Category: Government

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

Homeland-part two

My apology for my lazy note on Homeland. It deserves much more so here goes.

The series, which ran for eight years from 2011-2020, centers on Carrie Matheson, a CIA officer with bipolar disorder and for its first two years (all we have watched so far) the Marine scout Nick Brody. Nick was captured in Iraq and held prisoner for eight years before returning to his wife and two kids. In the last few years of his captivity Nick was befriended by Abu Nazir a leader of al-Qaeda and charged with teaching Nazir’s son English. Nick adopts Islam and when an American drone attack kills Abu Nazir’s son, to whom Nick has become very attached, Nick agrees to work with Nazir against US interests. Nick returns home as a war hero, is elected to Congress and groomed to run as VP in the current VPs upcoming presidential campaign. Carrie correctly suspects that Nick has been turned by Nazir and sets out to expose him (or exploit his new position in the US government). Complicated enough?

Virtually every character, Carrie, Nick, Nick’s wife and son and daughter and his best friend (who fell in love with Nick’s wife during his absence and assumed death) as well as Carrie’s CIA colleagues, struggle with conflicting loyalties. Nick loves America and his family but hates what it has done (convincingly denounced as terrorism by Abu Nazir) and cooperates with Nazir in punishing it. The VP Nick expects to run with gave the orders for the drone attack that killed Nazir’s son. Each character is complex, which complex histories. Each side rightly sees the other as terrorists. The show is full of twists and turns and surprises. It is fantastic.

LGBT literature

Should young teenagers be exposed to gay literature?  Should such books be banned from schools? The answer given to these questions depends, I am convinced, on whether the answerer believes that sexuality is God/genetically given or freely chosen by each of us. In the latter case some fear that novels that make gay life seem OK might lure some kids to choose it.

As a gay man myself, I wonder if those worried that being exposed to homosexual literature will find it so attractive and enticing that the young reader will be drawn (recruited) into such activities, are not repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosextuality is not something we choose. For most of us it is something we resisted and fought accepting. Who could possible think that being gay is more attractive than being a normal straight family member, though in these more enlighten and tolerant days it is much easier to accept being gay than when I struggled with it.

Homosexuality is God (nature) given. We can try to deny it, but we cannot make it go away. A proper understanding of this unchangeable fact is essential to living the happy and fulfilling lives each of us deserves. Literature that treats the subject and especially literature that depicts gay life as acceptable and compatible with happiness and success in life is an important source of information for those of us (every teenager) trying to understand and sort out who we are and where we want to go. Fortunately, movies and TV shows these days generally do a very good job of treating gay characters like any others. When I began to sense and struggle with my sexual attraction to men, the only such people I had ever heard of were child molesters who were run out of town. I was terrified by what I felt.

We live in a much better time (at least with regard to this topic). We often tell ourselves that God made us homosexual, but we chose to be gay. The sooner kids are exposed to the relevant literature the better for all of us.

Since writing the above, the US Supreme Court has ruled against a Colorado law that bans the discredited practice of advocating conversion therapy on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech. Though as I argued above, conversion therapy (turning a gay person into a heterosexual) certainly has been discredited, I agree with the almost unanimous Court decision. The First Amendment also protects my right to attack and condemn conversion therapy, and the freely open public debate about it is by far the best and ultimately most convincing way to expose its falsity.

This morning the Washington Post ran this story of a wise and brave librarian.

Tenn. library director fired over refusal to move LGBTQ+ books to adult section

A county board near Nashville voted to dismiss Luanne James, who said she stands by her decision, in the latest clash in a national debate over access to books.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/04/02/library-director-fired-lgbtq-books-tennessee/

America Alone

Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to end “forever wars” and to put American interests first. In office, he has done the opposite.

In the first year of his second term Trump has bombed seven countries and 50 speed boats killing 159 people. His joint war with Israel on Iran is threatening global recession. None of these were authorized by the American Congress as required by our Constitution and violate international law as well. He has threated one an all even more freely (e.g. Canada, Greenland).

If this were not bad enough, Trump has insulted and alienated our friends and allies resulting in the refusal of most EU and Nato countries (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy) and Australia and Japan to agree to Trump’s plea for help in defending the Staits of Hormuz.

These measures have isolated and weakened the U.S.  Trump’s policies have not put America First–they have made a weakened America Alone.

Deploying his bully substitute for diplomacy, Trump, with help from JD Vance, Trump accused the EU of “extraterritorial censorship of Americans” through EU content‑moderation and hate‑speech rules. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, Vance warned that “across Europe, free speech…is in retreat,” This is from the same administration that repeatedly labeled critical media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people.” Currently he and senior officials have accused outlets critical of his Middle East war policy of undermining the country, with allies at the media regulator warning that broadcasters risked losing licenses if they spread “fake news.”

Condemning the opposition as enemies rather than challenging the policies of opponents is a sign of weakness and typical of tyrants. Trump attacks his domestic enemies as fiercely as foreign ones. Note the childish hate in Trump’s tweet today about the death of the man who investigated his misbehavior at the bottom of this blog:

The administration has backed or initiated high‑dollar defamation lawsuits against critical outlets (for example, a multibillion‑dollar suit against the Wall Street Journal). The Department of Justice has revived policies to subpoena reporters’ phone records to identify leakers, and Homeland Security officials have publicly boasted about catching sources for journalists—moves described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as “terrifying” and chilling to newsgathering.

The White House has at times revoked or restricted press credentials for reporters and outlets seen as adversarial, most famously CNN’s Jim Acosta. New, more restrictive rules for White House press passes have been criticized as targeting critical journalists and limiting independent coverage.

The unfunny clown who heads our Department of War has driving away most honest reporters by require department review of their prospective reports. A federal district court in Washington, D.C., just struck down key parts of the Pentagon’s new press-access and reporting restrictions. In a suit brought by The New York Times challenging the Defense Department’s 2025 press policy the judge ruled that the Pentagon’s policy limiting reporters’ access and conditioning accreditation on pledges not to gather or publish information without official approval violated the First Amendment and also raised due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.

We have historically relied on the strength of our constitution and the separation of powers it establishes between the three major branches of government to contain abuses of government power. Generally, our institutions have served us well. But Trump has stretched executive power weakened its guardrails, for example by firing all Inspector Generals and failing to seek congressional support.

Trump and his repulsive advisor Stephen Miller’s immigration/deportation policies via the masked ICE agents who have killed two American citizens on public streets, have unleashed terror and abuse of power never seen in my life time. Last year 32 people died in ICE custody and in just the first weeks of 2026, at least 6 more people died in ICE detention.

The list goes on and on. From his reelection to his second term (2024) to early 2026, Trump’s estimated wealth has increased on the order of 2–4 billion dollars. Forbes reported his net worth at about 7.3 billion dollars by September 2025, calling it the most lucrative year of his career. In the realm of pure childish ego, he has added his name to the Kennedy Center now to be closed in two months, and the Institute of Peace, rebuilding the White House, and threatening to rename Dulles Airport. On top of that he wants his image on a gold coin. His administration proposing both a commemorative gold coin and a circulating $1 coin.

None of these are serving America’s interests.  Various indices of freedom/authoritarianism report a steep decline by the U.S.  Freedom House, which scores countries (0–100) on political rights and civil liberties and categorizes them as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free reports that the U.S. score is now at its lowest level since they adopted the 100‑point scale, while still rated “Free.”   The democracy watchdog, Martin Gelin reports that “Trump is aiming for dictatorship”. But we can still stop him if we wake up and yell STOP.

Kill

On Friday President Trump announced that: “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect….” https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115629010097815862

Rather than evaluating each Presidential order and rescinding those that are inconsistent with Trump’s policy objectives (whatever those might be), Trump rescinds them all if not signed personally by former President Biden.

This reflects Trumps use of his position to attack anyone who disagrees with him—his enemies. Rather than explaining why a policy is bad, Trump simply condemns the work of his “enemies.”

When six democratic congressmen posted a video reminding solders of their legal obligation to refuse to execute illegal orders, Trump exploded.  “The president said lawmakers who appeared in a video committed “seditious behavior” and should be arrested and put on trial for treason.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/

A prime example of such an illegal order was Secretary Hegseth’s order to bomb boats in the Caribbean he thought were bringing illegal drugs to the US and to kill all aboard. “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/

Hegseth’s order was illegal under both US and international law. SEAL Team 6, which committed these murders, executed an illegal order, thus violating their pledge to uphold the constitution.

President Trump also violated the law by directing the Justice Department to pursue those who criticize him—his enemies. From universities and law firms to former FBI head James Comey, and former national security advisor John Bolton, Trump has threatened to withhold Federal funds from universities that do not bow to his demands or try his enemies for one thing or other. Bolton’s crime is the same as Donald Trump’s – the improper handling of secret government documents. And of course, anything Biden did is condemned as the cause of anything wrong.

Trump’s masked ICE teams arresting and deported supposedly illegal immigrants has been a lawless disaster—occasionally arresting legal American citizen and embarrassing the whole effort to strengthen the enforcement of immigration rules.

Trump’s haphazard announcements of Tariffs, (hopefully) soon to be declared illegal by the Supreme Court, followed none of the rules of the World Trade Organization, which are designed to promote economic efficiency and thus maximize world incomes. They were deployed to bully individual countries to agree to whatever was in Trump’s interest, an interest rarely compatible with American interests.

I am all for downsizing the government, but on the basis of careful reviews of what functions are needed and desirable and the required staff to carry them out efficiently. Elon Musk’s led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) took a chainsaw approach that led Trump appointed department heads to object.

This, of course, is not how a mature adult would govern in a constitutional republic. Trump and many of his appointees are not such people. Living together peacefully and productively requires civil discussion of issues and cooperation and compromise—not bullying.

Those breaking the law or issuing illegal orders should be removed from their positions and tried for the crimes they have committed.

Law and Order

Every evening when we are not hosting or attending a dinner party, attending a play, concert, or conference, we lie down in bed and watch a movie or a few episodes of a TV series. Ito pushes a button and our large TV screen rises just beyond the end of our bed. Over the last few months, we have watched over 200 episodes for the original Law and Order show, starting for some reason with season 5 (1995). I want to explain why we have found this show so interesting.

The first half of each show follows the search by the police (two regulars) for the perpetrator of a crime (usually a murder). The second half presents the trial to convict the accused perpetrator conducted by two regular justice department characters. The stories themselves can be quite intriguing and the crimes and the issues around them explore every conceivable social issue in America today (e.g., affirmative action, gangs, capital punishment, same sex marriage, abortion, race and sexual discrimination, treatment of minors).

The regulars in the show—police and prosecutors –are “real” people, i.e. flawed but honestly trying to do their best. Aside from the acting being superb, what impresses me most is that for each controversial issue the arguments on both sides are strongly presented. To say the episodes are thought provoking would be an understatement. I don’t always understand the bases on which the judge allows or disallows evidence but we do learn a lot about what the law says and how it is applied. The show is still being produced and is now in its 25th season. To last that long, it must be good. We have many episodes to go and will eagerly watch them all.

Portland, Oregon

Three years ago (June 2022) I accepted an invitation to speak at the Western Economic Association meeting in Portland Oregon because it provided the opportunity to visit with my family. My daughter and her two kids live near Seattle and my son and four of his five kids live in Vancouver Washington across the Columbia River from Portland. My daughter and her kids came down to Portland for the occasion and we have a wonderful dinner together in the city.

Serious crime peaked in Portland that year with 95 homicides.  We were also aware of the unsightly presence of the homeless sleeping on sidewalks. Since then serious crime has rapidly declined, with homicides falling to half that number in 2024. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described Portland as “war ravaged” and a “hotbed of violent protest activity”.  He has directed the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to deploy troops to protect Portland and ICE facilities from groups like Antifa which he refers to as “domestic terrorists”. Antifa, by the way, is not an organization but rather a term to describe those fighting fascism.

“Trump on Saturday said he had authorized the use of “full force” if needed to suppress protests targeting immigration detention centers.  Oregon has responded by suing the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of the National Guard to Portland is “unlawful”. The lawsuit, filed on Sunday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, called the move “provocative and arbitrary”, and said it “threatens to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry”. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddmn6ge6e2o

Federal Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee during his first term, blocked Trump’s activation of 200 state Guard troops, then issued a second ruling stopping the administration’s workaround—sending troops from Texas and California instead.

In a letter from my Senator, Tim Kaine, he stated that “President Trump issued an executive order directing Secretary Hegseth to establish new “specialized units” within the National Guard, explicitly trained and equipped to address “public order issues” and available for rapid nationwide deployment. While the National Guard already maintains reaction forces under the command of state governors, this order blurs the line between military support and domestic law enforcement and raises unresolved questions about chain of command, federal authority, and compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. By creating a framework that could allow federal authorities to bypass governors and insert Guard units into local jurisdictions, the order heightens concerns that the Trump Administration is seeking to normalize the use of the military in routine public safety functions and expand such deployments beyond Washington, D.C. into other U.S. cities.”

We are surely used to Trump’s many lies, so why have I given so much space to lies about Portland? While addressing the strangely assembled Admirals and Generals at the Marine Corps Base in Quanitico on September 30, Trump suggested that his deployment of the military to American Cities could provide a training ground for our “enemies within.” These uses of our “defense” forces against our own people is unprecedented and totally against American law and practice.

President Trump said Monday that he may invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops to Portland, calling ongoing protests there a form of “criminal insurrection.” The Insurrection Act permits the federal deployment of troops in extreme cases. Surely the courts will block him.

Week after week Trump has chipped away at our constitutional protections. After each “small” step into autocracy is absorbed, he takes another. He has fired the Inspector Generals, who are meant to provide a guard rail of oversight against government abuses of power, and violated the customary autonomy of the Justice Department by instructing the Attorney General to go after his “enemies,” (not just Comey). What might be next? And where (and how) will it end?