tax benefits for the rich.

It is good that the polls are against Trump but there is also a need for more people to combine their criticisms with political engagement.