Posts published in “Jones”

When Senator Mike Lee of Utah began calling for the sale of public lands in the western states last year, it raised a firestorm amongst westerners across the political spectrum. And, rightly so. Westerners don’t particularly love the federal agencies that manage those lands, but they like even less the idea of turning them over to private interests that will fence them off and exclude hunters, fishermen and others from accessing what westerners regard as their sacred heritage.

Some in Idaho’s Congressional delegation briefly flirted with Lee’s idea, but backed off quickly when they saw the rising outrage from Idahoans. Even Idaho’s Attorney General, who had earlier supported a federal lawsuit to force the turnover of federal lands to the states, went silent on the issue.

The public land issue has resurfaced in a somewhat different format during the current Idaho legislative session. Several legislators want to set constitutional requirements for how any future federal land grants to Idaho should be managed. While it may not seem to be an unreasonable question to address, it is pointless. Practically every Senator from a public land state has been frightened away from the idea of privatizing or transferring public lands to the states. But even if a transfer should happen, history tells us that the feds will direct the state how to utilize and manage any land transferred.

Four proposed constitutional amendments confuse future land transfers of land to the state with lands that the state received upon gaining statehood in 1890. The section of the Idaho Constitution, Article 9, section 8, that is the subject of the proposals is an important part of Idaho’s school law. That section deals with lands granted by the federal government to Idaho in 1890. Those grants were made for the sole purpose of financing Idaho’s public school system.

Section 8, as originally written, required the state to obtain “the maximum possible amount” from sale or rental of the school lands. The federal government approved of the language and granted Idaho 5.55% of the lands within the boundaries of the State. Those lands were to be held in what is often called a “Sacred Trust” for the sole benefit of the public schools. The Idaho Admission Bill, which is still the law of the United States, provided that those lands would “be reserved for school purposes only.”

As time went by, the “maximum possible amount” requirement was thought to be too restrictive, requiring short-term liquidation of lands and depletion of the land base. In 1982, Idaho voters approved a constitutional amendment to change the management requirement to the “maximum long-term financial return” (MLFR) from the school lands. The change has allowed our state to retain productive land and manage it for consistent, long-term, high-value returns. There is no compelling need to change that management directive.

The amendments proposed in the House, HJR 8 and HJR 10, would make a dramatic management change. They would replace the MLFR requirement with a “priority of use” scheme, giving first priority to “revenue-generating activity” and secondary priority to a variety of public uses. The undisputed fact is that over 96% of school lands are already open and accessible for the full range of public uses.

As far as revenue generation goes, the MLFR requirement brought in $58,435,191 for our public schools last year, 92.4% of which was produced by 749,017 acres of timberland with 4.5% coming from 1,357,461 acres of rangeland. Those funds go into the public school endowment fund for the benefit of public schools. Changes proposed in HJR 8 and HJR 10 would more than likely reduce those returns because the Legislature would be able to grant sweetheart deals to certain land users. In the past that has been attempted for the benefit of cabin site lessees and livestock grazers, but the courts have batted those attempts down because they violate the MLFR requirement.

There have been claims that the MLFR requirement has resulted in the rapid liquidation of school lands, but that is not true. Since 2015, the school land base has increased by about 53,000 acres. Timberland has increased by 65,191 acres since it is the primary revenue generator. Holdings of residential and commercial lands have decreased since user and legislative pressure has helped keep market rentals unattainable.

We have all served on the State Land Board, which manages the school trust lands. The greatest controversies have arisen when rentals on leased parcels near rapidly appreciating private properties are exceedingly low. For instance, we’ve had shoreline leaseholds with rentals that are nowhere near market value. A private landlord would not rent land for a small fraction of the going rate and neither should a governmental entity with trust responsibilities.

The present system has worked well to provide substantial funding for public schools, while also providing virtually unrestricted public access and usage of school lands. The system is not broken and does not need fixing. Further, the proposed fix is contrary to the wisdom of our constitutional founders and violative of the terms of the Idaho Admission Bill. HJR was held in the House State Affairs Committee on a tie vote on February 23, but the concept remains a threat to Idaho’s school endowment lands.

Jerry Evans, former Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction

Lawrence Wasden, former Idaho Attorney General

Ben Ysursa, former Idaho Secretary of State

Jim Jones former Idaho Attorney General

J.D. Williams, former Idaho State Controller

 

Idaho elected leaders bought into the national tax scheme devised by the MAGA crowd in Washington, DC, to the severe detriment of programs critical to Idaho. It’s as if the Governor and Legislature are unaware that the economic health of the Gem State is highly reliant on proper management of its natural resources or that they must provide for the essential needs of all Idahoans. We don’t fit into the national cookie cutter of the Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill (BBBB), which will increase the Nation’s national debt to an unsustainable $40 trillion. Idaho can’t deficit finance like the federal government and our so-called leaders refuse to raise sufficient revenue to finance important programs.

Rather than carefully considering the essential needs that must be financed, our state officials have chosen to reduce state revenues by $330 million– $155 million for the current fiscal year and $175 million for the next. It could turn out to be closer to $400 million for next fiscal year. That’s on top of $4 billion in tax cuts over the last 5 years.

It is a scandal that water and fire management have been left hanging by Idaho officials. Perhaps they need to get out of Boise to learn that Idaho is facing a serious drought. With scanty snowpack in the mountains and a bleak outlook for improvement, there will likely be renewed fighting over the available supply. Yet, legislative budget writers have cut essential funding for the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Water Director warned that, “with the stream gauging in particular, you can’t administer a resource if you can’t measure and monitor that resource.” Unless substantial moisture materializes in the next few weeks, administration of the available water resources will be seriously hampered and Idaho’s water warfare will be rekindled.

With little snowpack and dangerously dry conditions in the mountains, there will be a significantly increased fire danger in Idaho. Which makes one wonder why legislators chose to cut funding to fight Idaho wildfires, especially where funding already falls far short and the fire threat continues to grow. The Lands Director said the funding cuts “will cause us to have to cut back the number of acres treated and increase the fire risk across the landscape.” Not only will the fire danger increase, the fire insurance premiums of Idahoans, even in urban areas, will continue to climb.

Funding cuts to programs for mental health services, suicide prevention and child welfare will have devastating effects for vulnerable people. The Health and Welfare Director warned: “We have already cut through muscle, and we are to bone.” Suicide is on the rise in Idaho and the state’s suicide rate is usually among the top ten in the nation. Cuts in Medicaid mental health services have already caused two deaths in the State. Perhaps we should start keeping a body count of deaths caused by the cuts.

Another essential service that will suffer at the hands of short-sighted legislators is the treatment court program, designed to help people swept up in the criminal justice system to address addiction and mental illness. During fiscal year 2025, 636 people graduated from Idaho treatment court programs and 87 participants gave birth to drug-free babies. The treatment program produces big results for a small price.

One essential ingredient of any government is adequate funding to retain qualified and dedicated staff. Based on my 20 years of working in the government, I can attest the great majority are smart, dedicated public servants. Even House Speaker Mike Moyle praised them as “some of the best employees ever.” They deserve to be adequately compensated. Unfortunately, they are not. Their salaries lag significantly behind the market. There is a 14% turnover rate.

Despite the fact that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose almost 3% last year and will likely come close this year, state workers will not receive any pay raise. Additionally, they will be stuck with an estimated 7.3% increase in out-of-pocket costs for health care. With that kind of mistreatment, state employees will keep abandoning the ship of state. The state will lose their expertise and institutional memory.

The $330+ million in tax cuts that the Governor and Legislature granted to some Idahoans, by conforming Idaho’s tax code to the BBBB, might have been just fine in a year when the state could afford them, but we are not there. Eliminating the tax on tips, overtime and the like was not a critical priority. Cutting so many important programs that are essential to the future of Idaho and the well-being of all its people makes absolutely no sense. Idahoans should demand a reversal of the nonsensical program cuts to vital programs or replacement of the elected officials who engineered those cuts.

 

It was not that long ago that Idaho’s top elected officials stood up for human rights. That era came to an abrupt halt with Governor Little’s recent firing of Estella Zamora as vice chair of the Idaho Human Rights Commission (IHRC). Little’s action followed Senate leader Kelly Anthon’s announcement that the Senate would not act upon Zamora’s pending reappointment to the IHRC.

Both Little and Anthon acted after Idaho’s MAGA propaganda machine attacked Zamora for standing up for decency and the rule of law. She, like a solid majority of Americans and many federal judges, rightfully criticized the unlawful and heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics of ICE. Anthon, who is a lawyer, claimed Zamora’s comments could reflect bias in IHRC proceedings. That is totally bogus because IHRC has no jurisdiction over ICE or its officers. It only deals with Idaho civil rights disputes.

But the IHRC has always performed an important role in speaking out on human rights issues that go beyond the Gem State’s borders. I know that from deep experience as Idaho Attorney General for 8 years. When I came into office in 1983, I became acquainted with Marilyn Shuler, the highly-regarded Director of the agency. I quickly learned the important role she and IHRC played in advocating for the basic rights of human beings. She and the IHRC played an instrumental role in ridding the state of the Aryan Nations scourge.

Former Governor Cecil Andrus called Shuler a “champion for human rights and basic decency.” Former Governor Butch Otter said she was “a guiding light and an Idaho icon of compassion and decency.” Former Governor Phil Batt, who was behind the establishment of the IHRC, praised Shuler for “pointing out our human rights deficiencies and finding ways to correct our failures.” Shuler was succeeded as Director by Leslie Goddard, who had previously served as a deputy Attorney General for the IHRC. She was also a vocal and effective advocate for human rights and the rule of law.

Zamora was continuing that important Idaho legacy.

Governor Little was not particularly regarded as a friend or foe of immigrants until Donald Trump was elected to a second term in 2024. Little has become increasingly supportive of Trump’s MAGA policies, especially since receiving Trump’s endorsement last year for another term as Governor. Little appears to be all-in for Trump’s campaign against immigrants and refugees of color.

Trump’s storm troopers have concentrated their hard-edged, highly-dramatized tactics against the country’s nonwhite population. Trump has suspended visa processing for immigrants from 75 countries, most of which have predominantly nonwhite populations. U.S. refugee admissions will be at an historic low of 7,500, open only to whites.

Some extremist members of the Idaho Legislature have jumped aboard the anti-immigrant train. A group of anti-immigrant legislators gathered at the Capitol on February 3 to badmouth immigrants, apparently oblivious to the fact that only our Native American population has been here for thousands of years, while the rest of us came as immigrants. These latter-day jingoists want to slam the door shut, just as the U.S. needs new blood to make up for a declining birth rate and an aging population.

One of the anti-immigrants, Senator Brian Lenney, espoused the great replacement conspiracy theory– that nonwhite refugees and immigrants are surreptitiously replacing white folks. Rep. Dale Hawkins bemoaned: “We’re losing our culture as Americans” and “It’s damaging our way of life.” Perhaps it would be helpful for them to study history and learn that the United States was founded and nurtured to greatness by immigrants– people who had the courage to leave home for a better life and the drive to prosper in a society free from government and religious persecution.

Congressman Russ Fulcher has added to the silliness by helping to found the Sharia Free America Caucus, claiming that Muslims are trying to establish Sharia law in the U.S. They obviously don’t know what Sharia is, that it poses no threat to America and that it smacks of the Idaho Constitutional founders’ efforts to target our Mormon population.

If any religious agenda poses a threat, it is the growing number of Christian nationalists who are actually endeavoring to take over the law writing functions of the Idaho Legislature.

Speaking of refugees, I’ve had the privilege to work with refugees in Boise and Twin Falls these last few years. They include people from Somalia, Myanmar, the Congo, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Armenia, Romania and a host of other countries. Many have faced dangerous living conditions, even death, in their homelands. These people appreciate freedom. They are dedicated to starting businesses and educating their kids. Most of all, they are pursuing the American dream. They do not deserve to be vilified by people who have never taken the time or had the inclination to get to know them.

If there is a refugee problem in Idaho, it comes from the white know-it-all political refugees who have moved to Idaho from blue states to teach Idahoans how to think and live.

Perhaps it would open their eyes to read a January 19 report by Miriam Jordan, a New York Times Reporter, whose title tells it all–”Twin Falls needs immigrants, but the Trump administration has limited the program to white South Africans.” The article touches on Hamdi Ulukaya, the immigrant from Turkey who built the burgeoning Chobani business that has vitalized the economies of the Magic Valley and the Gem State.

Instead of acting in ignorance, Idahoans should continue the long-standing tradition of speaking out for human rights, just as Zamona was doing when Little and his MAGA supporters tried to silence her. That includes welcoming refugees and other immigrant families who enrich our state and support our economy.

 

While the MAGA folks in the Idaho Legislature are running amok, there are some glimmers of light and reason peeking through. Kudos to State School Superintendent Debbie Critchfield for telling the clueless budget cutters that she won’t go along with a $55.1 million cut in the education budget. She is on solid ground because Idaho spends less per student than any other state in the nation. Idaho is the second-fastest growing state, giving us the tax base and resources to keep our children from being the least educated and least competitive in the country.

Critchfield raised some hackles last year for giving in to the school voucher law, House Bill 93, which gave an income tax holiday for those sending their kids to private and religious schools. That reduced state revenues by $50 million, with virtually no accountability except the skimpy guidelines contained in the bill. That tax subsidy will not face the chopping block in the budget-cutting frenzy this year. Most of the recipients of the subsidy, except for the highest earners, will not contribute a dime to the vast array of state programs being cut by the MAGA crowd. She has partially redeemed herself.

There is no redemption for legislators savagely cutting budgets for so many necessary state programs–road construction, Medicaid, higher education, State Police, on and on. We were just told that our prison population is growing while prison financing is declining. Prison staff may have to be furloughed, leading to increased prison violence. Since 36.5% of Idaho’s prisoners were sentenced on drug charges, it would make economic sense to make drug treatment programs more readily available, both in and out of prison, but that does not seem to register with the legislative budget choppers.

Any reasonable and responsible legislative body would see the desperate need to increase state revenues to adequately fund essential programs. An income tax increase on the wealthier Idahoans would barely be noticeable to them, especially since they have seen $4 billion in tax cuts over the last 5 years. We should leave the modest earners alone while increasing the tax rate for those who can afford it.

Besides Critchfield, Rep. John Shirts has injected a positive note into the legislative mix. His House Concurrent Resolution 23 calls upon Congress to support a constitutional amendment setting term limits for Congress. Congress would likely cut their terms only after Hell froze over, but Shirts is to be commended for starting a conversation.

Idaho’s Congressional delegation is exhibit one in the case for limiting the time our exalted potentates can feed at the public trough.

Jim Risch has been in the Senate since 2009 and is now, at age 82, seeking another 6-year term. I worked for one of Idaho’s very best Republican Senators, Len Jordan. Unlike Risch, he was principled and courageous. When President Nixon was wrong on an issue, like withholding appropriated funds, Jordan publicly and effectively objected. Risch meekly goes along with anything Trump does or says–trashing our NATO partners, imposing unconstitutional tariffs, whatever. When Jordan was deciding whether to run for another term in 1972, he decided against it because he would be 79 years old when his term ended. Jordan was in good health, but he had a conscience.

Mike Crapo is 74 years old and there is every indication that he will run for another 6-year term in 2028. He was in the House for 6 years and has been in the Senate since January of1999. He is just a Trump puppet. It’s time for him to move on.

Mike Simpson has been in the House since January of 1999. Mike is the most disappointing because he has morphed into a full-throated MAGA convert. His recent opinion piece praising “our brave Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers for doing their job and protecting our communities,” is stomach-turning. He says, “left-wing agitators have taken to the streets to defend child sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, and other violent criminals.”

Mike overlooks the video evidence showing the intimidation and fear being inflicted by masked ICE thugs on Americans across the country– much like the British troops of King George III were inflicting upon peace-loving American colonials 249 years ago. It might not hurt for Mike to check out the ruling issued by a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, finding 100 violations of court orders by ICE in Minneapolis.

I regret having supported both Simpson and Crapo when they first ran for the Idaho Legislature in 1984, when I was Idaho Attorney General. They, along with Jim Risch, will not be turned out by a constitutional amendment. That job can and should be done by Idaho voters.

 

Those in charge of Idaho’s executive and legislative branches have a difficult time seeing beyond the end of their collective noses when it comes to funding programs important to Idahoans. All we have heard from the governor and the penny-pinching legislative leadership is “cut, cut, cut.” When times are tough, cuts may be needed to make ends meet. But, if you listen to the president and our governor, times are not tough. Both speak of how we are doing very well under their stewardship.

Governor Little continually touts Idaho’s strong and growing economy. In December, he proclaimed, “Idaho is # 1 nationally for wage growth – proving our economy is strong and moving forward!” One might wonder then, why we are in such a budget-cutting frenzy. It might be partly because he approved $300 million in tax cuts that he knew were ill-advised. Or, that he greenlighted the $50 million tax holiday for primarily well-healed folks who can already afford to send their kids to religious schools. Delaying the effective date of that tax give-away until next year would be an easy fix to the $40 million budget deficit for this year. A graduated tax increase would be a long-term fix.

The main budgeting problem with the MAGA folks running the state is that critical programs which serve large numbers of modest-means Idahoans are put on the chopping block without considering the long term effects. We may save a few bucks today but end up spending gobs more in the future to address the consequences.

The poster child for this type of short-sighted budgeting is Idaho’s Medicaid program.

With spending cuts, both those implemented and proposed by the Governor, future expenditures are certain to substantially eclipse the immediate savings.

The Idaho Sheriffs Association warned in December that cuts to behavioral health programs would likely increase future outlays for emergency medical services, incarceration and public safety. The Governor’s proposal to cut $45 million in Medicaid spending could result in the state getting $106.8 million less in federal funds next year.

This is just a small part of a much bigger picture of concern in the budgeting arena. The Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill (BBBB), passed with the votes of Idaho’s Congressional delegation, will cut Idaho Medicaid by $4.3 billion over the decade, starting next year. It will likely reduce our Medicaid roles by about 40,000. Combined with whatever cuts are made by Idaho’s government, the impact on Idahoans are likely to be catastrophic.

Like it or not, Medicaid funding is the lifeblood of Idaho hospitals, particularly those in the rural areas of the state. The tremendous reduction in federal funds, combined with cuts made by the Governor and MAGA legislators, will imperil the existence of rural hospitals already on the brink. The piddly $100 million provided to the state in the BBBB will not suffice to fill the gap.

The MAGA legislators are clamoring for the repeal of Medicaid expansion that was approved by over 60% of Idaho voters in 2018. It covers about 90,000 Idahoans. Repeal would deal a hammer blow to our already-endangered rural hospitals, not to mention the damage inflicted on sick Idahoans. We get $9 dollars in federal funds for every $1 in state funding. That results in about $1 billion invested into Idaho health care.

Substantial cuts to Medicaid funding would be completely counter to another priority of some reasonable legislators who are trying to remedy Idaho’s chronic shortage of healthcare providers. Idaho ranks lowest in the nation for both doctors and nurses on a per capita basis. The lawmakers tell us that 1,400 additional medical professionals are needed to catch up to the national average. That simply can’t happen unless substantial funds are forthcoming. Idaho’s 4% cut in Medicaid reimbursement for doctors certainly won’t help. Idaho simply can’t attract the necessary healthcare workers to serve our rural areas by short-changing them. With the state’s unfriendly attitude toward doctors, there is already a stiff headwind to overcome.

Numerous headlines expand upon Idaho’s short-sighted approach to medical funding:  “Idaho Medicaid cuts for nursing homes are unsustainable”

“Proposed Medicaid cut could end meal deliveries for thousands of Idaho seniors”

“Idaho Medicaid cuts could force disability providers to close”

“Idaho Medicaid contractor to cut critical services for people with severe mental illness”

This is just a sampling of the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach of those currently in power in Idaho. There are many reasonable and pragmatic legislators in the GOP ranks who try to work across the aisle with Democrats to move the state forward in a rational fashion. They need the support of Idahoans of good faith who will speak out at the ballot box.

 

You have to ask yourself–what’s going on in our commander-in-chief’s upper story? His obsession with getting the land title to Greenland, even if it breaks up the NATO alliance, is absolutely bizarre. The U.S. can already use Greenland for just about anything we want–military bases, mining its minerals to our heart’s content, whatever. But Trump won't be satisfied until he has a deed to the property because, as he said, it is: “Psychologically important to me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.”

Trump has not ruled out military action to get what he wants, saying he can do it the “easy way” or the “hard way.” That echoes the threat he made before sending the military to snatch President Maduro of Venezuela. He has now threatened to impose tariffs on eight of our NATO allies–Germany, Britain, Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark–who oppose the unlawful land grab. The tariffs will start at 10% on February 1 and increase to 25% on June 1, until the nations cry “uncle.”

This is in addition to the tariffs agreed upon just last year.

Our European allies are considering possible retaliatory moves, some of which could possibly devastate the American economy. The principal measure, often called the EU’s trade “bazooka,” deserves an explanatory column of its own. This and a variety of other off-putting actions against some of our staunchest traditional allies have caused massive efforts to forge new trading relationships between and among them, as well as stronger ties to China, our major adversary.

It may not have occurred to Trump that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently getting prepared to issue an opinion on the lawfulness of Trump’s use or misuse of the constitutional power of Congress to impose tariffs. While the Court must rule just on the case before it, the vote of individual Justices can be swayed by extremely troubling current events. This naked misuse of power to coerce our closest allies certainly can’t convince members of the Court to let Trump run roughshod over the Constitution.

If this were the only inexplicable action of our nation’s chief executive, it would be bad enough. In combination with a steady stream of unhinged actions, it is truly frightening. The man behind the nation’s wheel appears to be in serious need of mental help.

Let us briefly consider just a few of Trump’s recent actions. One that has not gotten nearly enough attention is his encouragement of demonstrators in Iran and promise  that “help is on its way.” Help was definitely not on its way. In fact, the Iranian regime used Trump's intemperate statements to convince many in Iran that the U.S. was the instigator of the riots. That, in turn, intensified the violent suppression of the riots.  Iranian dissidents now rightfully claim that Trump betrayed them.

Or, how about his latest imperial decree—that no other college football game can be aired at the same time as the Army-Navy game. He’ll be in attendance and is setting aside an “EXCLUSIVE 4 hour Broadcast window” for the game, and “No other Game or Team can violate this Time Slot!!!”

Here’s the guy who cajoled Maria Corina Machado, the rightful president of Venezuela, into regifting him her Nobel Peace Prize, when he had initially given her the cold shoulder. He looked genuinely thrilled with the undeserved boost to his ego. It did not take long for her to figure out that continual, unremitting praise is what fuels him. His sycophantic cabinet members heap adulation upon his slumbering presence until it surpasses the gag reflux level. He is certainly the neediest president in our history.

What I’m driving at is that Trump has exhibited a lust for power and praise that is becoming practically insatiable. In the old days we called it megalomania. A megalomaniac is a person who has an excessive belief in their own importance, power, or abilities, often leading to delusions of grandeur and a lust for power. Nowadays, the symptoms are associated with narcissistic personality disorder. Dr. John Gartner, a distinguished psychologist, has offered an intriguing explanation of how Trump seems to fit the profile of what he characterizes as a malignant narcissist. He posits that Trump may not be able to serve his full term as president because of the malady.

If Gartner is correct, there should be serious consideration of invoking the 25th Amendment. It provides authority for a majority of the Cabinet to declare the president disabled, making the vice-president the acting president. The president can contest the declaration, leading to a Congressional decision. This is an issue that must be addressed before a major catastrophe befalls our beloved nation.

 

Two news headlines during the first week of the year made my blood run cold. The first, on January 5, declared: “Trump says he tipped off oil companies on Venezuela attack.” So, even though he refused to tell anyone in Congress that he was going to launch a risky attack on a foreign country, he was blabbing about it to oil company executives before it took place. It is doubtful that any of the oil execs had a security clearance.

The next day’s headline said: “Trump administration thanks the media for keeping quiet before the strike that captured Maduro.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that “a number of media outlets had gotten leaks” about the impending operation, including the New York Times and Washington Post. It sounds more like a torrent than a leak. The outlets had held off reporting to protect service personnel. Rubio thanked the news outlets, saying American “lives could have been lost” had the attack been reported. The media need not have been thanked if those in the know had kept their yaps shut.

The security of this mission was dangerously deficient. One might reasonably conclude that the Commander in Chief was the source of the leaks. He does seem to get tickled about announcing boat strike killings, air strikes on foreign nations–Iran, Yemen and Nigeria–and threats to use “his” military against nations like Columbia, Mexico and Greenland. We have apparently morphed into a warmongering nation under Trump.

Even a warrior nation owes it to their dedicated service personnel to maintain operational security so as not to put American lives at risk. However, Trump failed to make heads roll for the inexcusable leak of details about impending airstrikes in Yemen in the Signalgate scandal. His national security team was chattering about the operation on unsecure media, which endangered the lives of the pilots. There are unfriendly electronic ears all over Washington, D.C. and the time and location of the Yemen strikes could well have become known to some of those eavesdroppers.

As one who served in the Vietnam War, I am acutely aware of the absolute need to maintain operational security. As the World War II poster warned, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” Most of my Vietnam service was spent living and working with South Vietnamese soldiers, getting clearance from them to conduct every artillery and air strike throughout the province where I served. This was highly confidential information. For instance, we needed to provide the exact location and time of every B-52 bombing strike in order to get a clearance. That information would have been invaluable to the enemy.

My Vietnamese counterparts were absolutely trustworthy. Most of them came from a nearby Catholic village and they were fiercely anti-communist. I had a personal stake in our security because I spent hundreds of hours as an artillery spotter in a small airplane, known as a bird dog. Security was a continual concern, but at least we did not have to worry about a commander in chief disclosing secret information about our targeting.

Trump has a sorry track record when it comes to protecting the nation’s secrets. During his first term, he was chronically careless in his handling of the nation’s secrets.

Stephanie Grisham, who served as press secretary in the white House during Trump’s first term, said, “I watched him show documents to people at Mar-a-Lago on the dining room patio. So, he has no respect for classified information, never did.”

Trump was indicted in June of 2023 for storing, showing off and refusing to return his cache of classified documents. Trump faced 37 felony counts for his mishandling of the nation’s secrets but lucked out by getting the case assigned to a federal judge who he had appointed. The case was delayed by his lawyers’ scorched earth tactics, assisted mightily by the thankful Trump-appointed judge. The case had to be dismissed when he retook office. The prosecutor, Jack Smith, issued a detailed report showing that there was sufficient evidence to support Trump’s conviction.

The Venezuela security breach put the lives of our service personnel in serious jeopardy. The operation had so many moving parts that it was already dangerous. A leak of even general elements of the strike could have had disastrous effects for the Americans charged with carrying it out. It is beyond comprehension that Trump leaked any information about it to the oil big shots before it happened.

While Trump has displayed little regard for maintaining security, he has shown even less concern about protecting the lives of our warfighters who put their lives at risk for their country. Unless he can learn to control his loose lips, we can expect to needlessly lose some of America’s finest.

 

That famous Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra, might have characterized Donald Trump’s recent coup in Venezuela as being deja vu all over again. There seems to be a recurring American theme of deposing villainous dictators and bringing Pax Americana to their beleaguered countries. Recent instances that come to mind are Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump’s Venezuelan venture might be better characterized as Pox Americano.

Putting aside the illegal nature of Trump’s actions under both U.S. and international law, this foray south of the border promises to be a major fiasco. That will certainly be true if Trump intends to have Marco Rubio “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” That probably means until U.S. oil giants have Venezuela’s huge oil reserves under their complete control. That would likely take a decade, if the country could be stabilized and made safe.

Sad experience in our two forever wars would indicate that Trump’s end goal will never be achieved. The U.S. is still experiencing the reverberations from our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have finally managed these 50 years later to outlast our disastrous conclusion of the Vietnam War in which I served.

The experience in Iraq is probably most instructive here. We invaded in 2003, quickly deposed Saddam Hussien and were then stuck in a quagmire for over a decade, trying to make a safe, proper and judicious governmental transition. That totally unnecessary war will end up costing almost three trillion dollars–about $2 trillion in direct costs and another trillion for long-term care for veterans.

Many Iraqis initially celebrated our invasion, particularly the Shia Muslims who had been viciously oppressed by Hussein. Many Sunni Muslims, who had held positions in the dictator’s forces but were denied participation in the new government, took up arms. When the U.S. was unable to provide a government that provided security and basic governmental services, a full-fledged civil war erupted with U.S. troops taking fire from both sides. American casualties in the melee were 4,418 dead and 31,994 wounded. Estimates of Iraqi deaths range from several hundred thousand to over a million.

There is little doubt that the decapitation of the Venezuelan government will fuel a quest for power by competing factions. The Maduro faction will desperately try to keep its hold on power, while it is certain that others will contest them, just as happened in Iraq. Rubio will have to either step away from forming a governmental structure, which will result in chaos, or try to impose a structure with the backing of U.S. troops, which will also result in chaos. In the meantime, the Maduro underlings are still in charge of the country and there is no indication that they will be any more enlightened than Maduro. Delcy Rodriguez, the former vice president, seems to be navigating between Trump and her base, but the substance will hit the fan if she tries to trim their power and privileges.

When the U.S. went into Iraq, it had the benefit of a well-thought-out plan to set up a governing structure. The Bush administration threw it out the window and freelanced without a clue on how to proceed. A marvelous book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran–Imperial Life in the Emerald City– describes the process of trying to form an Iraqi government “as throwing feathers together, hoping for a duck.” The Trump administration does not appear to have done any planning for how to proceed after Maduro’s abduction and will likely have to utilize the duck approach.

The U.S. had many partner nations in our unfortunate ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have absolutely no partners in the Venezuela adventure. Our erratic go-it-alone approach is likely to further distance us from our former allies in Europe and Asia. America is becoming an unreliable and quixotic partner, threatening our standing as the world’s dominant economic and military power since the end of World War Two.

This latest fiasco will not sell well with our allies in Asia or Europe but should resonate with our sworn enemies. Russia’s Putin will use it to justify his genocidal war against Ukraine. China’s Xi Jinping will certainly use it when he makes a play to conquer Taiwan. If the U.S. can decapitate a country in its presumed sphere of influence, why should dictators elsewhere not be able to do the same?

Trump claims he is merely pursuing a version of the Monroe Doctrine that posits the U.S. must maintain control over the Western Hemisphere. That is not where the strategic threats facing America are located. Our mortal enemies are Russia and China. We ought to be focusing our military forces against them, instead of wasting them on dictators who don’t pose existential threats to our national security.

It’s time to break the self-defeating deja vu cycle and start getting serious about protecting America’s vital security interests.