The General’s Son

In the book “The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” by Miko Peled, the General refers to Major General Mattityahu “Matti” Peled (1923–1995), an Israeli military commander who became a prominent peace activist, academic, and politician. A key architect of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, he later transitioned into a radical advocate for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and a two-state solution.

Like his father, Miko was also an avid Zionist who believed in peaceful relations with his Arab neighbors in two sovereign states. When Milo’s niece Smadar was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 1997, Miko’s reaction to his grief tells us all we need to know to understand the heart of this book. Rather than expressing hatred toward the Palestinian murderer of his beloved niece, he felt shame and anger toward his fellow Israelis for driving a Palestinian boy to take his own life in this way. The book relays Miko’s journey upto and beyond this tragedy and sets out a more balanced history than you might have heard.

Having settled in San Diego to teach karate, Miko began to participate in mixed Jewish/Arab groups (San Diego Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group) discussing their experiences in and hopes for Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) and became hopeful for two sovereign states living peacefully next to each other. When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat meet with President Bill Clinton at Camp David in Maryland, Miko was sure peace was at hand. When the talks fail to achieve agreement and Clinton seems to blame Arafat, Miko is shocked.

“Arafat had been consistent for years. For the sake of peace he was willing to give up the dream of all Palestinians to return to their homes and their land in Palestine. He was willing to recognize Israel, the state that destroyed Palestine, took his people’s land, and turned them into a nation of refugees. He was ready to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza—which make up only 22 percent of the Palestinian homeland—with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

“He was ready to do all this, but he was not going to settle for anything less. He had always been clear about what he saw as the terms for peace.

“In the end, it turned out that… what the Israelis had demanded at Camp David was tantamount to total Palestinian surrender…. Barak demanded that Arafat sign an agreement to end the conflict forever and in return, he would be permitted to establish a Palestinian state on an area of land that could not be defined clearly because it was broken into pockets with no geographic continuity. Instead of Arab East Jerusalem, he would receive a small suburb of East Jerusalem as his capital. To that Yasser Arafat refused to agree.” (p. 126)

Miko’s love of Israel and increasing exposure to Palestinians (both in San Diego and in the West Bank, which he visited often to teach Karate and promote mutual understanding) exposed him to the shocking mistreatment of Palestinians in their own land. His compassionate heart and wisdom led him to strongly advocate the two-state solution to the struggles between the Arabs and Jews occupying the area.

During a visit to Ramallah to meet Abu Ali Shahin, Fatah commander and leader of the Palestine political prisoners for more the two decades, Miko exclaimed that: “Immediately after the war, while still in uniform, my father said that Israel must recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. He said that if we don’t do this, the Israeli army would become an occupation army and would resort to brutal means to enforce the IsraeliOslo occupation on the Palestinian people. He said this while still in uniform and he never stopped saying it and advocating for Palestinian rights till he died.” (p. 229)

In my own work with the IMF helping to establish the Palestine Monetary Authority called for by the Oslo Accord, I was disheartened to observe Israel’s abusive treatment of the Palestinians. The Oslo Accord itself did not provide for a fully independent and sovereign state for the Palestinians (themselves semitic children of Abraham). It provided what was hoped would be the first trust-building steps toward such a true state. However, Israel carved up the West Bank with highways only usable by Israelis. Palestinians driving to their new capital of Ramallah had to wait hours to enter via the Israeli-controlled check point. With my UN passport I could sail in via the Israeli entrance with no wait. Israel isolated the Palestinian population of the WBGS in every way imaginable.

Though declared illegal by the UN, Israeli Jews increasingly stole Palestinian land to establish Jewish settlements, carving up and often destroying Palestinian farms in the process. The number of Jews living in illegal settlements in the West Bank grew from about 80,000 in 1990 to almost 530,000 in 2025. But this pales compared to the shocking mistreatment reported by Miko.

At the end of Miko’s meeting with the 72-year-old Fatah leader, Abu, Ali Shahin, stated:

“We all belong to this land and need to live together. No one is safe in one Jewish state. Judaism is a religion, and I am speaking of a secular state of all its citizens. That is the only way to live here. Being Jewish or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that is a personal choice, not for me to dictate and not to be dictated to me. I don’t want a priest or a rabbi or a sheikh to govern my life. We belong in this land, and we need to live here as equals.”

Miko then writes: “This was not the first time I had heard someone talk of the ‘one secular democratic state,’ as the right solution. It was the part of the Fatah manifesto to create a secular democracy in all of Palestine. In the past, I could not stomach it, but the more I met impressive, intelligent people like Abu Ali, people who were driven by principle, the more I thought that there was no point, indeed no future, in dividing the people and the land. Not to mention the fact that the settlements and the facts on the ground had succeeded in erasing the West Bank as a viable area in which a Palestinian state could be established.”

In my book on my travels in the area, “Palestine: The Oslo Accords Before and After”, I still strongly supported a two-state solution. But when I asked George Abed, my IMF colleague then Governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority I was there to help create, if he would write the Foreword to my book, he declined, saying the book was unfair to the Palestinians. I have now come to accept that he was right.

This book was published in 2012. From that year (January 2012) until October 6, 2023 Palestinians killed about 300 Israelis, who killed about 3,900 Palestinians. From the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel until now (June 2, 2026), Palestinians killed about 1,400 Israelis (of whom 1,200 were killed during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack), who then killed about 75,000 Palestinians. The status quo is clearly not working for Israelis or for Palestinians.

The United States, home to about as many Jews as there are in Israel, is a secular state with large populations of Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and other religious groups. Our constitution forbids the government from adopting any one of them. They have each flourished. I have reluctantly concluded that Israel must annex the West Bank of Gaza and give full and equal citizenship and rights to all Arabs and Jews living there. “A one state solution”,  “A one state solution – 2”.

The wars and ethnic cleansing now underway by the Netanyahu government is not only destroying Israel, but also dragging the United States down with it and I haven’t even mentioned Iran.

Obeying the rules is in our interest

The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 Cuban military downing of two civilian planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, which killed four people (including three U.S. citizens).Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. military has attacked suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific 59 times, killing 196 people. Shouldn’t we be indicting Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, for murder?

“According to President Donald Trump’s mysterious math, that means this campaign of carnage has prevented around 1.5 million drug-related deaths in the United States—more than 20 times the total number recorded in the year before Trump started treating suspected cocaine smugglers as ‘combatants’ who can be killed at will, from a distance and in cold blood.

“Back on planet Earth, there is no reason to think the boat strikes have prevented any deaths at all. That could only happen if blowing up smugglers—as opposed to the previous practice of intercepting them, arresting them, and seizing their cargo, which Trump says was ‘totally ineffective’—reduced the supply of cocaine available to American consumers. Given more than a century of failed attempts to ‘stop the flow’ of illegal intoxicants, that never seemed likely. And nearly nine months after Trump launched his new, deadlier version of the war on drugs, there is no evidence that it is more effective than the traditional tactics he derides as insufficiently homicidal.” Jacob Sullum, “Blowing up boats hasn’t slowed cocaine traffic to U.S.”

Should we care about such a double standard? Yes. What we are doing is not only illegal but also immoral. Hopefully we aspire to behave morally because we aspire to be moral people. But there is a practical self-interest in playing by the rules as well.

We could often get our way simply because we are the strongest guy on the block. President Trump seems to like being a bully. However, pushing others around has a cost. The better we can live up to the high principles upon which our nation was founded, the more respect we will receive from others (nations and people). One of those important principles is adhering to the rule of law. Such respect means that others will cooperate with us more easily (at lower cost to us).

International norms and conventions generally serve the interests of all who have agreed to them. Win, win. When we violate them, the world pays a cost and so do we.

Remembering Bryce

Remembering Bryce Davidson

June 1, 1993 – Feb 1, 2026

Bryce inherited his gregariousness from his father, certainly not from me, his grandfather on his mother’s side. Sadly from me he inherited FSHD. While Bryce’s mother suffers from Acioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) more than I do, Bryce suffered from it the most. It was from the doctor’s examination of his stooped shoulders and weak arms that we discovered that we all had it.

In April 2010 he traveled with me to London and Kenya. I am so grateful for that time we had together. While working in the Central Bank of Kenya in Nairobi during the day, I insisted that Bryce not leave our hotel. I had been told that the slang word for white people walking around town translated to “money” in English. We went out in the evenings for dinner and to visit friends. Before we left for our safari through the Masia Mara National Reserve Bryce knew and was friends with everyone working in the Hotel. When I returned from the Bank in the afternoon, anyone I asked, “where is Bryce” would tell me immediately. We traveled with a car and driver provided by the Central Bank and when we overnighted in the Reserve Bryce immediately joined the local tribe in its celebration of something or other. While our little safari let us see all the Big Five (lions, elephants, buffalos, leopards, and rhinos), Bryce’s favorite animal encounter was with a friendly Cheetah at the Nairobi Zoo. His smile and enthusiasm will be, and is, much missed.

Abraham Lincoln

Last night we finished the three-episode 2022 History Channel mini-series on Abraham Lincoln. Thank you Jim Bailey for recommending it. In addition to the character acting, the story was narrated by Barack Obama: (former U.S. President); Catherine Clinton (Historian); Christy S. Coleman (Historical Consultant); Allen C. Guelzo (Lincoln Scholar); Harold Holzer (Lincoln Scholar); Caroline Janney (Civil War Historian); Edna Greene Medford (Historian); General Stanley A. McChrystal (Retired U.S. Army General).

There was so much about Lincoln and his struggles and wisdom in reuniting the American union that I had not known. That history was masterfully presented in this series. Most Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861 to preserve their right to own slaves. To reunite the union Lincoln launched a war with the south that eventually killed 620,000 to 700,000 American’s. In the midst of this war Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared that all enslaved people in Confederate states still in rebellion against the Union “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”.

When Robert E Lee surrendered his troops, thus ending the war, Lincoln allowed  members of the Confederate Army to return home and to their farms without punishment. In today’s environment it is hard to imagine such generous treatment of one’s enemies. But Lincoln had the wisdom, integrity, and kindness of heart to understand that reuniting the union required mutual acceptance of one’s previous enemies.

Lincoln’s tragic assassination by John Wilkes Booth shortly after his re-election deprived the South of his wisdom during the Reconstruction period that followed the war.

Gas Taxes??

The US/Israel attack on Iran and resulting closing of the Straights of Hormuz has reduced the world’s oil supply. As a result, gasoline prices are increasing. Is that good or bad? Should the federal and state government suspend gasoline taxes until normal supply is restored?

When the supply of something is artificially reduced, its price increases to equate the new supply and demand. For gasoline, the impact of the supply shock can be moderated by releasing oil from the reserve the US and most countries maintain for such shocks. Thus the fall in gasoline supply would be kept smaller than it would other wise be. But how long will the supply shock last and how large is the reserve.?

The natural price increase in the face of a supply shock has several helpful effects. Those who need it most can still get it. Some non essential travel is reduced. President Nixon’s wage and price freeze in the early 1970s when confronted with the 1973 Arab oil embargo produced long lines of cars at gas stations that still had some gasoline. Price rationing is better than waiting in long lines

President Trump has proposed temporarily suspending government taxes on gasoline. This is a very bad idea not only because of the Nixon shock effect of non-price rationing but because it will reduce government revenue when its debt and deficits are already dangerously large. In the May 11 Washington Post Mitch Daniels provides an excellent account of that danger. “US national debt disaster looms-ai cant-stop it”   If you click on his link to a Cato Institute article on MMT you will be able to enjoy my article on that subject. “Modern Monetary Theory-critique”

SCOTUS – Louisiana v. Callais

“The Supreme Court’s invalidation of Louisiana’s congressional map has triggered a swirling debate about just how fundamentally the justices altered the Voting Rights Act landscape.” This and following quotes are from The Hill article: the hill – regulating voting-rights-act-supreme-court – SCOTUS-Decision  

The court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais was adopted by 6 – 3 of the judges.

I am quite amazed how dramatically differently some people have characterized the decision’s result.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [as Amended in 1982] has enabled groups to force states to draw additional majority-minority districts for decades,” despite the 15th Amendment to US constitution in 1870, which prohibited the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”, effectively protecting the voting rights of Blacks.

Section 2 “bars voting maps that give a racial minority ‘less opportunity than other members of the electorate’ to elect their preferred candidate.”

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that multi-member legislative districts in North Carolina violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The landmark ruling established a critical three-part legal test to determine if an electoral map illegally discriminates against minority voters.

To prove a violation of Section 2, plaintiffs must satisfy the following three preconditions:

  1. Numerosity and Compactness: The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a voting majority in a single-member district.
  2. Political Cohesion: The minority group must show that it is politically cohesive, meaning they largely vote for the same candidates.
  3. Majority Bloc Voting: The plaintiffs must prove that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group’s preferred candidates

After Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs could prove vote dilution by showing that a minority group was large and compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district, was politically cohesive, and faced bloc voting by the majority that usually defeated its preferred candidates.

That framework gave civil-rights groups a litigation template: draw an “illustrative” majority-minority district, show polarized voting, and argue that the state had cracked or packed minority voters so they could not elect their preferred candidate. If they won their case, the remedy often required the state to create an additional majority-minority district, even though Section 2 formally says it does not create a right to proportional representation.

In its recent Louisiana v. Callais ruling the Court held that Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to draw it. The Court majority said that Voting Rights Act compliance can be a compelling interest only when Section 2 is properly construed, and it tightened the Gingles test by requiring race-neutral illustrative maps, closer adherence to state districting goals such as compactness, incumbency protection, and partisan objectives, and evidence separating racial bloc voting from ordinary partisan voting.

The practical effect is that plaintiffs can no longer easily say, “Here is a compact majority-minority district; therefore, the state must draw it.” After Callais, they must show that the alternative map satisfies the state’s nonracial redistricting criteria, that the voting polarization is racial rather than merely partisan, and that the totality of circumstances points to present-day legally relevant discrimination rather than mainly historical disadvantage.

A “majority-minority district” is one in which a racial minority (blacks, Asian, Hispanics, etc.) constitute a majority of the voters. The presumption seems to be that, for example, only (or mostly) blacks will vote for a black candidate. That is clearly a racist view. Barack Obama, for example, was elected President of the United States by a majority of white voters.

I am really shocked at how overtly racist the opposition to the court’s decision is. “’Unfortunately, we are talking about rolling back to an era of Jim Crow, and I don’t believe I’m overstating that,’ Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project, But Jim Crow laws were used to segregate blacks and whites. Majority-minority districts move in the same direction. The court’s weakening of the arguments for such districts is the opposite of a Jim Crow law. Voters are motivated by many things, but I have more confidence than does Ms. Lakin in voters choosing the candidate they think best and most effectively supports the policies they support, whether the voter is black, white, or yellow whatever the color of the candidate.

“House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the law was ‘largely gone,’ telling reporters the decision was ‘designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice.’” Good grief.

Here is an excellent discussion of this issue: “The supreme court’s vote ruling empowers minorities”

Homeland – Final

We have now completed all eight seasons of Homeland. After my review of the first two seasons my old U of Chicago friend and fellow libertarian, Joe Cobb, said that we would like the rest of it as well. He was correct. The story continued to confront the main characters with excruciating choices with more plot twists than I could keep track of. Would you take steps to save the life of a friend that could result in the deaths of several thousand—or the reverse.

But what I want to share with you here is how eerily like today the early 2000s were. We were fighting with Iran, then Iraq. Forever wars our current President promised to end (remember that?). Not only did the struggles being portrayed seem like today but reviewing my email and news flashes during our breaks between episodes seemed like a continuation of the TV series. It was really weird. Homeland moves into my list of all-time favorite series, which includes The Wire, The Jewel in the Crown, and Breaking Bad.

National Science Foundation

On Friday, April 24, President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Foundation Board without saying why their staggered six year terms were not honored. Unlike executive branch departments, such as Treasury, Defense (now called Dept of War), Education, etc., which rightly should reflect the policy preferences of the President, the NSF, like the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, was carefully designed to be nonpartisan for good reason. A Forbes article by John Drake nicely explains the purpose of such design.

“Most people outside the research enterprise have never heard of the NSB, so it’s worth saying what it is. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created NSF with two heads: a director and a board. Jointly they set the strategic direction of an agency that now distributes roughly $9 billion annually in federal research funding, approve its budget submissions, and authorize new major programs. The board’s members are nominated for their distinguished records in science, engineering, education, and public affairs, drawn from industry and universities, and confirmed to staggered six-year terms so that scientific research priorities are set by the long arc of scientific progress rather than the election cycle. The statute requires that members be chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”

“That last phrase is the one I keep returning to.

“American scientist, inventor and administrator Vannevar Bush (1890 – 1974), whose ‘differential analyser’ was a forerunner of the computer, served as director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development throughout World War II and authored an influential report that led to the founding of the National Science Foundation. More American scientific preeminence is often discussed as if it were a product of talent or funding. It is really a product of institutions, the unglamorous architecture of boards, charters, terms of service, peer review and statutory independence that the postwar generation built deliberately. The structure traces to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier, which argued that federal science required governance insulated from political pressure and stability of support beyond any single budget cycle. The five-year fight to translate Bush’s vision into law turned largely on questions of independence and accountability, and the staggered six-year terms were part of the resulting compromise. Six-year terms exist for a reason. Staggered appointments exist for a reason. “Solely on the basis of distinguished service” is in the founding statute for a reason.

“The board’s function has been contested before, but always on the existing terms. As recently as 2022, scholars were debating how to modernize the board’s role, proposing to reduce its management duties and make NSF look more like other federal agencies. But other federal agencies are precisely the ones most exposed to political control. Their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president. Their priorities shift with each administration. The whole reason NSF’s structure is unusual is that the postwar designers did not want science funding to work that way. Even the would-be reformers recognized this: they proposed keeping the board’s staggered terms and statutory independence intact.

“These structures depend on a shared understanding, across administrations and across parties, that some institutions are worth preserving even when they constrain you. When that understanding lapses, the structures themselves do not survive long.

“On May 5, the National Science Board is scheduled to meet. There is no agenda, and at the moment, no board. That absence is the thing worth attending to, beyond the news of any particular firing. The question is not who sits on the board. The question is whether the kind of board the 1950 Act envisioned still exists in practice, and what American science looks like if it does not.” 2026/04/25/ “Trump fired the entire national science board-here’s why that matters”

At a minimum, when the President takes such action, the public should be given an explanation for why he thought it was justified. Ideally such a dramatic step should be preceded by a public discussion of the pros and cons of doing so.  This is not Trump’s style.

It my opinion Elon Musk’s DOGE downsizing of government (9% reduction in Federal employees before some had to be rehired and reducing the federal budget by claimed savings between roughly 160–215 billion dollars, counting job cuts, contract and lease cancellations, asset sales, and grant reductions) did more harm than good. Musk initially talked about cutting “at least 2 trillion dollars” from the federal budget, later revising goals down to around 1 trillion and then still lower, but actual savings fell far short of any of those targets.

A CBS‑covered analysis by a nonpartisan research group estimated that while DOGE claimed about 160 billion dollars in gross savings, its actions would also impose roughly 135 billion dollars in additional costs in the same fiscal year (for example through deferred‑resignation pay, disruption, and lost enforcement/revenue), implying a net savings nearer 25 billion dollars in that window.

But the real tragedy is that the opportunity to carefully evaluate and publicly debate whether government agencies were performing beneficial functions and doing so as efficiently as possible was totally missed. I offer the example of USAID, with whom I have worked both as a contractor and across the table as a collaborator. In my experience they have done an outstanding job serving America’s foreign policy interests:  https://wcoats.blog/2025/02/17/usaid/

The Trump administration has not operated in the traditional manor of our best (or even mediocre) Presidents. Even Kings are usually more careful in justifying and explaining their dictates.

Gerrymandering

The United States has flourished and grown to almost the highest GDP per capital in the world (exceeded only by tiny Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland, Singapore, and Iceland) because of the individual freedom of its citizens to act in their own interest and whose property and freedoms are protected by a government to which they gave limited powers. Historically individuals only had the rights and freedoms handed down to them by their Kings/rulers.

The preservation of the rule of law under our Constitution is essential for our continued flourishing. It is eroding.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 430 members of which currently 217 are Republicans and 212 are Democrats (one is independent). These numbers have changed slightly because of recent “resignations.” The number of representatives from each state depends on its population at the end of each decade’s Census. Each state is geographically divided into the number of congressional districts matching its number of representatives. While states may approach the drawing of its congressional districts in its own way, there are some criteria that must be observed.

1. Federal Mandatory Criteria

These rules apply to every state, regardless of their internal policies:

  • Equal Population: Based on the principle of “one person, one vote,” districts must be as nearly equal in population as practicable. This is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and upheld by Supreme Court cases like Wesberry v. Sanders.
  • Race and Ethnicity (The Voting Rights Act): Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, districts cannot be drawn in a way that dilutes the voting power of racial or language minorities. In some cases, this requires the creation of “majority-minority” districts.

2. Traditional Districting Principles

Most states also follow “traditional” principles to keep districts logical and representative. These vary by state law:

  • Contiguity: All parts of a district must be physically connected. You shouldn’t have to leave the district to get to another part of it.
  • Compactness: Districts should be geographically “tight” rather than sprawling or having jagged, “finger-like” extensions (though this is frequently debated in court).
  • Respect for Political Subdivisions: Mapmakers often try to avoid splitting counties, cities, or towns between multiple districts.
  • Communities of Interest: This is the effort to keep groups with shared social, economic, or cultural interests together so they have a unified voice in Congress.

If district lines are drawn to concentrate likely Republican or Democrat voters into one or a few districts, their voting strength in other districts would be reduced. In this way the likely number of Republican or Democrat representatives from the state can often be increased or decreased, a practice known as gerrymandering. Such political concentration has also favored the election of candidates with more extreme views within their party hollowing out the center.

 “Ordinarily, states draw new congressional lines once every 10 years, at the start of the decade when they receive new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Trump pressed Republican-led states to break with that tradition and gerrymander their districts to help his party maintain its narrow control of the House.

“The push resulted in better lines for the GOP in five districts in Texas, two in Ohio and one each in Missouri and North Carolina. Democrats responded by persuading voters to approve new maps that would give Democrats the edge in five seats in California and four in Virginia.”  Washington Post  Redistricting in Virginia

While I have been a free market, limited government Republican all my life until Trump’s first campaign in 2016, I was not willing to vote for him and changed my party to Libertarian. Given my disappointment with the Republican Party’s unwillingness to use its constitutional authority to vote on tariffs and war among other things, I am hopeful that the Democrats will take control of Congress in the midterm elections later this year. None the less I voted No on Virginia’s referendum on a midterm redistricting that is expected to give Democrats 4 additional seats in the House. Why? Gaining House seats by questionable (The Supreme Court may reverse all of this) mid-decade redistricting rather than by convincing voters to change their votes diminishes the rule of law I so strongly defend.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) reacted with dismay Tuesday evening when informed during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Cuomo” that a Democratic redistricting initiative had passed in Virginia, declaring, “We all lose at this point.”

“Even The Washington Post has said the ‘yes’ campaign is, in their words, brazenly dishonest.”  David Weigel, Semafor

Trump’s Record so far

So far Trump II has made or is making a number of changes that have benefited our economy.  However, his delivery on his key campaign promises is mixed.

Trump promised to “stop the migrant invasion,” and to carry out “the largest deportation operation in American history.” He delivered. Southern border attempted entries that were blocked in 2023 and 2024 of 2,475,670 and 2,135,000, dropped to 237,538 in 2025 and authorized new arrivals dropped from 2.9 to 2.8 million in 2023 and 2024 to less the 2,000 in 2025. Deportations and voluntary exit jumped from over 460,000 and 700,000 in 2023 and 2024 to over 2,500,000 in 2025 of which and estimated 1.9 million were self exits.

However, the behavior of masked ICE agents, including the deaths of over 30 people in ICE custody in 2025 have created a public outcry.  In 2024 and earlier, the majority of ICE arrests focused on those with criminal records. In 2025, the government stated that 70% of ICE arrests involved individuals with criminal charges or convictions. However, independent analyses of 2025 data suggested that only 23% of those targeted in broader sweeps actually had prior criminal convictions, with many of those being for minor traffic or immigration offenses.

Trump also promised to “End inflation and make America affordable again,” and to “Stop outsourcing” and turn the U.S. into a “manufacturing superpower” by bringing factories back to the United States by tightening trade policy. The high CPI inflation rate of 4.1% in 2023 has fallen to 2.9% in 2024 and 2.7% in 2025. Manufacturing value added to US total output was $2.91 trillion in 2024 rising to $2.95 in 2025 all in 2017 dollars.

The US imports more than it exports. The US trade deficit in 2024 of $903.5 billion changed little at $901.5 billion in 2025, but the highly criticized and erratic US tariffs on imports (both threatened and actually imposed) where eventually struct down as illegal by the Supreme Court. They were not approved by Congress and where not justified to correct unfair trade practice by China, the EU and others. Rather they were threatened punishments if the target country did not give in to some other Trump demand. Here is an example of such an attempted abuse of tariffs. https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/2041842665172693207

Trump was right to promise to reduce costly and unproductive regulations and bureaucrat bloat. But his approach with the help of Elon Musk and the DOGE swat teams was misdirected and destructive. https://wcoats.blog/2025/04/27/trumps-chainsaw/

https://wcoats.blog/2025/07/01/econ-101-government-budgets/  Just how bad the Musk DOGE chainsaw was can been seen in the following deposition of one of the totally unqualified kids swinging the chainsaw. He is being questioned by a lawyer for an agency suing DOGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXXvgZzK0Cc

And then there is the rest. Unlike previous US Presidents, Trump’s style of governing was that of a bully making threats. The result has not been good.

Trump the Egomaniac:  Putting his name on the Kennedy Center was sort of harmless (but distasteful) but then shutting it down all together is much less so and, and as is so often the case with Trump, hard to understand. The United States Institute of Peace is now the Donald J Trump Institute of Peace. Then there are programs he has created in his name: Trump accounts, Trump Gold Card, TrumpRx, Trump National Parks pass, etc. But he hasn’t stopped there, creating the “Trump-class” battleship. Though it violates the tradition of the U.S. Treasurer, currently Brandon Beach, signing our currency notes, Trump will do so in the future. While most of these displays of Trump’s name might be taken as the actions of an immature child, his proposal to issue special one dollar coins with his likeness seems to violate more than just good taste.

Trump the Authoritarian (postliberal)–domestic:  We have gotten used to Trump using his Truth Social or X/twitter accounts to damn and/or label as stupid or evil those who have criticized him, but he has used the power of his office to much more seriously attack his enemies or to force compliance with his policy views.

For example, after firing FBI director James Comey, who oversaw the probe of ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly called for investigations of Comey over alleged leaks and handling of memos, and his current Justice Department has pursued renewed inquiries premised on those same grievances. Similarly motivated DOJ indictments or investigations have been made against Trump appointed officials John Bolton, Letitia James, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and others who played leading roles in Russia‑related or Ukraine‑related investigations.

Beyond criminal investigations, Trump has repeatedly used or threatened non‑criminal tools of the presidency—regulation, funding decisions, security clearances, and administrative enforcement—to punish domestic opponents. He has used threats to cut off federal funds to Democratic‑led “sanctuary cities” or jurisdictions whose leaders criticize him, framing them as “anarchist” or lawless and directing DOJ and other agencies to look for legal hooks to withhold grants.  Reuters and civil‑society trackers describe cases where universities, law firms, and other entities changed diversity or governance policies after threats of lost contracts, funding, or investigations from the administration. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/retaliatory-action-tracker/

If you have wondered, as I have, why the Republicans in Congress have not exercised their constitutional rights to block Trump’s abuses of power, often in direct contradiction of Republican party principles, I assume that it is their fear of his vindictive attacks on anyone who criticizes him.

Trump has both threatened and actually moved to cut federal funds to a small but high‑profile group of universities, mainly to force changes on campus protests, DEI, admissions, and governance policies. At Harvard University billions in federal research grants and contracts were frozen or terminated starting in spring 2025. The reasons given by the Trump administration were the alleged failure to protect Jewish students and to tolerate antisemitism linked to pro‑Palestinian activism and criticism of “woke” policies, DEI programs. The Trump administration demanded leadership and governance changes, review of academic departments for perceived ideological “bias,” and changes to admissions policies. Harvard has filed legal challenges and publicly refused to accept some of the administration’s conditions, while still facing a major funding freeze.

Similar reasons were given for stopping and/or threatening to stop funding of contracts and projects at Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, and Princeton, University of Pennsylvania and UCLA.  These are the tip of an ugly iceberg that are very inappropriate in our liberal, limited government, freedom loving country.

But not all demands were objectionable.In October 2025, the White House offered a formal “compact” tying preferential access to federal funding to a raft of ideological and policy conditions that were agreed to by nine universities.Vanderbilt University.Dartmouth College.University of Pennsylvania.University of Southern California.Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).University of Texas at Austin.University of Arizona.Brown University and University of Virginia.

Key policy demands in the compact included:

  • Ban consideration of race or sex in admissions and hiring.
  • Cap international undergraduate enrollment at around 15% and subject foreign students to additional vetting.
  • Freeze tuition for several years.
  • Eliminate or sharply curtail DEI offices and programs.
  • Guarantee “ideological balance” or a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” without a dominant ideology

Trump the untrustworthy Bully –International: Trump pledged to serve American interests first, promising to end America’s forever wars and claimed to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Virtually every aspect of his foreign policy has been a failure, weakening our standing abroad and our national security.

The second Trump administration has ended no wars, conducted military strikes in at least seven countries, and with Israel started a new war in Iran. It has been complicit with Israel in the ethnic cleaning of Gaza and increasingly the West Bank, and by financial and armament support of Israel. Trump has weakened or lost the support of traditional allies with his threats to annex Canada and Greenland and his insults of European and other countries for not supporting his illegal war in Iran and more generally.

Bully Trump’s approach is illustrated by his spat with Pope Leo XIV. On Truth Social Trump proclaimed:

“Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?”

On April 19, 2026, Trump warned that the U.S. would “knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge” in the country if they did not accept a new “DEAL,” Not that Trump cares but many of his threats, specifically those targeting civilian infrastructure like water and power plants, have been flagged by international human rights groups as potential violations of international humanitarian law.

Pope Leo XIV declared President Donald Trump’s threat to destroy “a whole civilization” unacceptable and suggesting Americans should contact their representatives in Congress to stop the conflict.

“Today, as we all know, there has also been this threat against the entire people of Iran.  And this is truly unacceptable. There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more, it is a moral question concerning the good of the people as a whole, in its entirety.

“I would like to invite everyone to think in their hearts of so many innocent children, so many totally innocent elderly people who would also be victims of this escalation. I would like to invite everyone to pray, but also to seek ways to communicate. Perhaps with congressmen, with authorities, saying that we don’t want war, we want peace.”

Trump responded by calling the Pope “Weak on crime” and “Weak on Nuclear Weapons” and falsely claiming the Pontiff agreed that Iran should have nuclear capabilities. In his Easter Sunday message the Pope said: “Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace.”

Trump’s failure to understand market trades and deals as win-win has fed his zero sum bully approach. America has been seriously damaged as a result.  Trump has either ignored or withdrawn from the international agreements or organizations such as the WTO, and WHO that have provided the basis of global cooperation and flurishing since WWII. And we have suffered as a result. https://wcoats.blog/2026/03/21/america-alone/  

Trump’s disregard for law has also been an element of his financial corruption, the details of which will hopefully be properly investigated.  Since returning to the White House for his second term, Trump’s net worth has grown by approximately $2.5 billion to $3 billion according to most financial trackers. Trump’s Presidency has been very bad for America.