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 effects of Trump’s warped policies

Bob Sheak, August 29, 2026

Trump is among the beneficiaries of the current troubled economy, as his stock portfolio goes up by millions. Some American corporations and CEO’s are making windfall profits.

At the same time, Americans generally are experiencing an affordability crisis. The Iran War contributes to the high prices, especially gas prices. All the while, the national debt grows to unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

Amid this economic turmoil, Trump is unable to make headway on opening the Strait of Hormuz and the high prices that stem from it. At the same time, he is spending time and money (some of it government money) on his vanity projects (e.g., the ballroom). He has also, stunningly, started a trade war with Canada that will contribute to high prices and scarcities.

Trump’s windfall

Trump’s stock portfolio increased by $15.5 million and Democratic committee claims rise is buttressed by the effects of the Iran war

Nicole Dauphinee provides some documentation, Yahoo, Aug 24, 2026

(https://wwwyahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trumps-stock-portfolio-increased-15-151715412.html).

A U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee report from the Democratic minority was released Monday alleging that President Donald Trump profited from “sky-high oil and gas profits and stock prices” tied to the Iran War.

“The report includes Trump’s annual financial disclosure from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which shows that his stock value from investments in oil and gas companies increased by $15.5 million at the end of 2025. The disclosure shows his portfolio increased from $45.6 million to $61.1 million.”

Dauphinee continues. “President Trump continues to get richer from an illegal war that he started and refuses to resolve, while Americans pay the price for his actions,” U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan, Ranking Member of the Democratic Minority Committee, said. ‘On the campaign trail, Trump promised giveaways for Big Oil and relief for working families, but he can’t deliver both. Since launching his war with Iran, Trump has made clear that he puts his own financial interests—and those of his biggest bankrollers—ahead of Americans who are burdened with higher costs for gas and everyday essentials under this administration.’”

“The minority report cites an analysis by Fortune magazine,” Dauphinee points out, “linking the Iran War, U.S. oil profits, and stocks ‘soaring.’ It alleges that ‘during the campaign, President Trump promised to deliver for Big Oil if they gave him $1 billion in donations.’”

Dauphinee adds, “While the report does not corroborate this claim, congressional inquiry documents and multiple mainstream media outlets report that Donald Trump solicited a $1 billion fundraising target from oil and gas executives at a Mar-a-Lago “energy round table” on April 11, 2024.”

The committee also reported that American families have spent an extra $71.5 billion on gas since the start of the Iran war, averaging $604 in additional costs per family.

Read the full report from the Joint Economic Committee Minority here.

Staggering cost of Trump’s tacky vanity projects revealed

Leigh Kimmins reports on this (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/staggering-cost-of-trumps-tacky-vanity-projects-revealed).

“The total cost of the president’s various vanity projects across the capital, combining private donations and public funds,” she continues, “is on track to exceed $1 billion, according to Financial Times estimates. The new East Wing ballroom and its security costs alone account for nearly $800 million of that figure.

“A 250-foot Triumphal Arch is planned for the stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. A National Garden of American Heroes would feature 250 statues of historical figures ranging from Thomas Jefferson to game show host Alex Trebek. The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has been recoated ‘American flag blue.’ The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is to be painted white to match the White House next door. And a public golf course is being converted into a championship-level complex for the president’s preferred pastime.”

“Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and the man responsible for all paperwork that reaches Trump’s desk, told the Financial Times that Trump is ‘intensely involved’ in the plans. Scharf, who was named chair of the National Capital Planning Commission—the federal design and construction review panel that has approved the East Wing project and assessed the Triumphal Arch—said he has had ‘long conversations’ with Trump on flights and on the road discussing ‘the virtues of Corinthian versus Ionic columns.’”

“The ballroom, Scharf said, is something Trump considers part of his ‘legacy’ to the country.”

Big Oil Is Obtaining Windfall Profits as Trump’s War on Iran Drives Up Prices

Derek Seidman writes on his issue for Truthout, Aug 25, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/big-oil-is-seeing-windfall-profits-as-trumps-war-on-iran-drives-up-prices). Seidman is a regular contributor for Truthout. Here are excerpts from the article.

“While the U.S. war on Iran is broadly unpopular in the U.S, including among a growing number of Donald Trump voters, at least one of the president’s core constituencies is happy: Big Oil.

“The war’s straining of the global oil supply chain has delivered windfall profits to major fossil fuel corporations. The top two U.S. oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, recently disclosed an astounding $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026. Top independent U.S. oil refiners like Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66 are seeing similar explosions in profits. Globally, a Guardian study found that eight of the world’s top oil companies took in more than $90 billion, or “more than $700,000 of profit every minute over the spring quarter.”

“The word “oil company” might evoke generic imagery of rigs and refineries. But behind these entities are executives, board members, and top investors who are primary beneficiaries of Big Oil’s war profiteering and who hold commanding power within a fossil fuel power structure that stretches well beyond oil company boardrooms and into Wall Street and the corporate establishment more widely.”

Seidman continues.

Big Oil’s War Profits

“ExxonMobil and Chevron are the two largest U.S. oil corporations, together worth around $1 trillion. They are massive integrated fossil fuel companies whose operations span the entire chain of oil and gas production, and who have a presence across virtually the entire world.

“In July, the two oil juggernauts together reported $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026 — April through June of this year — as “they cashed in on surging crude and petrol prices caused by Donald Trump’s Iran war,” wrote the Financial Times.

“Comparisons with last year provide a metric for measuring these enormous returns. In 2025, ExxonMobil reported second-quarter total earnings of $7.08 billion. In 2026, by comparison, that number leapt to $14.53 billion — more than a 105 percent increase, and “its best quarterly profit since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine caused a surge in oil prices,” according to the Financial Times.

“In 2025, Chevron reported second-quarter earnings of $2.49 billion. In 2026, that number skyrocketed nearly four times — 384.7 percent — to $12.07 billion, which is Chevron’s largest quarterly haul ever.

Seidman continues. “These numbers mean one thing: huge profits funneled to a tiny stratum at the expense of the many who face rising energy prices and the destruction of war. As the nonprofit Oil Change International put it, “there is a massive transfer of wealth occurring as billions around the world struggle with high energy prices while an elite few reap the windfall.”

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has majorly disrupted global oil and gas supply chains through attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure throughout the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passthrough for one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

Corporate giants with global operations like ExxonMobil and Chevron are in a position to continue supplying higher-priced oil. “Both companies have boosted production to near-record levels and are running refineries close to maximum capacity to supply petrol, diesel and other products to customers affected by the Middle East conflict,” said the Financial Times.

Trump’s policies add to the national debt, despite an earlier promise not to do so

Steve Benen writes that Trump’s policies have contributed to the increase in the national debt, Aug 20, 2026 (https://finance-yahoo.comeconomy/policy/articles/u-national-debt-reaches-40-130421237.html).

“Around this time 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.”

He was wrong – and misled the public.

Benen continues.

“Last week, Americans learned that this year’s budget deficit had reached nearly $1.8 trillion, which is already higher than all of 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.”

“The problem is getting worse faster than anyone expected: Everyone knew this was likely to happen eventually, but as The Washington Post reported this week, 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.”

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, and most of that total was racked up before the Covid-19 crisis. 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.”

Republican administrations add to the debt

Dean Baker considers this topic (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/08/24/the-40-trillion-debt-oh-my). Here’s some of what he writes.

“I have never been a deficit hawk, and I’m not about to change my religious affiliation now. But whatever we think of debt and deficits, there is one point that should be very clear: it has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy.

“Every Democratic president of the last half century has left with a deficit that was lower, measured as a share of GDP, than the one they came in with, except Obama, who left it unchanged. By contrast, every Republican president has left with a considerably higher deficit than what they inherited.”

The negative domestic effects of the Iran War

Suddep Reddy considers these effects (https://google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMcgzQhWBlhJJRMPjgVKgKxCxbrnsfg).

“As his war with Iran hits its six-month mark, the conflict is upending his

presidency. Rising gas prices are squeezing consumers and fueling anxiety across party lines. Inflation is rattling bond markets and raising borrowing costs. Supply chain snarls and military equipment shortages risk creating further instability around the world.

“The president who repeatedly pledged to avoid his predecessors’ missteps overseas is now seeing his own agenda derailed by an unpopular war.”

Trump’s approval ratings move down

Emily R. Condon reports that the Iran war is unpopular as Trump battles low approval ratings (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-are-is-unpopular-as-trump-battles-low-approval-ratings-recent-polls/ar-AA2aUrgM).

She considers five polls released in August that indicate that “Americans express pessimism about the Iran war and continued economic worries, according to a USA TODAY review of five polls released in August.”

Trump’s low approval ratings

“The August polls released by Marquette Law School (Aug. 5 and 6), Economist/YouGov (Aug. 11), Reuters/Ipsos (Aug. 17 and Aug. 24) and Emerson College (Aug. 20) were conducted across the country with different groups of likely voters or American adults, but they all told a similar story.”

“The president’s approval rating remained a net negative and sat in the low to high 30-percentage-point range in most polling. The Marquette Law School poll saw a slight jump from June’s 38% approval rating to an August-reported 40% of Americans approving of Trump.

“Economist/YouGov and Reuters/Ipsos reported 33% approval ratings, which fell two or three points from more recent polls. Emerson’s poll reported a slightly higher rate, with 39.5% of Americans approving of Trump while 55.8% disapproved.”

Condon continues.

The Iran war is unpopular among Americans

“Support for U.S. military action against Iran is at a new low, with support falling among Republicans as well, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

“The poll released on Aug. 24 reported that only 31% of Americans approve of the operation, which is down from 37% in March and even earlier in August, when 34% of Americans approved. According to a Reuters analysis of the polling results, the decline is driven by more Republicans turning against the war.”

Economic concerns

“Across multiple polls, American adults and voters said that economic factors are their top concern.

“Emerson respondents cited economic factors such as inflation, jobs and taxes as an important issue in the United States, with 36.5% ranking it as the top issue. Those polled by Reuters/Ipsos cited rising gas prices as a concern amid the Iran conflict.

“In Marquette’s poll, 35% of Americans said inflation and the cost of living was their top issue…

“Economic concerns are historically a driving factor for voters, and could explain why Democrats are leading in polls while the president’s approval rating remains low.”

Concluding thoughts

One thing that stands out in Trump’s policies is the inequality they engender.

Trump and many large corporations and CEOs are doing very well, while millions of Americans are not able or only barely able to get by financially. At the same time, though not considered in this post, the Trump administration is making it harder for people to access important social programs like Head Start and Snap, and wages have fallen behind the continued rise in inflationary prices. Generally, housing, food, gas prices, and health care continue at inflationary levels. And Trump wallows in vanity projects and profits from his power. Amid all of this mess, he has started a trade war with Canada that will surely have a further effect on sending price yet higher.

Trump deserves the low approval ratings and the negative repercussions for the Republican Party. Unless Trump is successful in rigging the upcoming elections, his days of undemocratic power are nearing an end.

Some reasons why the country will be better off without Trump

Bob Sheak

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

Historians have ranked Trump as the worst present ever. According to Factually, “recent expert surveys commonly place Donald Trump and James Buchanan among the lowest-rated presidents… with Trump ranked last in several 2024 specialist polls (https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/worst-us-president-historians-ranking-6854f1).

There is considerable evidence that documents the appropriateness of this ranking. Here are some examples.

#1 – A president of “lost opportunities.” E.J. Dionne, Jr., writes on Trump’s “lost opportunities” (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/16/opinion/trump-lost-opportunities.html). Mr. Dionne is a contributing Opinion writer. He has done damage “to the rule of law, to the United States’ standing in the world, to the constraints on corruption and self-dealing we once took for granted.”

He offers a general summary in two paragraphs of his detailed article.

“He has wasted the nation’s time and attention span on a festival of personal obsessions: tariffs, Greenland, a ballroom, the outcome of the 2020 election and an ill-considered war. In doing so, he created a public agenda entirely out of sync with the problems our nation needs to solve. He also blinded himself to the ways in which he might have made his presidency more successful and more popular.

“We are in a moment when we need to build — more housing and better ways to address child care, elder care and health systems. The country also needs to think ahead: about the disruptive impact of artificial intelligence, the need for alternatives to fossil fuels, the imperative of strengthening rather than wrecking alliances and of curbing inequality that is rising unsustainably and leaving nearly 60 percent of consumer spending in the hands of just the top 20 percent of us

———-

#2 – Trump’s “staggering corruption”

Trump filed a suit back in January, saying the IRS should have done more to prevent the leak of his tax returns during the 2020 presidential campaign. He initially asked for $10 billion in recompence.

Rep. Jamie Raskin comments in a segment of Democracy Now that Trump modified has monetary claim but still is able to get a bundle of taxpayer money channeled to one of his outlets (https://www.democracynow.org/2026/5/18/anti-corruption). Raskin points out, Trump did manage to bilk the taxpayers in what he describes as “staggering corruption.”

Raskin says that “Donald Trump on Monday dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over a leak of his personal and business tax records, a bizarre case of a sitting president suing his own government and essentially acting as both plaintiff and defendant. This comes amid reports that Trump’s Department of Justice was considering settling the case in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate victims of so-called weaponization of the DOJ under the Biden and Obama administrations. Trump allies who participated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol could file claims and be compensated.

“They want a $1.77 billion slush fund, which comes to a million dollars a head in terms of Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the insurrectionists, with $100 million left over of taxpayer money to spread around in different ways,” says Congressmember Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who spoke with Democracy Now! shortly before news broke of Trump dropping the IRS lawsuit.

Congressmember Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is also a constitutional law scholar, calls the proposal an illegal “political slush fund.” Last week, Congressmembers Raskin and Senator Adam Schiff introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act to curb the president’s profiteering and corruption.

Here are parts of Raskin’s Democracy Now interview.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Sure. Well, the $1.7 billion political slush fund in the Department of Justice may take the cake in terms of being the most thoroughly corrupt movement of the Trump administration, after the billions of dollars that they’ve been getting through the crypto schemes and the foreign governments.

“But, so, let’s go back to the beginning. The $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS is completely bogus. It’s empty. It’s vacuous. There’s nothing to it. There was a private contractor who leaked reports of Donald Trump’s tax returns, that Trump had promised to make public. Like every other president had done, he said, ‘I’m going to release my tax returns.’ Then he said he wouldn’t. The IRS didn’t do anything, but this private contractor released some of the details. And he’s in prison. He went to jail for it. There’s no private right of action under the statute, and it’s happened to lots of people.

“So, the idea that it’s $10 billion that he’s going to order the secretary of the Treasury to order the IRS chief to give to him is ridiculous. There’s just nothing there. So, there’s nothing to trade, but then they traded that mythical $10 billion they claimed to be owed, for dropping real criminal investigations into all of the corruption, or some of the corruption, that the Trump family is engaged in, and then also for the creation of this $1.7 billion slush fund.

“Well, there are 1,600 people that he’s pardoned, and they want a $1.7 billion slush fund, which comes to a million dollars a head in terms of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the insurrectionists, with $100 million left over of taxpayer money to spread around in different ways. Congress never voted to appropriate that money. We control the power to spend. We never created that, and we never would.”

“So, they’re using the judgment fund of the United States, which is for valid court verdicts against the United States or valid court settlements, to simply confer money on their private political militia, their street-fighting militia, which went to battle for them on January 6, 2021. And what do you know? Right before this election, they want to shower these people with a million dollars a head. I mean, it’s just a — it’s an outrage, and it’s a scandal. It’s also unconstitutional, because the 14th Amendment says in Section 4 that no money shall go to pay for insurrection or rebellion. That, of course, was in the wake of the Civil War, but it’s written in general terms. Basically, they’re paying his insurrectionary army.”

———-

#3 – Trump’s Iran policies have put many Americans under economic stress and threaten more instability in the country

Tony Romm and Ben Casselman address this issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/17/business/for-trump-soaring-prices-test-voters-fiances-and-patience.html).

Romm and Casselman remind readers that “President Trump promised at his inauguration to ‘bring prices down.’” That was in January 2025. But then “the White House would forge ahead with an agenda that has sent inflation roaring back, testing the patience — and the finances — of a cost-wary American electorate once again,” as consumer prices rise” “outpacing workers’ wages.”

As a result, they continued, “Americans are racking up more debt. Families are saving less. And a key measure of consumer confidence dipped to an all-time low this month. The anxiety has bled into recent political polls, which have registered broad public disapproval of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy.

“At the heart of matter is the war with Iran, which sent the average gallon of gasoline to about $4.52 nationally, according to AAA. That is a more than 40 percent jump from a year ago, an uptick that has cut across the global economy, affecting everything from the cost of workers’ daily commutes to the prices of goods at grocery stores.

“Yet the president has largely dismissed those recent signals, telling reporters at one point last week: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.’”

The dire situation could help Democrats in the November elections.

Romm and Casselman point out, “The jump in fuel costs is only the latest blow for American families, who have suffered through years of rising prices, high interest rates and a softening labor market — as well as much longer-running concerns about the affordability of housing, childcare and other essentials.”

———-

#4 – Trump wants more money for the Pentagon and the Iran War.

Nick Turse reports on Secretary of War Hegseth request for more money for the Iran War (https://theintercept.co,/2026/05/12/hegseth-pentagon-budget-defense-iran-war-cost).

Turse refers to this central point: “War Secretary Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to defend the Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion budget request.” This is despite a “ceasefire” that has been in “effect” for more than a month. The largest request in history.

Turse continues. “Two weeks ago, the Pentagon claimed the war had cost $25 billion, a figure that analysts said was likely a gross undercount. In testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, the Department of War’s comptroller, Jay Hurst, said the cost of the war has risen ‘closer to $29 billion because of the “repair and replacement of equipment’ and ‘general operational costs’ of keeping troops in the Middle East.’ But experts referred to by Turse were even skeptical of this revised count.”

They now want $350 billion through reconciliation and $1.15 trillion in the base budget.

“Hegseth said the Pentagon was prepared to reignite hostilities with Iran. ‘We have a plan to escalate, if necessary; we have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets,’ the secretary testified, declining to say more in the public hearing.”

Bear in mind that this has always been an unnecessary war.

———-

#5 – Trump’s spends on a myriad vanity projects: Examples

Collin McDonough provides us with a list of Trump’s vanity projects, May 5, 2026 (https://momentrumadvocacy.substack.com/p/trumps-vanity-projects). Here’s what he found, admitting that it is not a complete list.

“The new Republican Senate Judiciary Committee budget would allocate $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to ‘security’ upgrades for Trump’s attempt to remake the White House’s East Wing.”

Bottom of Form

· $400 million for the Trump ballroom (the initial estimate was $150-200 million paid for by private donors).

· $1 billion in changes to the Washington Commanders’ NFL stadium.

· $377 million request in his executive budget recommendation for this year and $174 million for next year to do various White House renovations.

· $100 million for the DC archway.

· $17.4 million for fountain renovations (which were estimated to cost $3.3 million when Biden was going to do the same thing last year).

· $2 million in disgusting changes to the reflecting pool.

· $2 million for changes to the Rose Garden.

· $1.75 million for White House furniture and rugs.

McDonough figures the cost of these projects add up to “almost $2.7 billion.” He also notes that Trump plans to put his name on half of these. There are better ways to spend this money. Here are a few examples.

· A month of SNAP funding for almost 14.3 million Americans—a third of the total population enrolled in the program.

· Half of the annual funding for WIC, which is used by 41% of infants in the US.

· A quarter of the annual funding for national free breakfast and lunch for school students.

This is a time when food programs for children and families are being cut. There are also cuts in Medicaid with 300 hospitals poised to close across the nation.

———-

#6 – Trump promotes fossil fuels, including coal, despite their toxic impacts on human health

As Coal Rebounds, More Toxic Mercury is In the Air

Irena Hwang and Hiroko Tabuchi report that the production of more coal puts more toxic mercury in the air (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/climate/as-coal-rebounds-more-mercury-a-potent-toxin-in-in-the-air.html). Irena Hwang is a data reporter at The Times, using computational tools to uncover hidden stories and illuminate the news. Irena Hwang covers pollution and the environment for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York.

Here is some of what they write.

“Coal-fired power plants across the country released more mercury last year as power demand surged, reversing a yearslong downward trend in the emissions of a toxic metal that impairs brain development.

“Mercury emissions from coal-burning plants increased by roughly 9 percent in 2025, compared with a year earlier, totaling more than 4,800 pounds, according to a New York Times analysis of data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“At the same time, the Trump administration launched a series of moves that experts say may make those emissions climb even higher this year and beyond.

“The administration has encouraged the burning of more coal, which emits more carbon dioxide and other pollutants than other fossil fuels, while also blocking tighter pollution controls on coal-burning plants that were supposed to take effect by 2027. It has directed the Pentagon to buy more coal-powered electricity and reopened millions of acres of federal land to mining while working to stymie nonpolluting energy, like wind and solar power.”

“The rise in mercury ‘adds to the growing evidence that, as the administration has made a significant effort to bring back coal, it is making us sicker,’ said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who has also analyzed the data.

“Public health experts say savings for the industry ignore the economic impact of additional pollution, including health care costs associated with cardiovascular disease and developmental problems in children; researchers at Harvard had calculated that keeping stricter limits on mercury pollution from lignite plants alone would have resulted in $200 million a year in public health benefits in just the first year.”

———-

#7 – McKibben dismisses Trump’s unscientific and uninformed desire to eliminate “wind power”

Bill Mckibben provide evidence to support this Trump position, May 13 2026

(https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-war-on-wind’). Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. His most recent book is “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?.”

McKibben makes his main point, “the administration has stopped all approvals on wind farms across the country.” He continues, “As Katherine Krawczyk explains, for 15 years wind farms have applied to the Department of Defense (DOD) where:

they’re supposed to undergo a “timely, transparent, and repeatable process to evaluate potential impacts” to national security and military operations. It’s a routine that has spanned presidencies, including the first Trump administration, and that typically revolves around making sure turbines don’t interfere with radars or federal airspace.

“This has always been routine, until last summer when it became… impossible. Pete Hegseth’s DOD simply stopped replying, and didn’t explain why till last month when it sent a letter to developers saying it was ‘reevaluating how it reviews wind projects national security impacts.’ Somewhere between 165 and 250 big projects are in limbo, and that’s obviously the point: Not only does it screw up their financing, it means they may not get done in time to qualify for what tax credits are left from the Biden Inflation Reduction Act.”

McKibben continues. “That this is stupid goes without saying. Those blocked projects constitute… about 30 gigawatts of cheap clean energy at a time when we desperately need it. But it also goes without saying that the blockage serves two purposes. One is to artificially increase demand for fossil fuel (and the other Trump-favored power sources, like the expensive array of nuclear reactors whose development the government is currently generously funding). The other is to serve his febrile rage at the wind farm built off his Scottish golf course all those years ago. A policy that feeds both his appetite for corruption and supplies his narcissistic hunger—well, that’s a twofer that can’t be missed. Hegseth may have no idea how to win the war in Iran, but he knows how to win favor from dear leader.”

McKibben offers a summary of his rebuttal. “Of course, it means indulging in a huge number of lies, from President Donald Trump’s claim that wind power is the most expensive energy on Earth (actually, second-cheapest, right behind solar) to his claim that it causes cancer (1 death in 5 on this planet comes from breathing the combustion byproducts of fossil fuel) to his claim that though the Chinese build and sell wind turbines they don’t actually use them. If he glances out the window of Qatar Force One on this week’s trip to China he’ll be forced to recant that one: The Chinese actually lead the world in producing not just wind turbines but wind energy.”

China is way ahead. “Last year, China installed three times as much wind power capacity as the rest of the world combined, even as its turbine exports jumped. The global industry’s center of gravity has shifted decisively: All of the world’s six largest wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese, displacing once-dominant European firms and companies like General Electric.”

Technology over Trump. “Fewer turbines, spaced further apart, and equipped with modern bird-detection technology such as IndentiFlight, should reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass going forward.”

“Turbines will be equipped with individual AI paired cameras to detect the presence of avian species which would trigger feathering/shut-off of specific turbines.”

A Stanford University study

McKibben cites Justin Gerdes, who reports, “this kind of repowering could happen at every wind farm across the country:

“‘By replacing aging turbines with modern technology at existing sites, the United States could more than double its current onshore wind capacity and electricity generation without requiring new land,’write the authors of a Stanford University study published in March.”

———

#8 – Trump Is Making America Uninsured Again

Sasha Abramsky makes this argument on Truthout, May 16, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-making-america-uninsured-again).

Sasha Abramsky is a freelance journalist and a part-time lecturer at the University of California at Davis. Abramsky’s latest book, American Carnage: How Trump, Musk, and DOGE Butchered the US Government, is available for pre-order now and will be released in January. His work has appeared in numerous publications,

He opens his article with these statements:

“The GOP is heading into the midterms as the party that made health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans.

“In 2025, the Trump administration successfully pushed Congress to enact nearly $1 trillion in health care cuts over the coming decade, which the Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated would result in 10 million people losing health coverage by 2034. More recently, it has blocked any and all efforts to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credit subsidies for people buying insurance on the state exchanges. In demanding that the GOP leadership in Congress prevent at all costs a continuation of the expanded ACA tax credits, Donald Trump intimated that his administration was on the verge of proposing a better and more affordable health care reform to replace the ACA system.

Abramsky continues. “Nothing of that nature has materialized. Instead, the administration’s health reforms have been shockingly small-bore — a handful of measures to lower the costs of prescription drugs, more incentives for consumers to create health savings accounts, a rollback of regulations on catastrophic coverage plans — thus, making it easier for younger, healthier, patients to buy junk insurance, but doing nothing for those who are older or suffer from chronic conditions.

“Over the past months, even these baby steps have stalled out, with the GOP seemingly and inexplicably resigned to the fact that it will be heading into the midterm elections as the party that is putting health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans. Early in the Iran war, Trump was caught saying that the federal government could no longer afford its massive Medicare commitments now that the country was engaged in an expensive overseas conflict, and it would have to roll back responsibility for paying for this bedrock safety net program onto the states.”Bottom of Form

“Predictably, following Congress’s failure to renew the expanded tax credits, in the first months of 2026 state exchanges calculated that up to 2 million people dropped coverage, and millions more shifted to lower cost plans with far higher deductibles, some in the $10,000 a year range.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s presidency is costly and harmful. It reflects anti-democratic priorities. It reveals the true values of this self-serving, oppressive and incompetent president. We can only work for an alternative to the Republicans who both laud and fear him. Right now, as Trump’s popularity declines, it seems the Democrats will continue to do well in upcoming elections, if people vote.

Trump proposes a huge increase in military spending, despite widespread economic stresses

Trump proposes a huge increase in military spending despite widespread economic stresses.

April 10, 2026

Bob Sheak

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

Trump and Republicans in Congress are – and have been – advancing a budget for the country that reduces assistance for ordinary citizens. This is glaringly obvious in Trump’s budget proposal for 2027, a budget that likely will be approved by Republicans in Congress. It is a budget that overwhelming favors military spending. It would not be so bad if citizens generally were in sound financial shape, but many are not. There has been an “affordability” problem across the country for most of Trump’s second term.

At the same time, people are also being negatively affected by Trump’s tariffs, cuts in government programs and staff in the early months of his second term, a precarious job market, and the disastrous effects of his Iran War reflected, for example, in high gas prices and high fertilizer prices. See the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for a detailed analysis if the economic difficulties associated with the policies of Trump and the Republican party (https://www.cbpp.org.research/federal-budget/a-record-of-historic-harm-in-the-first-year-of-trumps-second-term). Here is a summary of the CBPP’s research.

“The Trump Administration and congressional Republicans advanced one of the most radically regressive policy agendas in our nation’s history during the first year of President Trump’s second term. As a result, tens of millions of people will be less able to meet the growing cost of their basic needs — whether it’s affording groceries, seeing a doctor, keeping the power on, or paying the rent — even as the wealthiest households get a windfall of more tax breaks. At the same time, President Trump and his Administration have undermined and corrupted many basic functions of government, including the proper and timely allocation of funds approved by Congress, leading to more disruption and harm.”

These problems figure in the low poll ratings of Trump. For example, here is the most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest from The Economist (April 1, 2026):

Favorable: 36%
Unfavorable: 57%
Not sure: 7%

In this context, consider Trump’s 2027 budget proposal.

———-

“A Moral Obscenity”

Jake Johnson refers to this term in describing Trump’s 2027 budget proposal (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-2027-budget). Here is some of what he writes.

“President Donald Trump’s White House released a budget proposal on Friday [Sept. 3] that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.”

“Trump’s budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress [now controlled by Republicans] includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.”

Johnson continues. “Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing ‘woke programs’ and ‘ending the Green New Scam’—include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.

“The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.”

“One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House’s requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to ‘its lowest level in the modern era.’”

Alternatively, what would $500 billion in Pentagon spending if it were spent on non-defense programs and the needs of typical citizens? Here are some answers to which Johnson refers.

“The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation’s great problems, from healthcare to daycare, from the climate crisis to affordable housing, from improving schools to making college education affordable,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. “Instead, Trump and Vought propose to spend an unfathomable amount on a Pentagon that can’t even pass an audit to further empower an out-of-control and incompetent leader in Pete Hegseth.”

———-

Trump’s Imperial Military Budget

Robert L. Borosage refers to Trump’s budget proposal as an “imperial military budget, The Nation, April 8, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-imperials-military-budget).

Borosage writes: “In his recent military budget, Trump is saying the quiet part out loud: Waging war is more important to his administration than providing for basic needs at home.”

He points out that “the $1.5 trillion military budget—a $500 billion, 42 percent increase that would be the largest year-on-year percentage increase since the mobilization for Korean War.” Trump is all-in on this increase, while saying that the federal government should not have to continue to pay for a host of non-defense programs. He quotes Trump.

“I said to [Office of Management and Budget director] Russell [Vought], ‘Don’t send any money for daycare because the United States can’t take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of daycare…. We’re fighting wars…. it’s not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.”

Borosage continues. “It wasn’t just daycare that would take the hit. The press reported that president’s budget called for a 10 percent cut in all non-defense discretionary programs (outside of Medicare and Medicaid, which were savaged last year, and Social Security), targeting primarily anything related to climate, the environment, civil rights, education, and food support and other poverty programs. But in reality, compared to the cost of continuing current levels of service, it slashes domestic programs by nearly one-fourth. With ICE and Homeland Security getting increases, targeted programs were cut to the bone: the Environmental Protection Agency cut by more than one-half, LIHEAP—heating subsidies for low income families—eliminated, another $20 billion lopped off rebuilding infrastructure.”

Borosage elaborates his point.

“The proposed $1.5 trillion annual military budget, about 5 percent of the GNP, is real money. As Dean Baker notes, it comes to about $12,000 per family. And that doesn’t include the $200 billion supplemental that the Pentagon will reportedly seek to pay for the war on Iran.

Borosage continues. “The money lards a military-industrial complex that is the largest source of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government—and has never been able to pass an audit.”

And he refers to Representative Ro Khanna on what alternative non-military spending could buy.

“Let me tell you what $200 billion could do here in America. It would allow for free public college for every American kid. We could build a thousand trade schools, we could pay every American teacher $60,000 to start.

“We could have universal childcare: childcare at $10 a day, with childcare workers making $25 an hour. And we could fully fund special needs education at 40% of what the federal government needs to fund.

“Or it could pay to reverse the cuts already made in vital needs. Reversing the cuts in Obamacare made by Trump and the Republican Congress last year would cost $27 billion annually. Extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit that aided low-wage workers curing Covid would cost about $40 billion annually.

We don’t need more military spending to keep us safe. We already have such a force.

Indeed, “Trump repeatedly and correctly boasts that the US military is already the most powerful military in the world by far. The ‘Department of War’ accounts for 40 percent of the world’s military spending, more than the next nine costliest militaries combined—seven of which are (or were before Trump) our allies. This despite the fact that, surrounded by oceans to the East and West and allies to the North and South, the United States is uniquely secure against any conventional assault.”

Trump’s “military fantasies”

“But,” Borosage writes, “Trump’s budget request isn’t really a wartime budget. Most of the increase is a down payment on military fantasies. A centerpiece is an initial investment in Trump’s Golden Dome, his utterly fantastically recycled version of Reagan’s Star Wars, calling for building a defensive ‘dome against missile attacks. It will squander hundreds of billions on multiple layers of land-, sea-, and space-based sensors and interceptors designed to protect the US from next-generation missiles and drones. Like Reagan’s fantasy, the system won’t work, serving only to enrich high-tech military contractors, accelerate the arms race in space, and lead China and Russia and other future nuclear-armed adversaries (France?) to move toward hair-trigger alert postures. Add to that a down payment of $65.8 billion in shipbuilding for Trump’s ‘Golden Fleet,’ featuring ‘Trump-class’ battleships that, if our corrupted military contractors actually succeed in building, will provide tempting targets for inexpensive air and underwater drones that are becoming the weapons of choice for weaker countries.”

Borosage offers the following conclusion. “A $1.5 trillion annual military budget isn’t necessary for the defense of the United States. Rather it assumes that the US will continue to police the world. We will remain committed to global military hegemony—aiming to be dominant militarily in this hemisphere, from Europe to the Russian border, counter China in the South China Sea, strike terrorists across the world, sustain a global empire of 750-plus military bases, and deploy military forces to over 100 countries, while patrolling the seven seas.”

———-

William Hartung contends in an article for Common Dreams. April 3, 2026that Trump’s $1.5 trillion Pentagon Budget will make US weaker

(https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/1-5-trillion-pentagon-budget). William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author most recently of “Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles.”

Here’s some of what Hartung writes.

““It has been reported that the Pentagon on Friday [April 3] will release a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 of almost $1.5 trillion, with approximately $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending contained in the department’s regular annual budget and an additional $350 billion dependent on Congress including it in a separate budget reconciliation bill.

“Whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy. If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments.

“The current war in the Middle East is a case study in the ineffectiveness of an overreliance on military force in seeking to make America or the world a safer place.”

Here is a key point. Hartung writes: “In his first term, President Trump abandoned a multilateral agreement that was effectively blocking Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Six years later, in his second term, the president initially justified his disastrous intervention against Iran as being motivated by fears” that Iran might be developing such a capacity. He did this without evidence they were doing so.

Hartung emphasizes that diplomacy worked, while reckless resort to force does not, as evidenced by the devastating human, budgetary, and global economic consequences of the current Middle East war. Passing a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget would be a recipe for endless war.

“Meanwhile, other, non-military investments needed to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans are being sharply reduced. By one account, the first week of the war on Iran cost $11.6 billion. That’s more than the Trump administration proposed for the annual budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency combined for this year. Yet addressing the climate crisis and the need to prevent future outbreaks of disease are essential to the safety and security of Americans.

“The administration has also reduced our available tools of influence on the foreign policy front by decimating the Agency for International Development, laying off trained diplomats at the State Department, and withdrawing from major international agreements. This leaves force and the threat of force as virtually the last tools standing for promoting U.S. security interests.”

———-

Eric Ross writes at length for Tom Dispatch on “The Price of Empire and the Costs of War on Iran.” April 2, 2026 (https://tomdispatch.com/blowback-2026). In his opening paragraph, Ross presents a summary of the many “costs” of Trump’s war on Iran, not only for the US but even more on Iran.

“What will the costs of the latest round of illegal, ill-fated U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East amount to? Some of the toll is already clear. Washington has squandered billions of dollars on a reckless war of aggression against Iran. A merciless campaign of aerial bombardment has driven millions from their homes. American and Israeli airstrikes have rained destruction on 10,000 civilian sites and already killed more than 3,000 people in Iran and Lebanon. Among the dead are more than 200 children, many killed in a U.S. strike on a girls’ school, a war crime that evokes the grim precedent of such past American atrocities as the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam or the 1991 Amiriyah shelter bombing in Iraq.

“The latest war has also dealt a potentially fatal blow to our already battered democratic institutions. It’s a war neither authorized by Congress nor supported by the public. Instead, it was launched by a president who refuses to submit to the law or heed the will of the people, claiming in true authoritarian fashion that he is the law, and that he alone embodies the popular will.”

———-

Sarah Fortinsky writes on how Trump’s approval rating has hit a new low as the Iran war squeezes economy, and reminds us how this war was arbitrarily started by Trump, with no consultation with Congress and with no concern about public opinion. Now, the public is reacting, belatedly negatively(https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5811709-trump-approval-rating-iran-war-economy). Here’s some of what she writes.

“President Trump’s approval numbers have slipped in recent weeks, hovering near the lowest levels of his second term, as Americans — including his conservative base — grow increasingly wary of a prolonged war in Iran that could portend trouble for the U.S. economy.

“Recent polling from YouGov and The Economist has Trump’s approval rating down 4 percentage points since just before the U.S. struck Iran, falling from 39 percent in late February to 35 percent in the latest survey.

“A Reuters/Ipsos poll similarly put Trump’s approval at 36 percent, down from 40 percent earlier this month, while a Fox News survey found the president’s disapproval rating at 59 percent, the highest level recorded in either of his terms.

The shift has coincided with declining support for Trump’s handling of the Iran war, which saw its sharpest drop yet this past week — as gas prices climbed to more than $4 for the first time since 2022….”

“Trump, who spoke to the public Wednesday night [April 1] about the conflict, saw his polling on Iran start out at 39 percent in early March, before dropping to 36 percent for two weeks and then ticking down to 30 percent in the latest YouGov/Economist survey.”

“The drop-off in Trump’s overall approval rating comes as Americans broadly sour on the economy, with only 14 percent saying conditions are improving….”

———-

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s budget proposal, with its emphasis on military spending and dismissal of federal responsibility for most non-defense programs, is losing his support among vast numbers of citizens, even among his base. This is reflected in polls and also in recent Democratic electoral victories. It is also reflected in the 8 million people who demonstrated against Trump on “No King’s” day. Still, it is of great concern that Trump is still able to wield such great power as president.

The true costs of the Iran War

Bob Sheak, March 22, 2026

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

There are so many indications of how poorly and undemocratically Trump is using the power of his presidency. Still, he continues to have the support of his enormous MAGA base. He dominates the Republican Party and has the support of large segments of the rich and powerful. His party controls both the House and Senate. He can count on the Supreme Court to support him in significant ways, by giving him immunity from the law while he is president, as one example.

One miscalculated way Trump uses this power is to take the country to war in Iran. It can be a distraction from other problems the president faces –the lackluster economy, the healthcare crisis, the absence of job creation, the angry responses to the effects of his tariffs, his relationship to Epstein, the low ratings he gets for his presidency, and so forth. But Trump’s Iran war exacerbates all these problems.

———-

The Iran War

He has taken the country into an unnecessary war of his choosing that is compounding the country’s economic difficulties – while crippling Iran’s economy, killing and disrupting the population, including young children. It is important to remember that, contrary to the Trump government’s distorted assessment, Iran did not represent a threat to the U.S., and that prior to the war they had expressed a willingness to negotiate with the U.S. on the nuclear bomb issue and Trump seemed to agree. CNN journalists reported on this (https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/03/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks-us-strike-intl-hnk).

“Iran has tentatively agreed to resume nuclear talks with the United States as it tries to avert the threat of further military strikes, in what would be the first such negotiations since the Trump administration bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites last summer.

“The discussions are expected to be held in Oman, a source familiar with the matter told CNN Tuesday night. Iran’s semi-official ⁠ISNA news agency also reported Oman as the venue for talks that it said would take place on Friday. ‍

“The White House said Tuesday that talks between would proceed this week despite changes requested by Tehran to the venue and format.

“Sources had told CNN on Monday that Iran’s top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, was likely to meet US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, in Istanbul on Friday.

“However, the plans hit a snag after Tehran requested the talks be relocated to a different city, that regional participants be excluded and that the scope of the discussions be limited to just the country’s nuclear program, CNN reported earlier. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that Trump is keeping open the option of military strikes if diplomacy fails.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkiansaid Tuesday that Tehran is pursuing negotiations –– though with conditions.

“‘I have instructed my Minister of Foreign Affairs, provided that a suitable environment exists — one free from threats and unreasonable expectations — to pursue fair and equitable negotiations, guided by the principles of dignity, prudence, and expediency,’ Pezeshkian wrote on X.

“He said he has given the go-ahead for the negotiations following ‘requests from friendly governments in the region.’”

Of course, Trump subsequently ordered the launching of the “excursion,” now in its fourth week. But, despite the destruction and death Iran is suffering, Iran is striking back, sending drones into nearby countries and U.S. bases, causing some casualties, and closing the Hormuz Straits, which has caused oil and gas prices to soar in the U.S. and around the world.

———-

The costs to the U.S. of the war

The $1.3-Million-a-Minute War

Nicholas Kristof, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, reports that the war is costing the U.S. $1.3 million a minute

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/opinion/iran-war-cost.html). Here’s some of what he writes.

“Let’s ponder for a moment the vast sums that we’re pouring into the war with Iran. The Pentagon has requested [an additional] $200 billion (more than $1,400 per American household) to fund the war, but even that understates the total cost.

Linda Bilmes, a Harvard expert on financing war, who was a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under Bill Clinton, told me [Kristof] that most of the costs will arrive later. For example, any soldier who develops a medical disorder or aggravates an existing one will receive lifelong benefits and medical care. If today’s troops claim such benefits at the same rate as those who participated in the 1990-91 gulf war, that alone would eventually cost at least $600 billion, Bilmes said. Not to mention, of course, the human toll of all of this.

“All told, she expects this Iran war to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion.”

Alternative ways this money could be spent – examples

Kristof writes: “Here are some ideas of what the war money could be used for instead. My calculations are conservative, based on Pentagon reporting that the first six days of the war cost $11.3 billion — and even that incomplete tally amounted to more than $1.3 million a minute.

“For a bit more than two weeks of this war, we could offer free college education to every American family earning less than $125,000 annually, at a cost of around $30 billion a year.

“For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds.

“For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line, according to Kyle Zimmer of First Book, a nonprofit that works on early literacy. Research suggests that books like these can help get children reading and improve their outcomes.

“A woman dies in the United States every two hours, on average, from cervical cancer. Screening all uninsured women who need it would cost perhaps $1 billion and could save hundreds of lives, according to Dr. Linda Eckert, a cervical cancer expert at the University of Washington. That’s less than 13 hours of the war bill.

“We could get glasses to all 2.3 million low-income schoolchildren in the United States who need them but don’t have them. The base cost would be about $300 million, according to Vision to Learn, a nonprofit that does this work. The bill would be what we spend on four hours of this war.

“For about $34 billion a year, less than three weeks of war, we could restore health insurance subsidies that the Trump administration let expire last year. One analysis predicted an additional 8,800 preventable American deaths as a result.

“The war money would save even more lives if we allocated part of it abroad. Indeed, we spent more on the first three days of war than we spent ($4 billion) on all humanitarian aid in 2025. Consider what we could achieve internationally:

“For $400 million or less, a bit more than five hours of war, we could deworm all children in need worldwide, according to Evidence Action, a nonprofit that works on deworming. This would result in stronger, healthier children and adults.

“For $380 million, less than five hours of war, we could provide vitamin A supplementation for the 190 million children who need it. Helen Keller Intl, a nonprofit engaged in this work, says this would prevent up to 480,000 child deaths each year and virtually eliminate blindness from vitamin A deficiency.

“About one day’s worth of war spending could save more than 350,000 lives from malaria, through a rigorously studied screening and prevention program, according to Esther Duflo, an economist at M.I.T.’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab.”

“If we reallocated this war spending to needs at home and abroad, Americans would have access to school from pre-K to college and would have health insurance, and large numbers of children worldwide would not starve to death — and we would still have billions of dollars left over.”

———-

Economist Jack Rasmus considers “some economic consequences of the Iran War” (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/03/20/some-economic-consequences-of-the-iran-war). Jack Rasmus is author of ’The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump, Clarity Press, January 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network on Fridays at 2pm est. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

Here is just some of what he writes in this highly documented article.

“As the US-Israel war on Iran enters its third week [now fourth week], the outlines of the economic consequences and fallout of the war have begun to emerge. As the war continues—and by most indicators it appears it will for months longer—the War’s negative impact on the US and world economies will deepen further.

“What are some of the economic dimensions for the war’s negative consequences?

“First and most obvious is the current oil price shock’s effect on inflation. Not just for US prices, but other countries as well. And not just for goods and services but for asset prices (i.e. stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, gold, silver, etc.).

“Another is the long-term disruption of global supply chains and the volume of global trade.

“As inflation rises, central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, will continue to raise interest rates with a corresponding negative impact on the US and other economies, many of which are already nearly stagnant or are beginning to enter recession. Most heavily impacted will be Europe, the Gulf States, and Middle East energy-dependent countries in East Asia like Japan and South Korea.

“Another negative impact will be on global money capital flows—both real investment and financial portfolio asset markets (stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, etc.).

“Then there’s the US budget deficit and national debt. The deficit will now approach $2 trillion a year, for the third straight year. That deficit will drive the national debt to exceed $39 trillion by later this spring and possibly $40 trillion by year end.

“The Iran war and its costs converge with a host of other forces driving the deficit and the debt into ever greater crisis: Trump’s escalating war spending (including his plan for $400 billion more for just the Pentagon), the current sharply slowing US real economy (that grew at a mere 0.7% rate in fourth quarter 2025), the present collapse of employment and job creation now underway in the US and Trump’s massive 2025 $5 trillion tax cuts benefiting mostly investors and corporations at the expense of US Treasury tax revenues which is estimated to reduce corporate income tax revenues by $77 billion in 2026.

“Not least, the war will accelerate the current fiscal crisis of the American Empire. The costs of Empire now exceed $2.2 trillion a year when all categories of ‘defense’ in the US budget are considered, not just the Pentagon and the US Department of Defense—the latter alone which now exceeds $1.1 trillion a year.

“Trump’s war in Iran will exacerbate all these negative economic trends, US and global; and the longer the war continues—which by all indicators it will—the worse the negative economic consequences.”

———-

Trump underestimates the costs of the Iran War

Nick Turse considers the costs in an article for The Intercept

(https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost).

He states his central point: “The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs.

“The Pentagon on Thursday said the U.S. spent about $11.3 billion in just one week of its war on Iran; Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett similarly put the figure at $12 billion on Sunday.

‘But these sums are dwarfed by estimates offered by experts in the costs of war, lawmakers experienced with the Pentagon budget, and two government officials briefed on Operation Epic Fury who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

‘At the very least, they say the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day — or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second. The cost, the officials told The Intercept, could rise to a quarter trillion dollars or more over the coming months.

The long-term costs

Turse continues. “Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations.

“‘If this war takes months rather than weeks, the costs will become astronomical,’ said Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog advocating for an end to wasteful spending,

“Jules Hurst III, the War Department’s acting comptroller and chief financial officer, called the Pentagon’s initial $11.3 billion estimate a “ballpark number,” speaking at the Reagan Institute’s National Security Innovation Base Summit. Hurst said a more comprehensive figure would be provided with a supplemental budget request, which he said the Pentagon plans to soon submit to the White House and Congress.

“Democratic lawmakers believe the true number is far higher because the Pentagon estimate did not include many expenses, including the massive buildup of military assets, weapons, and personnel in the Middle East ahead of the conflict.

Lawmakers have said they expect the Iran War supplemental request to reach at least $50 billion — on top of a $1.5 trillion War Department budget request for 2027.

Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif. told The Intercept that Americans had been conned into an open-ended conflict, with unclear goals and no exit plan.

“‘We haven’t gotten sufficient details in public or behind closed doors about the strategy, the objectives, the length of the operation, or how much this will cost taxpayers,’ she told The Intercept. ‘The American people are demanding an end to this illegal war to prevent more killings of children, retaliation against U.S. service members, skyrocketing costs to U.S. taxpayers, and yet another endless war.’”

Turse reports, “A three-week conflict could cost taxpayers between $60 billion and $130 billion, according to the two government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, with both stressing that the estimates were speculative. “It’s a back of the napkin estimate,” said one official.

“A five-week war could top out at $175 billion. Eight weeks could put the total at $250 billion. ‘They really have no idea of the real cost,’ said one of the officials, noting that bookkeeping is not a Pentagon strong suit. The self-styled War Department has never passed an audit, despite almost a decade of attempts.”

Estimate costs of the war don’t consider the “pre-war military buildup, which had already cost taxpayers an estimated $630 million. “according to Elaine McCusker, a former senior Pentagon budget official now at the American Enterprise Institute. (McCusker said those costs are likely to be absorbed within the Pentagon’s existing $839 billion 2026 budget.)”

“Initial estimates of the first 100 hours of the war tacked on around $3.7 billion in operational costs, munitions, and damaged or destroyed equipment, according to a cost breakdown by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS. This and other estimates turned out to be drastic undercounts as Pentagon officials, in classified briefings, disclosed that the military burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions in just the first two days of the war. An updated analysis by CSIS now estimates that Epic Fury cost $16.5 billion by its 12th day.”

Linda Bilmes (see reference to her on p. 3) says that the price tag of the war will exceed $50 billion if the conflict stretches into its third or fourth week. ‘Probably higher, she added.

“Bilmes cautioned that enormous short-term expenses — like spent munitions, the deployments of aircraft carrier strike groups, and aircraft shot down — will be eclipsed by even more significant expenditures like the long-term costs of veterans’ benefits and interest on the debt to pay for the war. The ultimate cost, Bilmes says, may reach into the trillions of dollars.

“Bilmes notes that around 50,000 U.S. troops are deployed around the Middle East as the United States and Israel, as well as Iran and its proxies, strike fuel depots, oil facilities, and military sites — all of which release noxious substances shown to negatively affect human health. ‘The majority are being exposed to toxins, contamination, acid rain, dust from infrastructure destruction, and burning oil fumes, so we can estimate that at least one-third will be claiming disability benefits under the PACT Act,’ she said, referring to a landmark 2022 law expanding health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. ‘That is a major long-term cost that almost nobody looks at.’ Bilmes said that if veterans claim benefits at the rate of the extremely short 1990 Gulf War — 37 percent of whom receive compensation today — this alone would add around $600 billion in costs over their lifetimes.

Bilmes explained that these long-term costs are exacerbated by the fact that all the money is borrowed. “Back in 2004, the public debt was below $4 trillion. Now the gross debt is $38 trillion — and about 30 percent of that is due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” she said. A key contributor to that spike is the fact that the United States went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 while simultaneously cutting taxes — increasing spending while reducing revenues.

“‘This combination had never happened before in the history of U.S. wars,’ she said. With interest rates almost double what they were in the 2010s, Bilmes notes that 14 percent of the federal budget already goes to interest payments, which are destined to rise further with the Iran war.”

“Murphy, the policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense,

“‘We’re facing a spiraling debt crisis, skyrocketing health care premiums, dire food insecurity, and natural disasters that are growing more frequent, extreme, and costly. These are national security issues,’ Murphy, policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, told The Intercept. “If Congress believes this war is a good use of taxpayer dollars, it should vote on an authorization for the use of military force.” It hasn’t yet done this. Taxpayers are entitled to more clarity about why this war is being fought, what the endgame is, and how much it will cost in American casualties and deaths.

The unfortunate truth is that Americans will be paying massive sums of money for generations to finance Trump’s second war with Iran. “These costs aren’t known to the American people.” Our children will end up paying for his tragic misadventure.

———-

The Trump government wants $200 billion more for its war on Iran

Helene Cooper, Tony Romm, Megan Mineiro and Karoun Demirjian report on the Pentagon’s request of $200 billion to fund the Iran War

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/middleeast/pentagon-200-billion-iran-war-funding-hegseth.html). Here’s some of what they report

“The Pentagon has asked for $200 billion in funding for the war in Iran, according to a military official and an administration official, a significant sum adding to the costs of an already divisive campaign.

“The request has been sent to the White House, the military official said, which will review it before any request for funds is formally submitted to Congress. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal. The request was reported earlier by The Washington Post.

“‘Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys,’ Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said when asked about the request during a news conference on Thursday, adding: ‘As far as the $200 billion, I think that number could move.’

“On Capitol Hill, the sum — nearly a quarter of the country’s entire annual defense budget — is already raising eyebrows among some moderate Republicans who would be key to approving the funds, including Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and the head of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska and a key swing vote, said that the Trump administration would have to make a more concerted effort to engage Congress on the war before such a request could be approved.

The journalists note, “It was not immediately clear how long the Pentagon intended for the $200 billion for the Iran war to last, or what operations it would cover.” This request suggests that the U.S. military is preparing for an extended engagement in Iran.

Last week, Pentagon officials told lawmakers that the first six days of the war against Iran had cost more than $11.3 billion. Since then, President Trump has threatened to escalate the fighting, including floating the idea of putting American troops on the ground even as he has alternated the threats with suggestions that the United States might conclude its military campaign soon.

But the $200 billion figure suggests that the U.S. military is preparing for an extended engagement in Iran.

———-

Concluding thoughts

Trump had opportunities to continue negotiations with Iran, but instead he chose to end them and start the war. The evidence that Iran was building or preparing to build nuclear bombs is non-existent. Trump insisted that this regime could not be trusted, but negotiations, like those in the past, may have opened the door to international inspectors, who would have been able to verify what Iran was doing.

The evidence that the Iran regime is terrible to its people is well documented. But that is beside the point. We tolerate un-democratic and cruel regimes elsewhere, in for example Russia, North Korea, Iraq, or deal with them in other ways, say, with sanctions. In a better world than we have, the U.S. would set an example to others, but under Trump and his allies, we have become an example of a narcissistic President with an oligarchic strain who tends to use the threat, if not the employment, of military action in attempts to get his way. If this continues, the U.S. will not have any reliable allies.

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.

A president with great power, repression, amid growing resistance

Bob Sheak, Jan. 24, 2026

Arlene Sheak edited

The president is an embarrassment to the US, but more importantly, he is an unprecedented danger to democracy and a threat to peace in the world. He often claims he is for peace, but he is quick to utilize the military abroad and authorizes the largest military budget in American history – and in the world. He also aggressively authorizes the deployment of federal law-less enforcers into cities across the U.S, particularly “Democratic” cities.

All the while, he acts and speaks erratically. He makes up his own “truths.” He sees himself as an all-powerful leader, an autocrat or dictator. He enriches himself and his family. The New York Times Editorial Board reported that Trump had pocketed $1,405,500,000 in 2025

(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/20/opinion/editorials/trump-wealth-crypto-graft.html).

His power is unfortunately rooted in his control of the executive branch of the U.S. government, including the military, an array of federal agencies, ICE, along with the Republican Party, support from the rich and corporations, a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, and his base of tens of millions of right-wing Americans. His policies are having detrimental effects on many Americans.

———-

His mental instability

Harold Meyerson contends that the president has “become psychotically megalomaniacal (https://prospect.org/2026/01/20/25th-amendment-time–mad-king-donald).

“Age, narcissism, and megalomania now determine Trump’s actions and, alarmingly, the domestic and foreign policy of the United States.

“Today, which marks the first anniversary of Trump’s reassuming the duties of the presidency, it’s clear that the conventional wisdom was profoundly and disastrously wrong. Age, narcissism, and megalomania now determine Trump’s actions and, alarmingly, the domestic and foreign policy of the United States.

When the consequences are confined to his ordering up monuments to his assumed greatness—stamping his face on coins, engraving his name on government buildings, sizing his ballroom to dwarf anything else in D.C.—they can be dismissed as relatively harmless outbursts of ridiculously overindulged self-love.

“But when, as he told The New York Times earlier this month, he views the only constraints on his actions to be his own sense of propriety and morality, rather than the Constitution that presidents are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend, then we’ve been shuttled into a different form of government than the one we’ve assumed we’ve lived in for the past 250 years: a monarchy, at least as Trump himself sees it.”

Meyerson gives this example, regarding Trump’s bizarre reason to annex Greenland. “The president Bottom of Form

Tcited his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize as a reason he wants to seize Greenland. Just believing that he was in any sense qualified for the prize itself should have been evidence enough of his derangement. He surely feels wounded when anyone dares to tell him the truth about himself, as the Nobel Peace Prize committee unknowingly did when they gave the award to somebody else.

“But his determination to seize Greenland—already disgraceful, deplorable, and altogether addled even before his Nobel deprivation message—has become proof positive of his narcissistic megalomania, now that he’s linked his determination to his wounded ego.”

———-

Trump’s meandering speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

Erin Mendell and Shashank Bengali report on this for The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/trump/davos-speech-takeaways.html). Here are some highlights of what they report.

“In remarks that stretched for over an hour, Mr. Trump lashed out at NATO in front of fellow members of the military alliance and lobbed criticism at the leaders of several nations, Somali immigrants in the United States, wind power and more.”

Denmark and Greenland

“Mr. Trump referred to Greenland, which he has insisted the United States must control for reasons of national and international security, as ‘cold and poorly located.’ He has argued that China and Russia could seek to exploit it, and said on Wednesday that granting U.S. control of it was ‘a very small ask.’” He ruled out using military force, but threatened European leaders who oppose such a U.S. annexation, telling them ‘We will remember.’”

Trump’s veiled threats pushed the long-established trans-Atlantic alliance “to the brink.”

Here are examples of other points Trump mentioned.

He spent several minutes arguing that European nations have hurt themselves by trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while reveling in his efforts to block and dismantle renewable electricity plants in the United States.
After referring to Greenland, a territory with a population of nearly 60,000 people, as a “piece of ice,” he appeared to confuse it with Iceland, a Nordic island nation, when talking about a dip in the stock market this week.
He said he had received a call from Karin Keller-Sutter, Switzerland’s president at the time, pushing back on an initial 30 percent tariff. “And she was very repetitive,” he said, adding, “She just rubbed me the wrong way.” After that call, Mr. Trump said, “I made it 39 percent.”
Mr. Trump drew some gasps when he directly criticized Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada. Canada is historically one of the United States’ staunchest allies.
Mr. Carney said in a speech at Davos on Tuesday that the era of U.S. hegemony could be over, calling the current moment “a rupture.” Though he didn’t mention Mr. Trump’s name, there was no mistaking his meaning.

———-

His Falsehoods

Falsehoods Fueled Trump’s First Year Back in Office

Linda Qiu does a fact-check of Trump’s falsehoods in 2025

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/trump-falsehoods-fact-check-first-year-year.html). There is no surprise here. Trump has a long-history of stretching the truth and outright lying.

In the first year of his second term, President Trump has cited an arsenal of falsehoods, baseless claims and distortions to justify significant policy changes on the economy, immigration, trade, executive power, and foreign policy.

For example, Trump claimed that he would transform the economy from the “worst” to the “best” and that his tariffs would bring back manufacturing companies to the U.S. Contrary to this claim, Qui writes,

“The manufacturing sector shed 63,000 jobs from January 2025 to December 2025. Construction spending in manufacturing has also declined. Economic activity in the sector in general contracted for 10 consecutive months in 2025, according to a longstanding survey by the Institute for Supply Management.”

———-

Billionaires and Corporations gained a lot in Trump’s first year back in the White House

Derek Seidman considers who gained the most during Trump’s first year, Jan 20 2026 (https://truthout.org/articles/who-gained-the-most-during-trumps-first-year-billionaires-and-corporations). Seidman is a writer, researcher and historian living in Buffalo, New York. His research finds that billionaires and corporations did well 2025. Others find that the average American struggled just to pay the bills.

Seidman writes,“Big banks saw their stocks skyrocket by 29 percent during Trump’s first year.”

“…major industries and their billionaire leaders who rule over us all — from Wall Street to Silicon Valley, Big Oil to Big Crypto — have profoundly benefited from the administration’s first year. Many of these corporate actors have cozied up with Trump through piles of campaign and inauguration contributions, as well as donations to his White House ballroom project.

“They’ve been the big winners over the past year, raking in billions from a policy agenda overseen by Trump and his administration stacked with billionaires and industry-friendly regulators.”

Here’s one of Seidman’s examples.

‘Wall Street and its coterie of financial oligarchs have been prime beneficiaries of Trump’s first year. This is especially true of big banks, which saw their stocks skyrocket by 29 percent in 2025.

“The bullishness around banks springs largely from Trump’s lax regulatory regime.

This includes the weakening of antitrust oversight, to the glee of big banks profiting from ramped-up mergers and acquisitions, and the appointment of corporate-friendly regulators to key financial cabinet and oversight roles.”

“One major beneficiary of these policies is Jamie Dimon, the longtime billionaire CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the U.S.’s biggest bank.

Dimon — who appears to be chumming up with Trump after years of tension — raked in around $770 million in 2025 through a “combination of salary, bonuses, dividends, stock grants and appreciation in his allotment of the bank’s shares,” whose value rose 34 percent last year, according to The New York Times.

‘Other bank executives — at Citi, Goldman Sachs, Capital One, and more — have also massively cashed in.’

Seidman writes,

“Tech corporations and billionaires have been major beneficiaries of Trump’s first year, with their stocks and revenues soaring, as the president has adamantly backed their core interests, including turbocharging the construction of data centers that power artificial intelligence (AI), gutting state-level AI regulations, cutting limits of AI chip exports, and approving chip exports by chipmaking behemoth Nvidia to China.”

———-

Trump is hardly a president who advances peace in the world

Katrina Vanden Heuvel and John Nichols consider Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine,” Jan 13 2026 (https://www.thenation.com/article/society/donroe-doctrine-venezuela-maduro). Here’s some of what they write.

“Trump, acting very much as a European king of old, attacked Venezuela as this edition of The Nation went to press. His move represents a brazen violation of international law that destabilizes global security and seizes Congress’s exclusive authority to declare war. Military force is justified only in response to a clear, credible, and imminent threat to  the security of the US or its treaty allies. Venezuela, whatever its internal dysfunctions or its connections to drug trafficking, poses no such threat.”

They continue.

“While Trump and his allies tried to justify naked aggression as part of a convoluted strategy to target ‘narco-terrorism,’ Representative Pat Ryan (D-NY), a former Army intelligence officer who served two combat tours during the Iraq War, declared, ‘No matter what they say, it’s always oil.’ Ryan was not alone in recognizing echoes of the WMD claims of former president George W. Bush, and how that blood-for-oil war went so horribly awry. In his first bid for the presidency, Trump positioned himself as something of an anti-war Republican. That was always a cynical gambit, and Trump is now exposed as an economic imperialist who learned nothing from Iraq and who is willing, as Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) noted, to embark on a career of empire that risks the lives of US troops to make ‘oil companies (not Americans) more profitable.’”

———-

The growth of reckless domestic law-less enforcement: ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Bill Chappell considers “How ICE grew to be the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency (https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5674887/ice-budget-funding-congress-trump). Here’s some of what he reports.

“Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion — notably smaller than other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. But ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, with $85 billion now at its disposal.

“The windfall is thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted last July. After hovering around the $10 billion mark for years, ICE’s budget suddenly benefited from a meteoric spike.

Chappell quotes Lauren-Brooke Eisen, senior director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute.

“With this new bill and other appropriations, it’s larger than the annual budget of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined….”

Chappel continues. “ICE is now the lead agency in President’s Trump immigration crackdown, sending thousands of agents into U.S. communities. As its funding and profile has grown as part of those efforts, ICE has come under increasing criticism for its officers’ actions, from masked agents randomly stopping, questioning, and detaining people and thrusting them into unmarked vehicles to the recent

“Under the 2025 law, ICE has a $75 billion supplement that it can take as long as four years to spend, along with its base budget of around $10 billion. If the agency spends that money at a steady pace and current funding levels continue, it would have nearly $29 billion on hand each year. That essentially triples ICE’s total budget from recent years.

“To give that large number a sense of scale, consider that the Trump administration’s 2026 appropriations request for the entire Justice Department, including the FBI, stands at a little over $35 billion.

“The Trump administration has set lofty goals for ICE, aiming to deport 1 million people each year. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act also allocates $45 billion for ICE to expand its immigration detention system — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said last June that the agency will be able to hold up to 100,000 people in custody daily. By comparison, the federal Bureau of Prisons currently holds over 153,000 inmates.

“As of Nov. 30, 65,735 people were held in immigration detention, according to the data tracking project Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

With those metrics in mind, ICE went on a hiring spree in 2025, fueled by its bigger budget. In just one year, the agency says, it ‘more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000.’ (The Office of Personnel Management, which tracks federal workforce statistics, is only updated through Nov. 30 and does not reflect any hiring made by the DHS in the last quarter of the year.)

“According to the DHS, ICE received 220,000 applications in 2025, thanks in part to a generous incentive package with perks like a signing bonus of up to $50,000, disbursed over the course of a five-year commitment, and up to $60,000 in student loan repayment.

“ICE is still on that hiring spree, looking to hire deportation officers in at least 25 cities around the U.S., according to a job listing on the USA Jobs website that will remain active through the end of September. The starting salary for an ICE deportation officer in the Enforcement and Removal Operations division, or ERO, ranges from $51,632 up to $84,277.”

———-

More Americans have come to oppose Trump’s ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement force

Joe Lancaster reports on this and how support for abolishing ICE is surging (https://reason.com/2026/01/20/as-ice-cracks-down-support-for-abolishing-it-surges).

Lancaster writes, “Earlier this month, the death of Renee Good at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross brought overly aggressive federal law enforcement into public view. As a result, more Americans than ever now think we should get rid of it.”

He continues, “More Americans now support the abolishment of ICE, in a major change since July and in Donald Trump’s first presidency,” Forbes‘ Mike Stunson wrote last week, “as the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal officer has led to a wave of backlash against the agency.”

Stunson who “cited a January 2026 poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov, which found that 46 percent of respondents support abolishing ICE, with 43 percent opposed. The same poll found 50 percent felt Good’s shooting was “not justified,” while only 30 percent said it was justified.

“A separate poll by Civiqs found 43 percent of respondents support ending ICE, with 49 percent opposed. Notably, though, this represents a dramatic shift since only a few months ago. In September 2024, only 19 percent supported, and 66 percent opposed, abolishing the agency.

“It was also the highest number in favor of abolition, and the lowest number against, since Civiqs began asking the question in July 2018, when the #AbolishICE movement began in earnest. (At that time, respondents favored keeping the agency intact by a 2–to–1 margin.)

‘And an Associated Press/NORC poll shows 61 percent of Americans now oppose Trump’s handling of immigration; as recently as March 2025, respondents were evenly split.

“The reason for the shift is clear: Americans are suddenly confronted with the reality of what ICE is doing, and they don’t like what they see.”

What do they see?

“Trump has deployed 3,000 federal officers and agents to Minneapolis this month, the largest operation in DHS history,” Nick Miroff wrote last week in The Atlantic. “Many of the ICE officers and Border Patrol agents are outfitted in tactical gear and wear body armor and masks, and they’re using the technological tools that the department acquired to protect the country’s borders: surveillance drones, facial-recognition apps, phone-cracking software. Powered by billions of dollars in new funding, they are making immigration arrests and grabbing protesters who try to stop them.”

Stunson continues.

“The results are plain to see: ICE officers assaulting U.S. citizens, smashing windows and dragging them from their cars, going door-to-door without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. In October, ProPublica reported ICE had arrested at least 170 Americans—in many cases using considerable force—including some who were detained for multiple days without being allowed to contact their families or an attorney.”

Stunson adds, “Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology found that ICE has scanned the driver’s license photos of one in three American adults and could access the driver’s license data of three in four American adults.”

An alternative

“Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution’s original meaning,” agrees George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “We may not be able to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution on this score. But abolishing ICE and shifting more law enforcement resources to state and local governments would bring us closer to it. It would also simultaneously curtail ICE abuses and reduce crime.”

“The U.S. went nearly its entire existence without ICE; it could do so again. And the more that Americans become familiar with the agency and see what it does, the more they seem to agree.”

———-

Jack Smith’s Testimony on Trump’s Indictments

Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer report on Jack Smith’s defense of his Trump indictments during House Hearing (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-testimoney-congress.html).

“Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who twice indicted Donald J. Trump, defended his investigation in a tense and long-awaited appearance before a House committee on Thursday — flatly accusing Mr. Trump of causing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.”

Smith said, “No one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account,” Mr. Smith said in his opening remarks. “So that is what I did.”

“The hearing posed significant risks to Mr. Smith, who has said he believes Mr. Trump and his appointees will seize on the smallest misstep to investigate, prosecute and humiliate him. House Republicans had made it clear that they would make a criminal referral to the Justice Department if his testimony revealed serious inconsistencies or misstatements.”

“‘Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,’ Mr. Smith said, sitting alone at the witness table with a water bottle, legal pad and white ballpoint pen.”

Jack Smith told the committee that he believed his investigations had gathered proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would have led to President Donald Trump’s convictions on charges of mishandling classified documents and seeking to unlawfully overturn his 2020 election loss, if he had not won last year’s presidential election.

———-

Concluding thoughts

I have written enough, though it is hardly all that could be written. The central point is that we are stuck with a president who looks at America and the World as something he can manipulate and, in the process, does great harm. And there are signs he is mentally unstable.

There is hope.

Democrats are doing well in recent state elections. People are demonstrating against his anti-immigrant, anti-democratic deployment of ICE forces. Trump’s poll ratings are down. Many countries are resisting his threats on tariffs and military interventions. Then, not the focus here, there are the yet to be released Epstein files.

The president abuses power

Bob Sheak, Oct 28, 2025

On Oct. 18, an unprecedented 7 million or more Americans joined in a reported
2,600 rallies across the country to express opposition to Trump’s self-serving
ambitions and abuse of power. The millions who rallied said loud and clearly that
they don’t want a King as president. Over his second presidency, Trump has often
acted something like a king, or as a president who is above the law. Worrisome, he
dominates the Republican Party, has support from 30% of so of the population in
MAGA, has numerous allies among the rich and powerful corporations, and can
often count on the Supreme Court.
In this post, I identify some of the evidence that supports Trump’s anti-democratic

thirst for power.

Behaves like a “king”
Chris Walker offers some evidence (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-says-hes-
not-a-king-a-majority-of-americans-believe-he-wants-to-be). He is a news writer
at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin.
In his article, Walker cites statements by Taegan Goddard, who manages the
site Political Wire. Goddard says it only took a minute to come up with examples
of how Trump has acted like a king. Goddard wrote:
“He’s raised taxes without approval from Congress; He’s canceled programs that
were duly enacted into law; He’s directed prosecutors to charge his political
opponents despite little or no evidence; He’s deployed National Guard troops over
the objections of state governors.
“Each of these actions reflects the kind of unchecked, unilateral power that
America’s founders rebelled against,” Goddard opined. “In fact, the list reads like
an updated version of the Declaration of Independence’s grievances against King
Walker also points to new polling that shows that most Americans are worried
about the functioning of U.S. democratic norms, and that they do not want Trump
to act as a king. He cites a poll, “52 percent of Americans believe Trump wants to

be a king, with only 36 percent saying they don’t believe he wants to be a king. In
a separate question, 85 percent of respondents said they don’t think Trump should

be a king, either.”

Deployment of troops just to “Democratic” cities
He has found various dubious justifications for deploying National Guard troops in
only Democratic cities and threatening the constitutional rights of Americans.
George Cassidy Payne writes on how the White House is waging war at home
((https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-wages-war-on-us). The article was
published on Sept. 26, 2025. Here’s some of what he writes.
“President Donald Trump has treated the US military less as an instrument of
national defense than as a personal tool for enforcing political will. National Guard
units have been deployed to Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and other cities under
circumstances that critics argue constitute intimidation rather than legitimate
security operations. Citizens and green card holders have reportedly been detained
without clear legal authority, raising urgent questions about the erosion of civil
liberties. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has been rhetorically rebranded
as the Department of War, signaling a broader offensive posture not just abroad,
but potentially at home.”
Payne notes that the deployment of National Guard forces to US cities reflects
“the militarization of domestic governance.” Trump has framed these deployments
as necessary for “security,” yet the timing, targets, and accompanying
rhetoric—such as memes depicting him as a cavalry commander in Apocalypse
Now—signal political theater intended to intimidate and assert personal authority
over the citizenry.”
He is exercising anti-democratic orders and advancing “executive orders,
emergency declarations, or selective enforcement” and enabling the National
Guard and other government agents to engage in “illegal detention of residents,
militarized policing in domestic spaces, emergency declarations used to bypass
Congress, all examples of authoritarian rule.
“The consequences for democracy are tangible, Payne writes. “Norms are eroded
incrementally: The legitimacy of elections is challenged, opposition figures are
threatened, and civil liberties are subordinated to political calculation. Militarized

Democracy does not collapse in a single moment; it atrophies when citizens fail to
defend institutions designed to protect them.”
The central question for Payne is this: “Will Americans exercise the tools the
Constitution provides to resist authoritarian drift? The blueprint exists, but it
requires active defense. Democratic institutions are not self-sustaining; they
depend on the vigilance, courage, and collective action of citizens. Failure to act
risks normalizing domestic militarization and the gradual erosion of civil liberties.
In this sense, Trump’s presidency is both a warning and a test. It challenges us to
confront the vulnerabilities of our political system, to insist upon accountability,
and to recognize that democracy is not merely procedural, it is relational,
contingent on a society willing to defend it against those who would wield power

as an instrument of personal dominion.

Talks about a third term
Trump continues to toy with the unconstitutional idea of being a third-term
president, which would mean ignoring the 22nd Amendment. Kristen Welker and
Megan Lebowitz are among those reporting on this story
(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-term-white-house-
methods-rcna198752). Their story was published in March 30, 2025. Here’s some
of what they write.
“President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in
the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd
Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were
methods for doing so and clarifying that he was ‘not joking.’”
“‘A lot of people want me to do it,’ Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call
with NBC News, referring to his allies.”
“When asked whether he has been presented with plans to allow him to seek a third
term, Trump said, ‘There are methods which you could do it.’”
Welker and Megan continue.

“The White House has amplified Trump’s comments likening himself to royalty,
posting a picture of a fake magazine cover depicting the president with a crown
after the administration shot down congestion pricing in New York City.
“The White House’s post to X quoted Trump’s previous comments on Truth Social:

‘LONG LIVE THE KING!’”

Says the greatest threat is “the enemy within”
Trump has said that that the greatest threat to the United States is the “enemy
within,” by which he seems to refer to Democrats and anyone else who opposes
him or doesn’t like him.
He says he “hates” Democrats and would, at least, like to marginalize them
politically. He has a list of those he wants to punish by having his Justice
Department manipulate and distort the law. They are, in his words, “the enemy
within,” Michael Klare considers this anti-democraticTrump plan
(https://thenation.com/article/politics/trump-hegseth-military-war-diversity).
Klare is the Nation’s defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and
world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms
Control Association in Washington, DC. Most recently, he is the author of All Hell
Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.
“The generals and admirals who traveled from their posts around the world to
Quantico, Virginia, last month to hear from President Trump and Secretary of War
(as he now fashions himself) Pete Hegseth have been training for over a dozen
years to fight and overcome China and or Russia in an all-out, high-end conflict.
“… they were told to put all that aside, and to dismantle the diversity measures
they had long embraced, while also mobilizing for the ‘war within.’
“Without actually coming out and saying it, Trump indicated that the primary focus
of US strategy would now shift from a focus on war with other great powers to
combatting narco-cartels in Latin America and leftist ‘insurrectionists’ in US
cities.” And without evidence, he got specific.
“Many US cities are safe, he claimed, ‘but it seems that the ones that are run by the
radical-left Democrats—[look] what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New

York, Los Angeles—they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them
out one by one.” Then, facing the assembled officers, he added, “This is going to
be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war, too. It’s a war
from within.”
“Trump then went on to describe major Democratic-governed US cities like those

four and Portland, Oregon, as ‘war zones,’ requiring military intervention.

Arbitrarily orders the demolition of the East Wing
He has arbitrarily ordered that the East Wing of the White House be demolished.
David E. Sanger has reported at length about this. Sanger covers the Trump
administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times
journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy
and national security challenges.
In this article, Sanger emphasizes two “lessons” that capture what Trump has done.
“First is the permanence of the act — once torn down, it is hard to imagine that the
East Wing will ever be re-created. For President Trump, of course, that was the
point. He learned that lesson in his New York real estate days, when he was known
to bring out the wrecking balls to turn a vision into a fait accompli. Once his $300
million ballroom rises in its place, he may be betting that how it got there will be
all but forgotten.
“But perhaps more important, and more telling, is how Mr. Trump went about it:
the initial claim that his new ballroom would not be ‘touching’ the White House,
and the absence of notice when that changed. Then, the elaborate descriptions by
White House officials of the legal loopholes that made it perfectly fine to destroy a
wing of the people’s house without consultation about whether Mr. Trump’s

90,000-square-foot ballroom was worth the historical or architectural trade-offs.”

Concluding thoughts
There are plenty of reasons to support the millions of Americans who rallied
against Trump on “No King” day. In this post, I have considered just a few of the

prominent reasons. It is not hopeless. Recent polls indicate that a majority of
Americans are critical of Trump and what he is doing as president. And millions of
Americans are suffering financially, in part because of the effects of the president’s
tariffs and the Republican Party’s efforts to cut government programs, with the
firing of tens of thousands of federal workers. Writing in The Atlantic Magazine,
David A. Graham offers some hope
(https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/12/2026-midterms-trump-
threat.684615).
“The most important defense against losing our democracy is the same thing that
makes it a democracy in the first place: the people. An engaged electorate,
demanding clean elections and turning out in force, has been the strongest and
most consistent bulwark against Trump. “It is going to require that every single
American do everything in their power to ensure that elections happen, to ensure
that they are free and fair, and to push back on this extremism,” Skye Perryman,
the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, told me.”

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.