Writing in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum questions Trump’s ability to think through his decisions. Is he acting on a whim, an impulse? Does he remember today what he said the day before?

She writes:

Donald Trump does not think strategically. Nor does he think historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. He does not think about how his behavior in one place will change the behavior of other people in other places.

He does not consider the wider implications of his decisions. He does not take responsibility when these decisions go wrong. Instead, he acts on whim and impulse, and when he changes his mind—when he feels new whims and new impulses—he simply lies about whatever he said or did before.

For the past 14 months, few foreign leaders have been able to acknowledge that someone without any strategy can actually be president of the United States. Surely, the foreign-policy analysts murmured, Trump thinks beyond the current moment. Surely, foreign statesmen whispered, he adheres to some ideology, some pattern, some plan. Words were thrown around—isolationism, imperialism—in an attempt to place Trump’s actions into a historical context. Solemn articles were written about the supposed significance of Greenland, for example, as if Trump’s interest in the Arctic island were not entirely derived from the fact that it looks very large on a Mercator projection.

This week, something broke. Maybe Trump does not understand the link between the past and the present, but other people do. They can see that, as a result of decisions that Trump made but cannot explain, the Strait of Hormuz is blocked by Iranian mines and drones. They can see oil prices rising around the world and they understand that it is difficult and dangerous for the U.S. Navy to solve this problem. They can also hear the president lashing out, as he has done so many times before, trying to get other people to take responsibility, threatening them if they don’t.

NATO faces a “very bad” future if it doesn’t help clear the strait, Trump told the Financial Times, apparently forgetting that the United States founded the organization and has led it since its creation in 1949. He has also said he is not asking but ordering seven countries to help. He did not specify which ones. “I’m demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on the way from Florida to Washington. “It’s the place from which they get their energy.” Actually it isn’t their territory, and it’s his fault that their energy is blocked.

But in Trump’s mind, these threats are justified: He has a problem right now, so he wants other countries to solve it. He doesn’t seem to remember or care what he said to their leaders last month or last year, nor does he know how his previous decisions shaped public opinion in their countries or harmed their interests. But they remember, they care, and they know.

Specifically, they remember that for 14 months, the American president has tariffed them, mocked their security concerns, and repeatedly insulted them. As long ago as January 2020, Trump toldseveral European officials that “if Europe is under attack, we will never come to help you and to support you.” In February 2025, he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he had no right to expect support either, because “you don’t have any cards.” Trump ridiculed Canada as the “51st state” and referred to both the present and previous Canadian prime ministers as “governor.” He claimed, incorrectly, that allied troops in Afghanistan “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines,” causing huge offense to the families of soldiers who died fighting after NATO invoked Article 5 of the organization’s treaty, on behalf of the United States, the only time it has done so. He called the British “our once-great ally,” after they refused to participate in the initial assault on Iran; when they discussed sending some aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf conflict earlier this month, he ridiculed the idea on social media: “We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

At times, the ugly talk changed into something worse. Before his second inauguration, Trump began hinting that he wouldn’t rule out using force to annex Greenland, a territory of Denmark, a close NATO ally. At first this seemed like a troll or a joke; by January 2026, his public and private comments persuaded the Danes to prepare for an American invasion. Danish leaders had to think about whether their military would shoot down American planes, kill American soldiers, and be killed by them, an exercise so wrenching that some still haven’t recovered. In Copenhagen a few weeks ago, I was shown a Danish app that tells users which products are American, so that they know not to buy them. At the time it was the most popular app in the country.

The economic damage is no troll either. Over the course of 2025, Trump placed tariffs on Europe, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, often randomly—or again, whimsically—and with no thought to the impact. He raised tariffs on Switzerland because he didn’t like the Swiss president, then lowered them after a Swiss business delegation brought him presents, including a gold bar and a Rolex watch. He threatened to place 100 percent tariffs on Canada should Canada dare to make a trading agreement with China. Unbothered by possible conflicts of interest, he conducted trade negotiations with Vietnam, even as his son Eric Trump was breaking ground on a $1.5 billion golf-course deal in that country.

Europeans might have tolerated the invective and even the trade damage had it not been for the real threat that Trump now poses to their security. Over the course of 14 months, he has, despite talking of peace, encouraged Russian aggression. He stopped sending military and financial aid to Ukraine, thereby giving Vladimir Putin renewed hope of victory. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, began openly negotiating business deals between the United States and Russia, although the war has not ended and the Russians have never agreed to a cease-fire. Witkoff presents himself to European leaders as a neutral figure, somewhere between NATO and Russia—as if, again, the United States were not the founder and leader of NATO, and as if European security were of no special concern to Americans. Trump himself continues to lash out at Zelensky and to lie about American support for Ukraine, which he repeatedly describes as worth $300 billion or more. The real number is closer to $50 billion, over three years. At current rates, Trump will spend that much in three months in the Middle East, in the course of starting a war rather than trying to stop one.

The result: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has declared that Canada will not participate in the “offensive operations of Israel and the U.S., and it never will.” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius says, “This is not our war, and we didn’t start it.” The Spanish prime minister refused to let the United States use bases for the beginning of the war. The U.K. and France might send some ships to protect their own bases or allies in the Gulf, but neither will send their soldiers or sailors into offensive operations started without their assent.

This isn’t cowardice. It’s a calculation: If allied leaders thought that their sacrifice might count for something in Washington, they might choose differently. But most of them have stopped trying to find the hidden logic behind Trump’s actions, and they understand that any contribution they make will count for nothing. A few days or weeks later, Trump will not even remember that it happened.

Jim Bourg, a writer for Reuters for many years., now writes a blog on Substack called Public Impact News.

This is a story that I found ominous. Is Trump planning to revive the military draft? Will he begin drafting young men to fight in Iran? Why? In recent years, we have been told repeatedly that the future of warfare will be high-technology, drones and drone interceptors, not trench warfare.

Note that the report does not mention adding women to the Selective Service registry. Is that because Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, doesn’t want women in the military?

No one has forgotten that Trump ran for office as a “peace candidate,” or that he shamelessly campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize, or that he created a new entity called the “Board of Peace,” of which he is chairman for life and sole manager of the billions it has already collected from its members.

And yet the “peace president” wants to reinvigorate the Selective Service register. Young people between the ages of 18-26, their parents and grandparents, should ask why.

Bourg reported:

Congress Quietly Approved Automatic Selective Service (Draft) Registration in 2026 Defense Bill

WASHINGTON – (Public Impact News) – In another recent move that has gotten very little coverage or attention, prior to the start of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. Congress approved a significant change to the way the United States registers young men (18-26 years old) for potential military conscription, passing a provision in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that will automatically enroll eligible males into the Selective Service draft system using federal government databases. The change is scheduled to take effect on Dec. 18, 2026.

Under current law, men between the ages of 18 and 26 are required to register with the Selective Service System themselves. Failure to do so can lead to penalties and may make individuals ineligible for certain federal benefits, including student financial aid and government employment.

The provision included in the annual defense policy bill directs federal agencies to share certain identifying information with the Selective Service System so eligible men can be registered automatically. Lawmakers say the goal is to ensure that the registration requirement already on the books is enforced consistently without relying on young people to complete the process manually.

The measure appears in the final compromise version of the NDAA approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Supporters say the change modernizes an outdated administrative system while preserving the existing legal framework.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the provision does not expand the government’s authority to draft Americans into military service.

“This does not create a draft and it does not change the underlying requirement that young men register with Selective Service,” Reed said during debate on the bill. “It simply ensures the system works as intended and that eligible individuals are properly registered.”

Some Republicans also supported the change as a practical step to maintain military readiness. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the voluntary registration system has left gaps that could complicate mobilization in a national emergency.

“Ensuring the Selective Service system has accurate and complete records is part of responsible national preparedness,” Cornyn said. “Automatic registration makes the process more reliable and fair.”

The automatic registration proposal was championed in the House by Representative Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer, who argued that the existing system leaves too many eligible men unregistered simply because they are unaware of the legal requirement.

Opponents, however, said the provision was adopted with little public attention and raises concerns about government data sharing and individual privacy. Several lawmakers also questioned the timing of the change as the United States remains engaged in an ongoing war with Iran.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, criticized the provision during debate.
“I do not support quietly expanding the federal government’s reach into personal data to track young Americans for potential military service,” Paul said. “If Congress wants to debate conscription, that debate should happen openly.”

Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, raised similar concerns in the House, warning that the change could create unnecessary anxiety among families at a time of international conflict

“Americans are already worried about escalation in the Middle East,” Massie said. “Implementing automatic draft registration during a war sends the wrong message and risks making people think a draft is coming.”

Defense officials and congressional leaders have emphasized that the policy change does not activate military conscription. A draft would require a separate act of Congress and approval by the president.

The Selective Service System has remained in place since the end of the Vietnam War draft in 1973, maintaining a database of potential recruits in the event Congress authorizes conscription during a national emergency.

Officials say automatic registration is intended to ensure the database remains accurate if it is ever needed. Still, the change has renewed public attention to the Selective Service system, particularly as the United States confronts a widening conflict with Iran. Whether the provision becomes a routine administrative update or the beginning of a broader debate about military service may depend in part on how that conflict develops in the months ahead.

Parents in the small village of Greystones in Ireland did not like to see their children become addicted to cellphones. So they took action to protect their children. They banned cellphones for young children. The results were rewarding.

Sally McGrane wrote in The New York Times:

Twelve-year-old Bodie Mangan Gisler says a smartphone can be quite handy. For one thing, he collects coins, and if he wants to know how much a special coin is worth or what metals it contains, he can ask his mother for her phone and get the answer.

Most 12-year-olds would demand a phone of their own. Not Bodie. “I want to live long and stay healthy,” he said on a recent afternoon in his school library. But he worries that having a smart device might interfere with that. “Maybe I’ll say to my mum, ‘Can I download this one game?’ And she’ll say, ‘Yeah.’ And I’ll get sucked in.”

His friend Charlie Hess, a fellow coin collector, nods in agreement. He wants to get a smartphone when he’s 15 or 16. Until then, he says “I think I have better things to do.”

The kids are a little different here in Greystones. In 2023, the Irish seaside town just south of Dublin launched a grass-roots initiative led by local parents, school principals and community members to loosen the grip of technology on their younger kids by adopting a voluntary “no smart devices” code and supporting it with workshops and social events.

Three years later, no one in Greystones claims to have cured the ills of modern technology. But they’ve learned that they can’t do anything about it one child at a time. Only a townwide effort could defang the kids’ “everyone else has one” argument.”

“With social media, it’s a collective thing,” said Jennifer Whitmore, a member of Irish parliament and a Greystones mother of four. “Addressing it in a clustered manner is the way to go.”

The movement, called “It Takes a Village,” has since grown well beyond this small town of 22,000 residents. In a country that is home to the European headquarters of tech companies including Google, Meta, Microsoft, Apple and LinkedIn, and where the average firstborn child gets a smartphone at around age 9 (younger siblings tend to get them earlier), the effort has struck a chord with everyone from local shopkeepers to national politicians.

“It was one of the first places that took collective action,” said Daisy Greenwell, who co-founded Britain’s Smartphone Free Childhood movement later the same year — inspired, in part, by Greystones. “It made me think that we could shift the culture here, too.”

Before he held his current position as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, a Greystones father, helped launch the project. “I believe we are effectively seeing the experimentation with our young people’s mental health and well-being with social media,” said Mr. Harris, in a recent post on Instagram. “And it just can’t be allowed to continue.”

The goal is to give kids time to ease into the digital future rather than drown in it, said Rachel Harper, the principal of St. Patrick’s National School, who spearheads the initiative: “This is the world the children are growing up in, and we need to equip them,” she said.

“It Takes a Village” was conceived as students returned to school after Covid lockdowns. Ms. Harper was struck by how many tears she was seeing at the school gates. She heard similar reports from other primary school principals, teachers and parents: children struggling to sleep, refusing to come to school, downloading calorie-counting apps, or too upset by messages sent the night before to focus in class.

“If we didn’t take a stand now,” she said, “in five years would they be getting phones at 5 or 6?”

Eoghan Cleary, a teacher and assistant principal at Greystones’ Temple Carrig secondary school, had also sounded the alarm. “‘I wish I didn’t have to see any more beheadings’ — that’s what my students say to me the most,” he said. “‘I don’t want to see people being killed. ‘I don’t want to see people being raped online.’”

After some 800 parents responded to a survey sent out by the primary schools — more than half said their children were anxious, and many had sought mental-health assistance — the town decided it was time to act.

“I think it was just so obvious, the damage phones were causing,” said one resident, Ross McParland, who first heard about the schools’ concerns over dinner at Ms. Harper’s house. Mr. McParland, a retired real estate consultant, turned to the Greystones Town Team. Usually responsible for things like Christmas decorations and the St. Patrick’s Day parade, Town Team volunteers were soon focused on the anti-anxiety project.

To kick off the project, Mr. McParland hosted a town hall in the Whale Theater, which he owned. Mr. Harris spoke, as did Stephen Donnelly, then the Irish minister of health and another Greystones father. Two weeks later, all eight primary school principals signed a letter to parents in support of a voluntary code being rolled out by the P.T.A.s. Parents could agree not to buy their kids a smart device before secondary school, which most children start at around age 12.

Seventy percent of parents signed up, and the community united behind the cause.

The founder of a local film festival handled communications. Garrett Harte, a former editor in chief of “Newstalk,” Ireland’s nationwide talk-radio station, helped hone the initiative’s message and delivery. “This was very much, ‘our town needs a little bit of help navigating this new world adults have no clue about,’” Mr. Harte said.

Within a few months, Mr. Donnelly had established a national Online Health Taskforce, while Ireland’s Department of Education issued guidelines for other primary-school communities that wished to follow Greystones model.

With its tradition of volunteerism and charity work, the tight-knit town was well positioned for this kind of experiment. It has a vibrant youth sports scene, and tweens can socialize face to face at the Youth Café, an after-school hangout. On Church Road, the old-fashioned main street, most of the stores are run by locals like Paddy Holohan, who recently sent a note to schools saying that children who need help — say, locating a parent — can always come to his SuperValu grocery store.

“It was just reassurance for parents, as the evenings were getting darker,” said Mr. Holohan, a Greystones father whose children also were not allowed smartphones in primary school. “Everything doesn’t have to be online.”

These days, Greystones parents still face the familiar torrent of technology delivered to kids who know how to change their birth date by a few years to evade age restrictions. According to a 2025 study by CyberSafeKids, an online-safety group, 28 percent of Irish children between the ages of 8 and 12 experienced content or unsolicited contact that “bothered” them, including exposure to horror, violence, sexual material and threats; 63 percent of primary school-aged children said their parents couldn’t see what they’re doing online.

But with workshops for adults and children, podcasts on the topic (like one hosted by local twins Stephen and David Flynn, Greystones dads and lifestyle influencers), and events like a phone-free beach party, Greystones has seen a shift: Parents say the pressure to get their kids a smartphone before the end of primary school has all but vanished. Some say they feel less alone navigating new technological shoals. At St. Patrick’s, one teacher said her students were more alert in the mornings.

Ms. Harper said that children are making plans in person, playing outdoors more, and “just being kids.”

Interest is on the rise. Mr. Cleary, the assistant principal, hosts weekly parent talks, often in communities that want to follow in Greystones’ footsteps. On a recent rainy night at a primary school in Dublin, the audience of about a hundred groaned as he described how violent pornography had shaped his teenage students’ ideas about sexuality, and how some tech companies were telling soon-to-be 13-year-olds how to bypass parental controls. (“Oh Jesus!” said one father).

Speaking from a decade of experience, Mr. Cleary urged the parents to set limits on screen time and lobby elected officials to demand stronger technology legislation. Rather than instituting bans, he hopes to see these technologies made safer for children.

“What Greystones has done is shown that parents and communities aren’t powerless,” said Mr. Cleary, who took a leave of absence last year to conduct research with Ireland’s Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute. “It’s temporary and imperfect, a stopgap to buy time.”

Grassroots movements are just the beginning, many agree. “Enforcement of online safety legislation to hold platforms to account will play an important role,” said Niamh Hodnett, Ireland’s Online Safety Commissioner.

For now, though, the parents and teachers in Greystones are soldiering on.

Nina Carberry, an Irish member of European Parliament, said she was particularly impressed with a recent “It Takes a Village” project, in which 16-year-olds from Temple Carrig led mentoring workshops with younger students at two local primary schools. In an email, Ms. Carberry said she aims to push for similar models at the E.U. level.

Lauren Harnett, 13, participated in a workshop last year. She found the talks with older children more informative than ones with adults, and less stressful. “They said, ‘If you just use it in the right way, and if you’re open with your parents, you’ll be fine,’” she said.

This year, her first in secondary school, Lauren got her first smartphone. “When everyone around you has one, you want one,” she said. “I could have probably waited longer.”

Timothy Snyder, scholar of European history, of tyranny and genocide, warns about the consequences of Trump threatening to wipe Iran and its ancient Persian civilization, off the earth. That’s genocide. Trump is an immoral monster.

Snyder writes:

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

These are not the words of Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Assad, or Putin. These are the words of the president of the United States, today.

Do not be distracted by circumstances. Of course there are emotions, personalities, politics, a war. None of this excuses that sentence. The reason we have a notion of genocide, and a convention on genocide, is to define certain actions as always and definitively wrong.

Are these “only words”? No, they cannot be “only words.” As any historian of mass atrocity knows, there is no such thing as “only words.” The notion of killing a whole civilization, once spoken, remains. It enables others to say similar things, as when another elected representative compared the entire country of Iran to a cancer that had to be removed.

Whatever happens tonight, the president, by saying such things, has already changed the world for the worse, and made acts of mass violence more likely. If we are Americans, he has also changed our country. He has changed us, because he represents us; we voted for him, or we didn’t vote and allowed him to come to power, or we didn’t do enough to stop him. These words are America’s words, until and unless Americans reject them.

Yes, there have been other genocides, and there are other politicians who endorse genocide. That makes the words of the president worse, not better. Yes, the United States has undertaken atrocities before. That makes it all the more important, all the more urgent, that we catch ourselves now. Neither the evil nor the good in our history determines who we are. It is what we do now.

If we do not say something ourselves about this horror, we allow ourselves to be changed. 

Around the president there will be people, sadly, who work deliberately to normalize the language of genocide. There will be other politicians who find the right words to reject it. One can hope that there will be politicians who find the courage to remove the man who speaks genocide from office. And these words should lead to resignations by everyone who works closely with the president.

But we cannot count on politicians. This is ultimately up to us, the citizens: for our own sake, for the sake of the future of the country, for the sake of a possibility of new beginnings, we need to say something, to someone else, to ourselves: this is simply wrong.

Whatever happens tonight, or any other night in this war, is now legally defined by the president’s statement. In the practical application of the law of genocide, the Genocide Convention of 1948, the difficulty is usually in proving “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Henceforth the intent is on the record, in the published words of the president of the United States and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces about the death of “a whole civilization.”

We all have good ethical and political reasons to reject the president’s words. But those who serve in government, and in the armed forces, have been placed under the legal shadow of genocide by what Trump wrote. To bomb a bridge or a dam or a power plant or a desalinization facility, very likely a war crime in any event, could very well have a different legal significance, a genocidal one, if it takes place after the expression of genocidal intent by the commander and head of state.

The concept of genocide was created by a survivor and an observer of atrocities, Rafał Lemkin, so that we could see ourselves, judge ourselves, stop ourselves. But genocide is not only a concept. It is also a crime under international law, signed by the United States in 1948 as a convention, ratified by the United States as a treaty in 1988. That makes the words I have quoted here the law of the land.

The president speaks genocide. And so we too must speak. Not only about crimes, but about their legal punishment.

When I heard “the sentence,” the one in which Trump declared that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” my blood ran cold. Truly, I was heart-sick. I could not believe that an American President would make such a cruel, inhumane threat.

Where have we heard this kind of language? In the movies, it’s the Mafia mobster who says “do as I say or I will kill you and every member of your family. I don’t want to do it, but you leave me no choice.”

Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of a dreadful, bloody war said, in his Second Inaugural Address:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Trump harbors malice towards all, even our allies. He has charity for no one, seeing everyone outside his own family as a mark, someone he can bully, threaten, bribe, extort, cheat.

The best we can hope for is that Trump chickens out, claims to have an offer from Iran, which may be true or fake. He will humiliate himself and the U.S. before all the world. But he will declare victory and step back from the brink of Hell.

He once mused in public whether he would get into heaven. Clearly, he has doubts because he alone knows what crimes he has committed, what evil deeds are buried in his memory. After what he threatened to do today, there is no chance that he will be admitted to any heaven, unless the door is manned by Satan.

Anand Giriharadas is a brilliant writer whose blog is called The Ink. He had the same reaction I did. He wrote about it. He said what was in my heart. We used to think we were the good guys. Now, we are acting like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin. No regard whatever for human life. No humanity. No decency.

Anand writes:

This morning, President Trump published one of the worst sentences ever verbalized by an American head of state. “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” he posted. And from there the statement continued:

Screen Shot 2026-04-07 at 10.53.42 AM.png

Even by Trump’s basement standards, it is an appalling, lawless, barbaric statement — launched by that chilling first sentence. But it is also a profoundly revealing text.

Start at the beginning. Trump has chosen the word “civilization.” Not regime, not government, not reign, not even country. A civilization. And not just “a civilization” but “a whole civilization,” every last shred of it. It is almost as if Trump heard critics of the Israeli and American-backed assault on Gaza, heard the charges of genocide, and decided to lean into that idea with Iran. It is as if he is striving to become what his critics have accused him of being.

The United Nations, in its account of the law of genocide, notes that it is a crime that is famously hard to prove. The missing element is very often intent. This, it says,

is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique.

But here Trump has eliminated the issue. In the future, intent will not be hard to prove — it will not even be as demanding as it was in Gaza — because Trump just posted it online, with the world as witness.

The second half of the sentence is important, too. We are told this civilization, to be buried by Trump, will never rise again. “Again,” we should note, is one of the most important words in the Trump dictionary (available online for $19.99 if you act now!). Trump’s entire politics is that of Again-ism. What was great can be restored. What was lost can be reclaimed. What was ours and now is shared can be made ours again. So to insist not only that a civilization will be genocided and removed from the living, but also that it will have no “agains,” is to transcend the longstanding and bipartisan hostility to this specific regime in Iran and to suggest that the problem is not simply this government, these ayatollahs, but all the blood of all these people in this place, that there is nothing in this civilization that is worthy of restoration, that there is no germ of value beneath the regime. In this story, Iran is no longer a great old civilization of the world hijacked by a bad regime. It is a culture rotten to the core. This is a dramatic departure in U.S. policy.

Now, in the second sentence, Trump pivots. First he is the genocidaire, proudly so. Now he is the abusive ex-husband at the door. He doesn’t want to hurt you, he really doesn’t, it’s really you who is bringing this upon yourself, he is not acting, he’s just reacting to you, you are the one doing this. He isn’t hurting Iran; Iran is hurting Iran.

From there he moves into total delusion. Having failed at his goal of regime change, by replacing an old ayatollah who was close to death’s door with his considerably younger son, Trump claims to have achieved “Complete and Total Regime Change.” So first he was the cold-blooded whole-people killer. Then he was the abusive ex insisting that Iran is bringing this on itself. And now he is the gaslighter-in-chief, telling us he has done the opposite of what he has done. In fact, he replaced one ayatollah with another who may have decades ahead to pursue a bottomless grudge.

Then: “We will find out tonight.” What he is doing — what he is actively committing — becomes passive. We’re going to find out! Let’s see. The president seems determined to make the United States true to an anti-imperialist shitposter’s most reductive idea of it: a republic founded on genocide threatening genocide unless you free up oil. However much truth may have lurked in phrases like the above, American presidents past have tried to disprove or conceal it. Trump is making this vision of America his foreign policy legacy: oil, or else genocide.

And there is the reality-TV element. The deadline is even in prime time. The man still knows how to make a show. It’s all he knows.

There is something potent in the closing swipe at 47 years of “extortion, corruption, and death,” because while he means the Iranian regime, he is of course the 47th president, and it won’t be lost on many that extortion, corruption, and death have been some of the hallmarks of this wannabe American ayatollah, among whose ambitions have been enabling the spread of religious nationalism, sending women back in time to an age of second-class status, and consolidating absolute control.

There is a ring of truth in there somewhere. Forty-seven will finally end. It will. It is hard to see now, but there is life on the other side of this. Life on the other side of this barbarism, this abuse, this delusion and manipulation, this awful reality show, this corruption and mendacity and selfishness.

Whatever bombs are dropped, Iran’s magnificent civilization will not die. The present uncivilized incarnation of the government of the United States of America will.

In a recent speech, Trump said that the federal government’s top priority was paying for war and national defense. He said that the feds could not afford to pay for daycare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Programs like that, he said, should be paid for by the states, not the federal government.

Trump presented Congress with a budget that requested $1.5 trillion for the military–an increase over the present $1 trillion– while cutting domestic programs.

Attorney Dina Doll wrote this article for the Meidas Touch Network. She describes the ways that Trump is moving government funds–your taxes–directly into his pockets. The man’s a wizard.

She writes:

Davos, Switzerland. 2026 Jan 22. President Donald Trump participates in the Board of Peace Signing Charter Announcement and Signing Ceremony at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum. Editorial credit: Robert V Schwemmer / Shutterstock.com

You didn’t buy the Bible. You didn’t mint the coin. You didn’t sign up for Trump University or bid on the NFTs or book a room at Mar-a-Lago. You opted out of every scheme, every hustle, every grift and it didn’t matter. Because while you were watching an illegal war burn through a billion dollars a day and TSA workers suffered because Congress couldn’t find the money to pay them, Trump was doing something quieter. He was taking yours.

Trump has grifted his entire life. Now he’s just taking it.

The State Department transferred $1.25 billion in foreign aid to Trump’s Board of Peace, pulling $1 billion from international disaster assistance, $200 million from peacekeeping operations, and $50 million from international organizations. Money that Congress authorized for hurricanes and refugees, moved without a congressional vote, into a fund that Trump created by executive order and controls personally. When reporters asked the State Department about it, a spokesperson said they had nothing to announce at this time.

The Board of Peace has one defining characteristic. Trump controls it forever. He named himself chairman for life. No audits. No transparency requirements. No conflict of interest rules. Countries pay $1 billion into a fund he runs to get a seat at the table. It has transferred nothing to Gaza, disclosed nothing about its spending, and received $1.25 billion of your disaster relief money without a word of explanation.

When he leaves the White House he keeps the fund. That is not a loophole. That is the design.

Of course, that’s not the only action Trump has recently taken to pay himself straight from the taxes Americans pay to the federal government. Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax records by a contractor. The problem, beyond the absurdity of the number, is that Trump controls the government he is suing. He confirmed it himself: “I’m supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” The DOJ attorneys who would defend against this lawsuit serve at his pleasure. Bondi is literally the only thing protecting the American people from Trump’s attempt to steal billions of our hard-earned money. Which means, there is an ineffective counsel sitting at the defense table for the American people, Trump on the other side of the negotiating table and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ready to sign the check.

He went from selling people something worthless to skipping the transaction entirely.

Disaster relief money in a fund he controls forever. A $10 billion lawsuit against himself with your money as the prize. A billion dollars a day on an unauthorized war while TSA workers went without pay and American healthcare credits slashed.

There was always money. It just wasn’t going to you.

The grift required something from you. A purchase. A click. A willing suspension of disbelief. You could say no to the Bible. You cannot opt out of your tax dollars. You have already paid. The question is whether enough people understand what is being done with that money to make enough noise that someone has to answer for it.

Americans do not like cheaters. The reason the fraud of Trump’s University landed everywhere it landed was because the story was simple. He took money from people who trusted him and gave them nothing back.

This is that story. Bigger numbers. Higher office. No brochure required.

Tell someone who doesn’t know. The noise is the only friction left.

Dina Doll is: Legal Analyst/Attorney/Community Leader/Mom MeidasTouch Host & Legal AF Contributor/ I explain the law because the law belongs to us all

Appalled by Trump’s erratic behavior and his threats to commit war crimes in Iran–as he said in a news conference, to destroy every bridge and every power plant in Iran–many political commentators are calling for the implementation of the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Last night, Laurence O’Donnell devoted most of his news program on MS NOW to the claim that Trump is insane, and it is time to activate the 25th Amendment.

Trump’s vulgar message to Iranian leaders, posted on Easter Sunday morning, set off a new round of demands to get this unhinged man out of the Oval Office, far away from the power to start a nuclear war on a whim.

After reading Trump’s message, even former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once close to Trump, wrote in a tweet:

Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness.
I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.

Certainly Democrats and most independents would like to see this menace to world peace, the global economy, democratic institutions, and national security removed from office. No doubt JD Vance, despite his sycophancy, quietly would love to be catapulted into the presidency.

BUT…..it’s not going to happen.

To remove a President from office, the Vice President and a majority of his Cabinet must agree that the President is incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office.

Trump’s Cabinet would never agree to remove him from office unless he did something unthinkable. They were chosen not for their competence, but for their personal loyalty to him. Can you imagine Pete Hegseth or wrestling queen Linda McMahon voting to remove Trump? The unthinkable that might change even their minds might be…Trump running around the White House grounds stark naked; Trump ordering the military to drop a nuclear bomb on some country, friend or foe, because they disrespected him; Trump ordering ICE or the FBI to murder his political enemies; Trump engaging contractors to demolish the entire White House so he can erect a high-rise replacement, with his name at the bottom and the top in flashing lights ….The possibilities are limited.

But let’s imagine that Trump does something beyond my poor imagination, something so awful that a majority of his lackeys and sycophants vote to remove him.

That’s not enough. Their recommendation goes to the Congress, where two-thirds of both Houses must approve his removal.

How likely is that?

I say zilch, unless a black swan happens to build a nest on his bleached blonde tresses. A black swan, you may recall, is a metaphor for a totally unprecedented event, one that almost no one anticipates.

The 25th Amendment is not going to remove Trump, because those around him and Republicans in Congress are afraid of him or idolize him. There is only one way to curb Trump’s rage, incompetence, and boundless narcissism: Turn out the vote in November 2026. Sweep every Trump enabler out of office. Restore checks and balances. Elect a Congress that will investigate corruption, grifting, and profiteering. Elect a Congress that will stop his demolition of federal agencies and departments. Elect a Congress prepared to fight his attacks on enforcement of civil rights laws. Elect a Congress that will encourage and protect the votes of every citizen, not seek to suppress them.

The 25th Amendment will not save us. But a Congress devoted to the Constitution and to democracy can limit the damage that Trump has imposed on our government and on our relations with the rest of the world.

A historical note:

The National Constitution Center summarized the 25th Amendment, passed by Congress after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

AMENDMENT XXV. Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

The relevant content–removing a President who is unfit but unwilling to resign–is Section Four.

Section 4 addresses the dramatic case of a President who may be unable to fulfill his constitutional role but who cannot or will not step aside. It provides both a decision-maker and a procedure. The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve.

Things are looking bad these days. We have a rightwing lunatic as President who thinks he’s a king. We are entangled in a war with religious fanatics who are gleefully tearing down the global economy by closing passage through a crucial, narrow waterway. We have a Congress that is supine and subservient to our Mad King. Prices of everything are spiraling up because of aforementioned war.

Time for some cheerful news! Watch this brief clip made by the four astronauts aboard Artemis 2, which has already gone further into space than anyone else. They passed the old record of near 250,000 miles, and they will see the dark side of the moon. That’s happening about now.

They are having a good time.

Heather Cox Richardson reviews Trump’s erratic behavior since he started a war against Iran. He repeatedly announces that he has won the war, that negotiations are going well, and then threatens Iran with obliteration. Is this incoherence “the art of the deal” or is something else going on?

Remember the days when foreign policy was debated by experienced diplomats of the National Security council behind closed doors? When policies were the result of deliberation, not announced at 3 am on social media by the President, acting alone to vent his grievances? Remember when negotiations were led by the Secretary of State, not the President’s son-in-law?

That’s the way it used to be done. That’s the way it’s done in other countries. In the U.S., today, in the Trump era, one man makes policy in the middle of the night, depending on his whim.

She writes:

At 8:03 this morning, Easter Sunday, President Donald J. Trump’s social media account posted: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F*ckin’ Strait, you crazy b*stards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

There are many things that could be going on with this ultimatum, which actually doesn’t sound like Trump’s usual style, in the same way the post of yesterday morning didn’t.

The post appears to be threatening to commit war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure, and it appears to suggest Trump is considering using tactical nuclear weapons. He emphasized the production of such weapons in his first administration. He seemed to encourage this interpretation in an interview with Rachel Scott of ABC News today. She said Trump “told me the conflict should be over in days, not weeks but if no deal is made he’s blowing up the whole country with ‘very little’ off the table. ‘If [it] happens, it happens. And if it doesn’t, we’re blowing up the whole country,’ he said. I asked if there’s anything off limits. ‘Very little,’ he said.”

In 2023 a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt alleged that in 2017, when Trump was warning North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on social media that North Korea would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” behind closed doors he was talking about launching a preemptive strike against North Korea and of using a nuclear weapon against the country and blaming someone else for the strike .

Schmidt reports that Trump’s White House chief of staff at the time, retired U.S. Marine Corps General John Kelly, brought military leaders to try to explain to Trump why that would be a bad idea and finally got him to move away from the plan by telling him he could prove he was the “greatest salesman in the world” by finding a diplomatic solution to his fight with the North Korean leader.

In his own book about that period, journalist Bob Woodward wrote: “The American people had little idea that July through September of 2017 had been so dangerous.”

But Trump’s secretary of state Mike Pompeo told Woodward: “We never knew whether it was real or whether it was a bluff.”

And that is another way to look at the post from Trump’s social media account: that he is panicked that he has not been able to bully other countries into fixing the mess he created by attacking Iran and precipitating the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and is now simply trying to bully Iran. In The Guardian last Monday, Sidney Blumenthal noted that Trump “has declared ‘victory’ more than eight times,” says he has “won” more than ten times, and said Iranian forces have been “obliterated” or suffered “obliteration” more than six times. Blumenthal noted Trump is now threatening to “obliterate” Iran’s power grid and has used the words “decimate” or “decimation” at least six times.

Trump’s crazy post does, after all, push back yet again the deadline for his threats to rain destruction on Iran, which he then extended again in another post at 12:38 P.M. saying: “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”

This dynamic was not lost on Allison Gill of Mueller, She Wrote, who noted: “It was March 23rd. Then March 27th. Then March 30th. Then he gave that weird address on April 1st. [N]ew deadline April 4th. Then April 6th at 7 AM. Then April 7th at 8 PM. And now another address tomorrow at 1 PM. The chaos is intentional.” She also noted that his deadlines and his abandonment of them often seem tied to the rhythms of the stock market.

In an interview with Barak Ravid of Axios today shortly after this morning’s post, Trump reiterated that “if they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there” but also said the U.S. is “in deep negotiations” with Iran and that he thinks a deal can be reached. Trump told Ravid that his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—not Secretary of State Marco Rubio—are talking with the Iranians. Sources told Ravid that mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, and Türkiye are facilitating the talks.

But Iranian officials are refusing to deal with Witkoff and Kushner after they apparently misunderstood earlier negotiations and instead told Trump the talks weren’t going well before he launched strikes. Neither Witkoff nor Kushner is a trained diplomat, and both have deep financial ties to the Middle East. Notably, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who urged Trump to start the Iran war, has invested at least $2 billion in Kushner’s private equity firm.

On March 13, Rob Copeland and Maureen Farrell of the New York Times reported that Kushner is trying to raise $5 billion or more for his private equity firm from Middle East governments at the same time as he is also supposed to be negotiating peace in the region.

But Stephen Kalin, Eliot Brown, and Summer Said of the Wall Street Journal reported today that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has already cost the Saudis about $10 billion, and the grand plans of MBS were already falling short of money. Some of those plans were U.S. investments. The reporters note that even before the war, the Saudi’s sovereign-wealth fund, the same one that invested in Kushner’s private equity firm, had sold much of its U.S. stock portfolio. Last year, MBS promised to invest up to $1 trillion in the U.S. Those investments are now under review.

Regardless of the inspiration for Trump’s post, by itself it tells a very clear story. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi posted: “The American president has lost his mind.”

Journalist Steven Beschloss wrote: “This is an actual post. This is not funny. This is beyond desperate. This is a deeply unwell man who doesn’t belong anywhere near the levers of power. Every member of his cabinet and Congress is complicit in not demanding his removal now.”

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) posted: “If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment. This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”

The 25th Amendment establishes a process through which a majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President, or another body Congress designates, can remove a president deemed “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Murphy was not the only one thinking along those lines. Hollie Silverman of Newsweekreported that on the prediction market platform Kalshi, which allows traders to buy “yes” or “no” shares on the question “Will the 25th Amendment be used during Trump’s presidency?” “yes” has moved in recent days from 28.6% to 35.1%.

Notes:

X:

ChrisMurphyCT/status/2040776740465758422

Bluesky:

momcjl.bsky.social/post/3mis5h2vqf22j

atrupar.com/post/3mircanvivc27

brandonfriedman.bsky.social/post/3mirrdrhshc2e

muellershewrote.com/post/3mirt6ivxbs2j

muellershewrote.com/post/3mirrzjeacc2j

markey.senate.gov/post/3mirmazhmfs2j

rrkennison.bsky.social/post/3mirnrdmn2k2p

frankfigliuzzi.bsky.social/post/3miqtagxuhs2o

stevenbeschloss.bsky.social/post/3miqrghkdds2n

Share

You’re currently a paid subscriber to Letters from an American. If you need help receiving Letters, changing your email address, or unsubscribing, please visit our Support FAQ. You can also submit a help request directly.SHARELIKECOMMENTRESTACK

© 2026 Heather Cox Richardson
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 
Unsubscribe

Start writing