John Kliewer's Web Site

Author: John Kliewer

  • Pam Kliewer

    All the publication-ready information I have for Pam’s funeral is now up at

    https://www.turrentinejacksonmorrow.com/obituaries/pamela-mcnabb-kliewer


    I still need to work on the obituary and will upload that when I get it done.

  • Canada Election

    Incumbent Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected to a full term April 28, which makes a 4th consecutive term for Canada’s Liberal Party. Carney defeats Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party candidate, who has promoted a brand of populism that has been compared to Trumpism. (That’s what I read. I haven’t kept up with Canadian politics.) This is a remarkable turnaround for the Liberals. Recall that longtime former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation in January (effected March 14) due to deep unpopularity and fellow Liberal politicians turning on him.

    “The American betrayal”

    The top issue in Canada’s election, at least for prime minister, was the new reality of an adversarial United States as a consequence of Donald Trump’s reelection as president and the trade war and expansionist threat Trump has instigated. At least, that’s my impression from the scant attention I’ve paid to the election (which is still better than probably 95% of Americans). I’m amazed the deteriorating Canada-US relationship isn’t a top issue in the US because it is for me. I was watching the Today show on NBC this morning. They gave more coverage to a forecasted thunderstorm outbreak and a polar bear chasing a man in Svalbard than the Canadian election. It feels like we’re living in an alternate reality, where we have a president threatening to annex Canada, and most Americans seem pretty unperturbed about it. I still don’t have any idea how we (the US) got to such a low low, and still sinking.

    Carney has said Canada’s traditional relationship with the US is “over”. I hate that, and it’s the last thing I want. Trump was reelected by those who support him and outnumber me, and this is what they want: a relationship in which the US subjugates and bullies Canada, and perhaps even worse. Carney is merely acknowledging a new reality that Canadians, and many like-minded Americans, never asked for. I hope Canadians know that a sizable segment of the US is aghast and opposed to this, though shamefully few Americans are speaking out. Canada has American friends, but that doesn’t mean Canada shouldn’t stand up to the US and fight back. To the extent that deteriorating relations have a tangible negative impact (economic, national security cooperation, etc.) on me, that’s on the Trumpists, not the Canadians. Carney said solemnly in his victory speech “We are over the shock of the American betrayal”. I’ll eventually get over the shock but never the betrayal.

    Antagonizing friendly countries

    There’s a plurality of Americans (so it seems) that supports a foreign policy which preys upon our friends and allies. It’s morally reprehensible. Betrayal is a Trumpist value, not an American ideal. Friends might seem like easy prey because they don’t have the defensive posture that our enemies do.

    To the Trumpists

    You might think you’re really sticking it to them now, but our friends will not remain our friends, especially if this continues. You’re burning bridges, trading long-term, mutually and immensely beneficial foreign relationships for short-term superficial gain, if even that. Our longtime friends won’t forgive the US for this – you (Trumpists) deserve it, but I don’t. But then, I care, and you don’t.

    Trumpist iconoclasm

    Iconoclasm is one of the driving forces behind Trumpism. It’s fun to demolish things. It brings instant gratification, whereas building things takes time, patience, and the discipline to follow through. As long as this gratuitous destruction doesn’t materially affect the Trumpists, they think it’s funny and watch others getting swacked with glee. That’s why they think it’s cool to have a president that pushes other countries around. Even when it does affect them (like federal employees caught in mass firings), they generally don’t regret supporting Trump. I think there’s a spiteful satisfaction that, yeah Trump got me, but Trump will get “others” (immigrants, Canadians) even worse. That’s never what I thought the US was or would ever become. In the US-Canada relationship that was, I see the greatest bilateral relationship, on cultural, economic, security, and geopolitical levels, that we could ever aspire to be so lucky to have. The Trumpers see the same thing and think: wouldn’t it be fun to demolish that and watch the Canadians and anti-Trumpists squeal? This is how people I used to respect and thought I knew really think. Trump has empowered tens of millions of Americans to wear their true colors on their sleeve.

    We’re racking up a debt of goodwill that we’ll be paying off for decades to come. Countries have chosen to align with us, especially post-World-War-2, rather than other world powers because we’ve historically welcomed ties on generous terms with countries friendly to the US, though generally tilted in our favor. It will take decades to rebuild what Trumpists chose to forfeit for their own amusement.

    Where does a real American go from here?

    I can only hope I and other like-minded Americans rise to the calling of the times and keep fighting the good fight. It will be a long-term endeavor. Even with our best efforts, it will take years to see major improvement in our country’s moral fiber. I’ll try and do my part to treat Canadians like the friends they always were. The Trumpists have already banked a durable victory: they’ve shattered the trust that Canada and Europe had in the US. At best it will take decades to rebuild, presuming that Trumpism will be relegated to the ash heap of discredited and ruinous ideologies where it belongs, and after enough forever Trumpers die off.

    NORAD

    It may seem out of place, but I have to add this because I can’t stop thinking about it. I keep wondering about the future of NORAD, the joint Canada/US command that monitors our joint airspace and coordinates the air policing that keeps our countries safe from airborne threats (enemy bombers, hijacked kamikaze airliners, etc.). How can NORAD survive such a hellish betrayal by one partner against the other? Both countries will be less safe for it.

  • Defying the Courts: Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador who’d been living in the US, was wrongfully deported to El Salvador along with a tranche of deportees flown from the US to El Salvador on 3 flights. El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has accepted immigrants deported from the US for detention in El Salvador, most notably at the gigantic new CECOT prison, in exchange for payment from the US. Abrego Garcia’s case raises questions about whether others on those flights, or more broadly those deported by the Trump administration, were rightfully deported. I question why the media isn’t looking into the other deportees (maybe they have and haven’t found anything untoward, yet). In this post I focus on the Abrego Garcia case.

    Facts about Abrego Garcia

    • Citizen of El Salvador.
    • Entered the US illegally “sometime around 2011“.
    • “2019 court order said he could not be returned to El Salvador” according to CNN. This is was due to a “clear probability of future persecution“. I’m unclear whether he was still classified as an illegal alien after that order (CNN says he “had not been legally in the US prior to his deportation”). An immigration judge had ordered in 2019 that Abrego Garcia not be deported to El Salvador, and the Trump 45 administration did not challenge the order at the time. All indications from my research on this are that he was indeed wrongfully deported.
    • The Trump administration said he was deported by mistake due to a clerical error, and then walked that back.
    • Arrested March 12 in Maryland by ICE agents “due to his prominent role in MS-13” according to a court declaration from a senior ICE official.
    • Deported to El Salvador March 15.
    • Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, requested a protective order against him in 2021. She says that they’ve since worked through their issues and that he’s a loving husband and father.
    • Abrego Garcia “has not been charged with or convicted of any crime“.
    • Was held at the CECOT maximum security prison in El Salvador. Sen. Chris Van Hollen reported that he’d been moved to another prison.
    • Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has refused to release him, referring to him as a “terrorist” in comments to reporters in the Oval Office.

    Gang member or not?

    The Trump administration alleges that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to Politico, US District Judge Paula Xinis found “the government had presented no evidence that Abrego Garcia was a gang member”.

    I can think of several reasons the government might allege he’s in a gang:

    • Presuming they don’t carry photo IDs with advanced anti-counterfeit features identifying them as card-carrying gang members, it could be difficult to prove or disprove gang membership. (Not that I know how gangs work.) The Trump administration might see this as room to maneuver.
    • The order prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador cites threats to his life from gangs in his home country. Is Trump trying to undermine that narrative by alleging a contradictory offense?
    • He is a gang member, and they’re only releasing tenuous circumstantial and/or conjectural evidence, not the evidence. It’s possible they’re holding such real evidence close to the vest because they want this to play out for a while longer and then show that we have been supporting a gang member. That would be a problem for many reason, one being that you don’t play games like that with the courts.

    His purported membership in the MS-13 gang is not legal grounds for disregarding the 2019 anti-deportation court order. He is still entitled to due process in which the government must present this accusation in court. The government might be able to persuade a court to jail him stateside while the proceedings are proceeding. The government can’t legally deport him without the anti-deportation order being lifted.

    Defying the courts

    The Trump administration has changed its story on Abrego Garcia.

    It was an “administrative error”

    First, the DOJ said he was deported by mistake. A 3/31 court filing states “On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error“. When asked by the judge why the US couldn’t simply ask for Abrego Garcia’s return, Erez Reuveni, the immigration lawyer handling the case on behalf of the DOJ, said “The first thing I did when I got this case on my desk is ask my clients the same question,” adding that he did not get a direct answer. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired (or put on leave?) Reuveni.

    It was on purpose

    More recently, the Trump administration has doubled down and said it was not a mistake. “The only mistake that was made is a lawyer put an incorrect line in a legal filing that since has been relieved of duty,” Stephen Miller said. CNN reports that “The Justice Department hasn’t changed its characterization of the error that sent Abrego Garcia back to El Salvador.”

    I don’t have a good handle on whether or not the government willfully violated a court order in deporting Abrego Garcia. Suffice it to say, the government was more in hurry to deport aliens than it was concerned about doing the diligence to ensure a “mistaken” deportation did not occur. His warrantless arrest on March 12 was putatively about his suspected membership in the MS-13 gang. This administration has been very willing to flout orders to bring him back (perhaps with some assistance from the Republican wing of the Supreme Court).

    Constitutional implications of disregarding the courts

    According to an April 17 ruling by the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals: “The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.” If Abrego Garcia is provably a member of MS-13, why doesn’t the US “facilitate” his return to the US, prove his MS-13 membership in court (where he and his lawyers would have the opportunity to answer the charges), and then petition the courts for his deportation based on him being a bad guy? Either the administration doesn’t believe their “evidence” will stand up, or they deliberately want to pursue this as a test case to normalize the executive branch running roughshod over the courts. Or both.

    Judge Xinis ordered April 4 that the government “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” The government appealed on April 7, and the Chief Justice John Roberts stayed the order. On April 10, the Supreme Court issued this order. The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t contradict the lower court, but, excluding Sotomayor’s addition (see below), it was not the full-throated demand to follow the lower court order that it should have been. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruling agreed on facilitate from the lower court order but demanded clarification on effectuate “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs”. This opened the door for the Trump administration to cite the fact that Abrego Garcia is in a foreign jurisdiction as an obstacle (see below). I can’t tell if the Republican justices were offering Trump a way out or trying to duck a fight with Trump. Either way, it makes the Supreme Court look weak and ineffectual.

    Why it matters to all of us

    In normal times, these issues seemed esoteric. Trump’s all-out campaign to consolidate executive power at the expense of the rule of law has forced us to consider constitutional protections we always took for granted.

    Trump is trying to establish that he and his subordinates can flout court orders (with the possible exception of the Supreme Court) and prevail. This particular thrust of executive overreach cannot be considered in isolation. We must consider how Trump’s push to expand other aspects of executive power are interrelated. Consider presidential pardons. This is one power that Trump can leverage to undermine the courts. He can pardon anyone held in contempt or ordered arrested by a court. He can also dangle the promise of a pardon to get his minions to do more misdeeds as payment for a pardon. Executive overreach in exercising different powers has a mutually compounding effect.

    The Trump administration has employed the following tactics to undermine due process:

    • Keeping detention locations secret from the courts and lawyers. See my post on Mahmoud Khalil.
    • Preventing communication with defendants’ lawyers.
    • Sending defendants to foreign countries/prisons.
    • Disregarding court orders.

    If America doesn’t turn this trend around, US citizens could be deported. Will they decide to deport me because I publicly criticize Trump? If they suspend my passport, would that keep me from being able to return?

    Disappearing people

    The Trump administration is trying to set a precedent where once they’ve removed someone to another country, they can wash their hands of any obligation to ever bring them back. In the Supreme Court’s ruling April 10, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s commentary put it well:

    “The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”

    Foreign affairs

    For someone who likes to brag about arm-twisting other countries, Trump is mighty timid about asking Bukele to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the US. Believe me, Trump can get El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia. This is not a situation where Trump has to send in the Marines or anything like that. I doubt anyone buys the Trump administration’s argument that its hands are tied because Abrego Garcia is no longer in US custody. Remember Trump’s assertion about taking Greenland “one way or the other”? Suddenly, when it’s El Salvador, Trump is hyper-sensitive about a country’s sovereignty and not interfering with its internal affairs.

    Ironically, the Supreme Court’s April 10 ruling expressed concern for a US district court’s intrusion into the executive branch’s foreign policy prerogatives, but it was silent on how that issue works the other way around. If Trump gets a pass on having to get Abrego Garcia back to the US, this can get foreign countries and leaders into the business of undermining US court orders, where they provide cover to Trump by “refusing” to allow their citizens to return to a country whose courts ruled they were wrongfully deported. The Republican Supreme Court disregarding this issue is shocking but not surprising.

    Immigrants

    There’s a reason why Trump is zeroing in on immigrants. Anti-immigrant sentiment runs strong, and Trump knows he has overwhelming public support to “crack down” on immigrants. Even less of America is going to stick up for immigrants than for their own. I’m not even really sticking up for immigrants so much as for the rule of law. If I don’t stand against injustice as long as it’s targeted at others, who will stand up for me when it’s my turn for injustice? Trump is counting on Americans not to think this way. It’s up to us to show that he underestimated us.

    Other stuff

    I mainly wanted to discuss the implications of the Abrego Garcia case on the rule of law and individual rights. There are two developments related to this case that I also want to comment on.

    Shameless exploitation

    The story of Rachel Morin’s gruesome murder deserves the widespread coverage it’s gotten. Victor Martinez-Hernandez, an illegal alien from El Salvador with an extensive rap sheet, raped and murdered Rachel while she was on a hiking trail. Martinez-Hernandez was convicted April 14.

    There’s something especially infuriating about foreigners, especially illegal aliens, who come to our country and commit crimes against us. I guess there’s something about such a hellish betrayal of our hospitality, though that pales in comparison to murder, citizen or not. My personal opinion is that if Martinez-Hernandez is indeed guilty as charged, he should be exterminated promptly and without any hand-wringing about how life’s been unfair to him or whatever. I hope he got a fair trial and receives a just sentence (dissatisfying as it might be). For now I presume he was convicted rightly (hope Trump’s remarks didn’t influence the jury).

    I don’t fault Trump for voicing how infuriating it is. I do have a problem when the president erodes the presumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty by railing against accused criminals before they’ve been convicted. More galling is the Trump administration’s messaging conflating the unrelated cases of 2 Salvadoran illegal aliens: Abrego Garcia, who has not been charged with a crime, and the rapist/murderer Martinez-Hernandez. Watch the White House press conference here, in which White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recites a laundry list (for which I need evidence, as Leavitt and everyone else close to Trump has zero credibility with me) on why Abrego Garcia is a terrible human being, in a bid to dehumanize him (dehumanization being a common anti-immigrant tactic). Leavitt then yields the floor to Patty Morin, Rachel’s mother, who recounts the horror of her daughter’s murder and ordeal of the aftermath.

    Trump is trying make our willingness to let his administration flout the law in the Abrego Garcia case into a litmus test on whether we condone allowing vermin like Martinez-Hernandez into the US. It’s a false choice, patently ridiculous, and cynical, but many Americans will consume that narrative like candy. It’s good politics with the Trump base.

    Van Hollen visit

    Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, traveled to El Salvador to meet Abrego Garcia. The media made it sound like he would be denied a meeting. Then, April 17, news stories ran with photos of Abrego Garcia and Van Hollen at what appears to be a hotel.

    There are 2 reasons this is a positive sign:

    • Abrego Garcia was able to meet a US senator, who could then report on his well-being and whereabouts and bring him messages from the outside world (his wife, lawyers, etc.), and also let him know his story has been widely covered in the US media.
    • That the meeting took place suggests Bukele decided to allow it. Until then, he had been in lockstep with Trump on Abrego Garcia. I’m curious if this represents a split with Trump or if Trump privately gave his approval.

    Margaritas

    This seems minor, but it’s telling. Bukele posted on X about Abrego Garcia “sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!”. Van Hollen said they drank water and coffee and that government officials had placed the margarita-looking glasses on the table but that they never drank from them. This is a bizarre thing to stage. It’s like Bukele went out of his way to wear his disingenuousness on his sleeve and didn’t care how obvious it was to the rest of the world. Really, he didn’t think Van Hollen would speak out that it was staged if he portrayed the senator and Abrego Garcia as pals consuming margaritas together?

    One more thing

    If Abrego Garcia is returned to the US, I hope he doesn’t do anything to make those of us supporting his return regret it. It wouldn’t change the validity of the arguments I’ve made, but it would undermine them in the court of public opinion. This is why I generally discourage turning victims into into heroes (unless it’s a victim who also performs heroic deeds). People always disappoint when you look closely enough. This is about the rule of law, not how great a human being Abrego Garcia is.

  • What to Make of Mahmoud Khalil?

    Is Mahmoud Khalil someone I should support or condemn? I’m talking about whether or not he should be jailed/deported, not his views on Israelis vs. Palestinians.

    About Mahmoud Khalil

    • Born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. Holds Algerian citizenship. 30 years old.
    • (Now former) graduate student at Columbia University.
    • Prominent activist in the anti-Gaza-War protests at Columbia.
    • Has not been charged with a crime.
    • He’s a permanent US resident (has a “green card”). His wife is a US citizen.
    • Khalil’s wife is 9 months pregnant with their first child. This is being reported in the media as if it should have any bearing on how his case is adjudicated. If he’s being wrongfully persecuted, it would be just as wrong if he was single and childless. If he’s guilty of something that justifies deportation, then he, not the government, is responsible for the misfortune this brings upon his family.
    • On April 11, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Khalil could be deported. Khalil is appealing.

    Troubling actions by the US government

    There are several things about the way the government is pursuing this case that trouble me.

    Transfer to Louisiana

    Khalil lives in New York (Manhattan). Why has he been transported to and held in Louisiana? To separate him from his wife and lawyers? Judge shopping? (Judge Comans’ court is in Louisiana.)

    No charges

    The government hasn’t alleged that Khalil broke any laws and seems to be grasping at straws to find some, any justification to deport him.

    • A rationale given by a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman was that his arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” There are 2 problems with that.
      • Antisemitism is vile, but to prohibit antisemitism is to prohibit “wrong” thought or speech. The government doesn’t get to do that. Also, I kind of want the antisemites to speak up and show the rest of us who they are.
      • “Antisemitism” is overly broad. I don’t know of Khalil being explicitly antisemitic, but it’s not a hard sell for me considering his ties to the BDS movement (more about that below).
    • An NBC News story from March 11 reports that the White House alleged pro-Hamas propaganda was distributed at the campus protests Khalil organized. Did he know about or participate in that? Also, today is April 13. What are the grounds for jailing him all this time?
    • The government claims he worked for UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) and withheld that on his visa application. Israel had alleged that 12 UNRWA employees had participated in the October 7 attack, which resulted in the Biden administration halting funding to UNRWA. That’s 12 too many, but UNRWA claims to have around 28,000 employees, or 0.04% who Israel alleges were Hamas terrorists that participated in October 7. Considering that Hamas had been ruling/infesting Gaza for many years, I’d be happy if the number was really that low. The government seems to be making a very loose guilt by association argument.

    Meddling from the top

    Very senior officials (Secretary of State Marco Rubio) are taking a very public profile on this case, and that’s unusual (unusual historically, not unusual for the Trump administration). Normally this sort of thing is handled by much lower rank-and-file officials.

    The senior people need to refrain from public comment and let the system work. I don’t know if the presumption of innocence until proven guilty technically applies here, but if he’s guilty, then why not let the system work? If the system doesn’t work, then that’s what the senior officials need to be concerned about. I don’t want senior officials micromanaging, especially on matters of minor (if any) offense. Their job is to ensure that the system works properly. If it does, then it will do what is right.

    It’s like the senior officials are prejudging a case before the accused (of what I’m unclear on) has his day in court. That’s not to say senior officials should never intervene in such proceedings, but that should be the exception, when the system breaks down, like when there’s an edge case with extenuating circumstances.

    Executive branch overreach

    The executive branch (State and Homeland Security departments) wants to deport him without due process. They can bring a case to the courts, but they don’t get to decide – the courts do. They have to prove in court that deportation is warranted by the law and the facts of the case. Judge-shopping undermines this, as does undermining access to legal counsel. A hallmark of the Trump administration has been to flout the checks and balances the other branches of government have on the executive. Many people think this is good because it’s expedient. I hold this truth to be self-evident: unchecked power leads to corruption. If the checks are undermining the legitimate functioning of government, then fix how the checks are implemented. Don’t eliminate them.

    Anti-Israel sentiment at Columbia

    Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)

    Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) is a movement to weaken Israel through economic isolation. BDS existed long before the Gaza War. BDS is manifestly anti-Israel. I personally believe BDS strongly correlates with antisemitism. I’d even say BDS is the present-day hub of left-wing antisemitism.

    Columbia has a BDS student organization called Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). Read more about CUAD here. (Note, CUAD also espouses leftist anti-Americanism.) Khalil served as a CUAD activist and a negotiator between Columbia administrators and CUAD about the protests. Here’s an interesting article in Politico by someone who knew Khalil at Columbia, which states one of CUAD’s demands being for Columbia to “cut all its ties to Israel”.

    CUAD is radical. CNN reported that CUAD retracted an apology it issued when one of their members (not Khalil) said in a video posted online that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”. When you’re trying to build a broad coalition, there’s an imperative to accept people whose views on other issues offend you but who agree with you on the issue. You should take careful consideration before excluding someone, but sometimes that’s the only sensible option. Here I’d say Khalil showed poor judgment in choosing the company he kept (assuming he’s not like-minded).

    Civil disobedience

    Khalil was a negotiator with the school administrators on behalf of the student protesters. I’m not clear on the extent to which Khalil lead or instigated civil disobedience. If the protesters did choose him to represent them, that suggests he did indeed have leverage to get the protesters to accept a deal (none was ever reached).

    Civil disobedience is for those who so believe in their cause they’re willing to put everything on the line (ability to finish school, future employability, etc.). Civil disobedience (when breaking the law) is not free speech. In principle, I don’t condemn civil disobedience if other avenues to fighting injustice aren’t available or effective. I do have a problem when it shuts down classes, blocks students from accessing resources at the university, or threatens/intimidates Jewish (or any) students. Presuming Khalil was an active participant in civil disobedience, he needed to keep these issues in mind. He might have broken the law (no charges filed) and thus willingly chose to make himself susceptible to prosecution.

    If I’m contemplating civil disobedience, I’d better be sure I understand what my cause is and that it’s righteous.

    Journalism that would impress me

    Khalil’s case has been covered extensively in the media. As is typical of the media, the coverage has been shallow. If there’s a journalist covering the Khalil case who isn’t afraid to overachieve (and isn’t overruled by their powers-that-be), these are questions I’d want explored:

    • Has Khalil ever said anything really bad, like calling for the annihilation of Israel “from the river to the sea”, supporting Hamas’ terrorism/violence, dehumanizing Jews? Do you have that on video?
    • Were pro-Hamas materials disseminated at rallies he organized? What materials? Show me pictures. If so, was he involved in their dissemination, and did he even know about it? (When you organize a rally, you have to think about how that rally might be co-opted by unsavory actors.)
    • Has he ever spoken out against Hamas, even as he has advocated for Palestinians? The Palestinians are people too, and they have been disenfranchised (by their own leaders, not just Israel). There’s plenty room for support of Palestinian self-determination without supporting Hamas. I’m all for Palestinian aspirations for a better future, but, for me, a credible pro-Palestinian advocate must condemn Islamist terrorism to have a seat at the table of rational debate.

    The Bait and Weasel Effect

    Here I described what I’ll call the Bait and Weasel Effect. (There’s probably an accepted term for this phenomenon, but I don’t feel like looking for it.) This arises in situations when someone has to act right in order to get an irrevocable reward that will allow them to act as badly as they want (and in perpetuity) without consequence after the reward is bestowed. To name a few examples:

    • tenure
    • lifetime appointment of federal judges
    • granting citizenship or permanent residency

    Ways to mitigate:

    • Vetting. Better vetting is better but not sufficient by itself. It’s impossible to screen out all the faithless actors.
    • Don’t make it so absolute or irrevocable. This is the most appealing, but it’s also a slippery slope.
    • Live with it. This is the least appealing, but to some degree it’s inevitable.

    I don’t have the answers, but this is the tradeoff space we’re working in.

    It’s infuriating when foreigners come to our country, badmouth us and our values, lecture us that we must show them the respect they’re entitled to from us, all while soaking up the beneficence our country showers them with. (I’m thinking of Ilhan Omar.) I don’t want such Trojan horses to become permanent residents, even if they’re not a security threat. I don’t know if Khalil falls in that category.

    Perhaps there’s another dynamic that we underappreciate. By letting these ingrates enter our country, keep being here, and keep being their ungrateful selves, they keep us riled. These keeps it for front-of-mind for the rest of us what our values are and that they really do matter. My hunch is that outweighs the “damage” the ingrates actually do. Having gadflies like Khalil could help keep popular support for Israel strong.

    How I feel about Mahmoud Khalil

    As someone purporting to advocate for Palestinians, his own people, it would be a good look for Khalil to regularly condemn Hamas if he’s going to condemn Israel’s actions against Palestinians (which is protected free speech, and frankly I don’t blame him). I found an excellent op-ed (I recommend reading) that poses the question of why Khalil didn’t denounce Hamas (if that’s indeed true, which it seems to be by lack of reporting to the contrary). It could be that he’s cavalier at best about the October 7 attack. Maybe that doesn’t bother him. If he’s all about the Palestinians, why not condemn Hamas for imposing an Islamist terror regime on their own people? Or for instigating a cataclysmic war that has devastated the Gaza Strip and those who live there?

    I also consider Khalil’s prominent role with CUAD, which is unabashedly pro-BDS and anti-American. Should we want immigrants like Khalil? I don’t, but maybe having a few like him has some indirect benefit.

    How I feel about the rule of law

    I believe in the rule of law and having a prescribed legal process that ensures the rights of the accused (even if I dislike that person) are upheld and that leads to a just outcome. How we govern is as important as governance outcomes because the 2 are intertwined.

    Donald Trump wants to expand his power. For that he needs to get loose from the checks on the executive branch set forth in the Constitution (which he swore to uphold when he took the oath of office). The Khalil case was actually a smart choice to test the courts and the court of public opinion because it involves a figure and political views that most of the US would not rally around. If the Trump administration’s motion to deport Khalil is granted, the superficial outcome, that is, Khalil’s departure from the US, will suit most Americans just fine. What bothers me is that it would set a precedent of unprecedented power by the government to deport legal residents without due process, and that this doesn’t bother most Americans.

    Final take

    Keeping in mind that I only know Khalil by what’s in the media…
    The deportation or arrest of Khalil are unwarranted. I also won’t miss him if he’s gone. If we lose the rule of law, I’ll miss that. I think we all will.

  • Vance Visits Greenland

    I go into more depth about Trump’s imperialist agenda vis-a-vis Greenland in my post New American Imperialism. Here I follow up with highlights and lowlights from Vice President JD Vance’s trip to Greenland.

    This was not a visit of friendship. It’s unclear to me to what extent the Trump administration expected Greenlanders to buy that story. Trump isn’t stupid, so I’d say not much. Perhaps, by sending the Second Lady without the VP, they were trying to soften the message. I doubt this was a bid to woo Greenlanders.

    Plan A

    Originally, Usha Vance, Second Lady of the United States, was slated to head what I gather was supposed to be a goodwill trip of sorts, including an appearance at a dog sled race. There was pushback from the public and government of Greenland as well as Denmark. The original itinerary was abbreviated to be an appearance at Pituffik Space Base, with Mrs. Vance’s husband, Vice President JD Vance, added to spearhead the trip.

    I’ve seen speculation that the Trump administration made the change to save face. Had they followed their plans for public appearances in Greenlandic society, there would have been the spectacle of protests, showing the world that the Greenlanders

    • are not cowed.
    • oppose becoming part of the US.

    Apparently there’s some belief that the Trump administration thinks they can convince Americans, at least Trumpists, that Greenlanders want to join the US. That strikes me as a hard sell. I didn’t need to wait for footage of Greenlanders heckling Mrs. Vance at a dog sled race.

    Vance’s remarks at Pituffik

    You can watch JD Vance’s remarks at Pituffik Space Base in full here. Below I take quotes from the video and give my comments. (Note that I don’t have the time or patience to fact check all of Vance’s claims).

    Vance’s speech:

    • 7:23 We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways and Arctic naval routes and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories.
      This is very true. With global warming, the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing for years, making previously icebound parts of the Arctic navigable, and for more of the year. This opens the possibility of shorter shipping routes. The US has ample reason to take an increasing interest in Greenland. The US has no reason to threaten Greenland’s sovereignty.
    • 8:45 Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China, and from other nations.
      What incursions? Show your work. The 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement spells out that safeguarding Greenland’s security is a joint Danish/American endeavor.
    • 9:55 Denmark hasn’t done a good job at keeping Greenland safe.
      From whom, an imperialist US president?
    • 10:42 You [Denmark] have not done a good job by the people of Greenland, you have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change, and because it hasn’t changed, this is why President Trump’s policy in Greenland is what it is.
    • 12:00 We believe in the self-determination of the population of the people of Greenland.
      As long as they choose to join the US? Trump pledged to acquire Greenland “one way or the other”.

    Vance’s answers to journalists’ questions:

    • 15:15 Vance softened Trump’s claim that “We have to have Greenland.” to “We do have to be more serious about the security of Greenland.”. This sounds like an overture to Greenlanders. One thrust of Vance’s remarks seemed to be that he was taking sides with the Greenlanders against their overlords in Denmark.
    • 15:26 …we can’t ignore what I said earlier, which is the Russian and Chinese encroachment in Greenland.
      Show me, Mr. Vance. This is vague, and it could mean naval or air patrols near Greenland. This wording seems crafted to imply that Russia and China actually have a toehold in Greenland, which I highly doubt. The US and Denmark wouldn’t tolerate it, and Greenland is protected under NATO’s umbrella because Denmark is a NATO country.
    • 16:25 We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we’re the only nation on earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.
      This is richly ironic. I do not need to tell you that the US is the country threatening Greenland’s sovereignty. It’s also another swipe at Denmark.

    This speech is another instance of Vance’s in-your-face approach to intruding into the internal affairs of European allies, most notoriously captured in his speech at the Munich Security Conference.

    Outwardly, this looks like a strategy by an expansionist country to sow internal division within another country to encourage a part of that country to break away and join the country pursuing expansion. I don’t know how much Vance’s remarks were directed at Greenlanders vs. directed at Americans, but this strategy has chilling parallels to Putin’s years-long strategy to peel away parts of Ukraine (the Donbas region, before he get impatient and launched the full scale invasion in 2022), Moldova, and Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions). This is but one example of how Trump has adopted Putin’s playbook and methods.

    Closing Remarks

    Trump has pointedly refused to take military force off the table.

    This is not the first unwelcome visit by Trump’s minions. Remember Donald Trump Jr.’s ostentatious arrival in Greenland on Trump Sr.’s plane in full Trump brand livery.

    I stand in solidarity with the Greenlanders in unwelcoming advances from the Vances.

  • New American Imperialism

    President Donald Trump is attempting to usher in a new era of American imperialism. Is anyone raising the alarm?

    One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s agenda has to be his rhetoric saying the US should take land from other countries. The response in America is surprisingly muted. I can think of 3 reasons:

    1. A belief that this is so preposterous, from a president who’s prolific in preposterous output, that it’s not to be taken seriously. You can’t treat it as all bluster when it comes from the president of the United States.
    2. Many Americans are simply apathetic. This topic is worth its own blog post and has to be one of the principal reasons the moral fiber of America has deteriorated so.
    3. Americans that reject imperialism, namely the anti-Trumpists, feel powerless. We presently are a minority in the halls of power, but we’re only truly powerless if we choose to be. I choose not to be, and that’s why I speak out against Trumpism. Writing in a blog isn’t enough. I see it as a starting point in a long game.

    By my count, Trump has made the US takeover of the following countries and territories part of his agenda:

    1. Canada
    2. Greenland
    3. Panama (Panama Canal Zone in particular, not the whole country, though I won’t put it past Trump)
    4. Gaza Strip

    I focus on Canada and Greenland in this post. Panama and Gaza are important too, and I shall revisit those in future posts.

    Attention: Canadians and Greenlanders

    I hope you and other non-Americans are reading this. The Trump presidency is a waking nightmare. I never expected our country to get in a crisis this bad, and of our own making no less. I’m as horrified about it as you are. Before the rise of Trumpism, I never contemplated a president threatening to annex foreign countries, let alone friends. I always thought we were the good guys, even if we made some colossal mistakes that eroded that standing (like invading Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction).

    I watch our president, how he speaks, what he says, and still can’t believe people think this is normal or that he is at all fit to be president. I think if most Americans from 2005 could time travel to 2025, they would say we elected a madman. Even to me, it feels far more like normal than it should. I’ve gotten so accustomed to it that most of the alarm and panic I felt in Trump’s first few weeks back in office have mostly subsided. I have a moral imperative as an American not to get complacent. As an American citizen, I have as much of a right as anyone else to make my mark to make the US that kind of country I want it to be.

    You probably aren’t aware of how divided America is over Trump. I have friends and family on both sides: those that are equally horrified, and those who support Trump unconditionally. There have always been issues that have divided Americans. Historically we’ve been divided along lines like urban vs. rural, coastal vs. interior states, rich vs. poor, race, etc. The Trump divide is very individualized, and not along the traditional lines. Most Americans don’t talk (at least not openly) about Trump or his agenda, including those with strong opinions on Trump. I’m trying to do my part to break out of that pattern.

    Trump’s expansionist designs

    You can’t dismiss Trump’s rhetoric for several reasons:

    • Trump is President of the United States. You have to be able to take the president at his word. You can’t just dismiss it because you don’t believe him. America elects their president to speak to the world on their behalf. The Trumpists did just that in electing Trump. To the Trumpists: you forced us to take what he says seriously, no matter how outlandish, because you elected him president.
    • He talks about it repeatedly. This isn’t a one-off. (And even a bad one-off is bad enough.)
    • The countries he’s threatening, aside from Canada, are essentially defenseless. Furthermore, they’re friendly countries. More to the point, they are not countries aligned with our most powerful enemies, namely China and Russia, that could expect those countries to come to their aid. Trump is threatening Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Why not Cuba, a weak longtime enemy right off our coast? (To be clear, we shouldn’t be invading Cuba.) It might be that the other 3 have something he actually wants. He might expect the people in these countries to be more passive in their resistance than Cuba.
    • Trump has a pattern of endorsing this kind of behavior from Putin. Like “encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to “delinquent” NATO countries. Or, calling Putin’s 2022 reinvasion of Ukraine “brilliant”. He’s very public about his adulation of Putin. We need to consider that this genuinely reflects his values.

    The US cannot conquer any part in the world just because it has a vital security interest there. It’s not just morally objectionable. Imperialism (or maybe I’m thinking of colonialism) is an inefficient way for a world power to impose its will on foreign lands. It works a lot better to partner with local governments. People are more inclined to submit to rule by their own than rule by foreigners. Against expectations, the UK became wealthier after divesting the British Empire post World War 2. I’d suppose it has something to do with that.

    I can’t even believe I have to make an argument for not taking over countries that goes beyond the fact that it’s just plain wrong. Before the rise of Trump, that would have been enough for the great majority of Americans. Trump sees the world as a playing field to be divided up among the great powers.

    Is expansionism ever justified?

    This is an ugly question, but national security imperatives sometimes call for unpleasant and messy tradeoffs.

    First, it would take a lot to convince me that the US needs to expand its territorial claims now or in the foreseeable future. I could even rule that out. I do rule out annexing friendly countries. Having reached a preeminent position in the world, especially post World War 2 (which included acquisition of overseas territory), the US doesn’t have to take land from other countries for national security reasons.

    I’m open to the idea that there are legitimate security reasons for having oversees possessions. Whatever the reasons, they must be compelling, with the US having exhausted the voluntary/cooperative options in obtaining access to those territories. We are not at that point anywhere, least of all in friendly countries. With the possible exception of those who would start an unprovoked war against the US, having security justifications doesn’t excuse away dispossessing the rightful inhabitants of those lands.

    There is precedence for the US and allies taking over foreign lands. The US still holds oversees territories like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. It bothers me that there are lands that are part of the US that don’t have the representation in the US that we have in the States. They’re like second class citizens, and that shouldn’t be, not in the US. Frankly, I don’t know much about it. Maybe there is a semiautonomous status quo that the affected populations are satisfied with (like the relationship Greenland has with Denmark). I always took it as a given, certainly in the US, that consent of the governed with the right to political participation at all levels of government is the cornerstone of the compact between a legitimate government and its people. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

    Trump has tried to sell his annexation aspirations to the US public in part by touting the benefits to those who would be annexed. If Trump really had good intentions for the people he wants to annex, he would be tending to the unresolved issues of the people the US has already annexed.

    British Invasion of Iceland

    This is a fascinating case study of taking over foreign lands for exigent national security purposes.

    The UK invaded Iceland in 1940, during World War 2. Iceland is strategically located along the maritime and air routes between North America and Europe, particular the UK. This made Iceland strategic for both the UK and Germany in controlling the North Atlantic sea lanes. Iceland’s preference was to stay out of the war and not have to pick sides. There had been growing concern in Iceland that the UK or Germany would take over the island. The Brits did it first, carrying out a bungling but bloodless invasion with no forcible resistance. As I understand, there was some relief among Icelanders when it was the Brits and not the Germans. I think the British attitude was something like: we feel terrible about it, but we have to take over your island for our security. The Brits did not harass the Icelanders, interfere with their government, or rule the people. The Brits really wanted Iceland to station military personnel and assets to combat the Germans. While the Brits didn’t give Icelanders a choice about occupying their country, the Brits and later the Americans did want them on their side and tried to do right by them. Today Iceland is a free and sovereign NATO partner.

    Iceland in WW2 was a very different situation:

    • We’re not at war.
    • The US has long had strong security relationships with Canada and Greenland. Both are NATO allies (Greenland because Denmark is in NATO), whereas Iceland was neutral. If we need to ramp up our forward defense posture in those countries to counter a hostile power, we’re already well integrated and set to go.

    Canada

    We have close military ties with the Canadians. Already, Canada is reviewing its decision to buy the F-35. Frankly, I don’t see how they could proceed with such a buy with a country that has shattered a long-standing bond of trust. I also wonder if this means the breakup of NORAD, a joint command of the US and Canada that monitors and protects Canadian and US airspace. This would make both countries less safe. We’ve had a great relationship with Canada for ages and have been blessed to have the best neighbors and friends anyone could ask for. Throwing all that away is totally unforced, caused because America elected a destroyer of alliances.

    I hope that if Trump did order war on Canada,

    • Congress would refuse to declare war and would do everything in their power to restrain Trump, like remove him from office.
    • The military would refuse orders to attack Canada. That so many Americans would vote in a president one could realistically expect to force uniformed officers to have to make such a grave decision, is a disgrace. It still bewilders me that they voted to give someone like Trump the nuclear codes.

    Greenland

    US security interests

    Why does Trump “need” Greenland for national security purposes? Russia is the only plausible reason. That begs the question: why Greenland if he sees Russia as a credible US partner? I think Trump sees Greenland as a vulnerable and exposed target there for the taking.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Greenland and Denmark have long made Greenland available for US (and NATO) defense needs since the Cold War (Defense of Greenland agreement of 1951) and perhaps before then. If we have a legitimate national security need to pursue in Greenland (a new base, more early-warning radars, satellite-tracking stations, etc.), Greenland is likely to greenlight it. This in spite of the fact that we haven’t always been faithful tenants (Project Iceworm). By antagonizing Denmark and Greenland, Trump has probably made legitimate requests that previously would have been freely granted subject to pushback and suspicion. Doesn’t that make us less secure? I could see him using that as a cynical rationale for taking over Greenland. There’s the legitimate concern of Chinese or Russian encroachment in weak and exposed countries. (Chinese presence in the vicinity of the Panama Canal is a legitimate if highly overblown concern.) The fact that Greenland is part of Denmark, long a close and faithful US and NATO ally, is very helpful on this count, and this status quo will keep that from happening.

    Luke Coffey’s article is worth a read. He says it perfectly: “…every American policy goal in Greenland can be pursued through our close and long-standing relationships with both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.”.

    Minerals

    I don’t know whether projections of Greenland’s mineral wealth are based more on

    • assessments of geologists, or
    • armchair speculation that because Greenland is a vast landmass which is mostly covered by an ice sheet that is receding due to global warming, there’s bound to be mineral resources waiting to be exploited.

    My uninformed guess is that Greenland holds considerable untapped recoverable mineral resources.

    There’s no disputing that minerals are vital to our economic and national security. (Perhaps we can soften our need for minerals by consuming less, but that’s another issue.) The way to secure access to vital minerals found only outside the US in recoverable quantities is to maintain positive, win-win relationships with countries possessing those resources. Whatever mineral resources are waiting to be exploited in Greenland, they’re already in friendly hands.

    Greenland’s present export economy is mainly in fishing. Maybe Trump is a seafood lover.

    Where do we go from here?

    What do we Americans need to be doing now to thwart Trump’s expansionist agenda?

    • Speak out.
    • Contact your members of Congress.
    • Elect Democrats in the next election cycle, not because they’re so great but because they’re the only alternative in the foreseeable future to the Republicans, who will do anything Trump commands them. Electing Democrats would be a welcome development, but the job doesn’t end there. We need to stay on them about checking Trump.
    • Civil disobedience. This would be a new tack for most of us. But, we’ll need to up the ante without resorting to violence.
    • I’m still figuring out the rest. Help me out.

  • How to Watch TV Using an Antenna

    I’ve created a Terrestrial Broadcast Television Reception Guide to help anyone who wants to pick up television broadcasts using an antenna. The guide is a bit long, but I wanted to make it comprehensive enough to get most people past any problems they’ll encounter.

    Broadcast TV in the US has become all-digital (to my knowledge the transition from analog is complete). It’s free, and the picture quality is much better than the old analog format, and for a lot of stations it’s better than satellite or cable.

    If you pay for satellite or cable TV and don’t watch much or only watch the local stations, you should seriously consider using an antenna so you can quit paying for TV, if reception is feasible.

  • The Budapest Memorandum

    Formal name: Memorandum on Security Assurances
    More commonly known as: the Budapest Memorandum

    There are many reasons why I support Ukraine. As a Ukraine supporter, an American, and someone concerned about nuclear proliferation, I need to talk about the Budapest Memorandum.

    When the USSR broke up, Ukraine inherited approximately 1900 Soviet nuclear warheads, the world’s 3rd largest nuclear arsenal. At that time, nuclear proliferation was a grave concern, especially regarding the security of nuclear warheads and material in the former USSR. Securing this material was a top US foreign policy priority.

    The Budapest Memorandum was signed in Budapest in December 5, 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine agreed to surrender its nuclear arsenal and accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in exchange for promises that the other 3 countries would:

    1. “respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”
    2. “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
    3. “refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”
    4. “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”
    5. “reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.”
    6. “consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”

    The full text can be downloaded here. The entire document is about a 10 minute read. I recited most of it above if you don’t count the fluff.

    Russia has grossly violated this agreement, going back at least to the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Russia’s violation of Points 1 and 2 are self-explanatory. Russia’s blockade and theft of Ukrainian grain is an example of violating Point 3. Concerning Point 4, Putin has repeatedly threatened nuclear war since launching the full-scale invasion in 2022.

    One shocking development has been Trump’s bid force to Ukraine to effectively cede half of their mineral resources to the US as compensation for US support of Ukraine’s war effort. The finalized deal that Zelensky was meant to sign (still not signed) on February 28, 2025, the day of the infamous blowup in the Oval Office between Trump and Zelensky (with a major assist from JD Vance), seemed to be far less onerous than Trump’s original proposal. I’m convinced the original proposal was a violation of Point 3 of the Budapest Memorandum. I suspect the finalized proposal was too, though the issues of ownership and control were murky to me on reading a leaked draft of the text. It’s plausible, though shameful, that the US would default on its obligations in the Budapest Memorandum. Though the provisions regarding encroachment on Ukraine’s sovereignty apply to the US, UK, and Russia as written, I would have assumed without a second thought that Russia would be the only country of those 3 with which that would ever come up. Trump has done things I thought I would never see from a US president.

    Misconceptions

    Myth: The Budapest Memorandum obligates the United States to defend Ukraine.

    It’s commonplace for the pro-Ukraine crowd, including (otherwise) reputable figures, to claim that the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US to intervene militarily on behalf of Ukraine or provide military aid to Ukraine in the event of an attack on Ukraine. The closest provision to this is Point 4, which is not even close, and only when nuclear weapons are used. That leaves Point 6, which obligates the US to “consult” with Russia and the UK. That’s practically nothing. I like to think that military aid to Ukraine is an appropriate response to Russia’s failure to “consult” in good faith.

    Myth: Ukraine’s nuclear weapons were a guarantee against Russian invasion, a windfall that Ukraine squandered for little return.

    I would not say that is completely untrue, but Ukraine would have faced possibly insurmountable challenges, and at tremendous cost, if it tried to keep its nuclear weapons. Consider:

    • Nuclear warheads do not have an indefinite shelf life. Keeping them in service would have been enormously expensive. Aside from standing up the infrastructure to keep those weapons in service, Ukraine would have to maintain delivery systems that could penetrate Russian defenses to reach their targets. This likely would have been prohibitively expensive.
    • The launch codes for the warheads were controlled by Moscow. Nuclear warheads have safeguards designed to thwart unauthorized actors attempting to detonate them. I will not speculate on how feasible it would be for Ukraine to engineer workarounds, but they were not launch-ready without Moscow’s cooperation.
    • The west would not have embraced economic and financial integration between Ukraine and the west without Ukraine renouncing nuclear weapons.

    Further reading

    See Steven Pifer’s article Budapest Memorandum Myths.

    In short, a Ukrainian nuclear arsenal inheritance would have been no panacea.

    Should Ukraine have agreed to the Budapest Memorandum?

    In hindsight, I don’t know. At the time I would have said yes without hesitating. I also would never have anticipated that America would adopt a Trumpist worldview.

    At the time, Ukraine needed the west more than it needed nuclear weapons that were of questionable utility, and it was an easy call. I could see other countries taking the lesson that giving up their nuclear weapon programs for short term gain is not worth forfeiting their long-term self-sufficient national security. North Korea went all out on becoming a nuclear-armed state at great opportunity cost and remains shunned by most of the world. Ukraine took the high road. North Korea took the low road. Now, North Korea is looking at lot more secure than Ukraine.

    There is bitterness in Ukraine over the Budapest Memorandum, especially since they’re in an existential war against an aggressor it was meant to restrain. If I’m a non-proliferation advocate, countries that voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons and got buyer’s remorse is not a good look.

    Consequences of writing off Ukraine

    I don’t see how efforts to persuade other countries to remain non-nuclear could outweigh the cautionary tale of a defeated Ukraine.
    Countries considering acquiring nuclear weapons are watching what we do about Ukraine. The United States, and really all countries, have a strong interest in preventing nuclear proliferation. At least, that has been the conventional wisdom.

    I want to believe that, even with the US well on its way to dissolving its alliances, a new era of nuclear proliferation is not upon us. I would not blame countries like Germany, South Korea, and Japan for going nuclear. It might be the only responsible option they’re left with, given how irresponsible the US has become in abdicating its role as the leader of the free world. The UK and France have nuclear weapons, but it’s really the US that has provided the nuclear umbrella that has persuaded the rest of the free world (not counting India and probably Israel) not to go nuclear.

    It would be a mistake to construe the Budapest Memorandum to set the upper limit of what the US should do to help Ukraine. At the very least, the US must never infringe on Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as by laying claim to Ukraine’s national resources.

  • Ukraine Update 2025-03-25

    As far as I can tell, Zelensky has not signed Trump’s mineral deal, which seemed to be a prerequisite for resuming military aid and intelligence which Trump paused in the wake of the Feb 28 fracas in the Oval Office. It was very interesting, and encouraging, that the US resumed intelligence sharing and arms supplies to Ukraine when Zelensky agreed to a ceasefire proposal from the Trump administration on March 19. By agreeing, Zelensky obliged Ukraine to observe a ceasefire, but only if and when Russia also agreed. Because the Russians have been making modest but steady battlefield gains and believe they can win, it stood to reason that they would refuse. Sure enough, after about a week of stalling, Putin responded with a “no”. It looked to me like Trump decided to throw Ukraine a lifeline by putting this ceasefire proposal out as a face-saving measure to give the appearance that Zelensky had somehow capitulated to US demands in exchange for unfreezing US aid.

    There have been 2 other US initiatives since then that I want to comment on. The first is an apparent moratorium on attacking energy infrastructure. The Russians claimed it applied to “energy infrastructure”, whereas the Trump administration claimed it applied to “energy and infrastructure”. The Russians continue to attack infrastructure like hospitals. So, in effect it’s “energy infrastructure” only, and that’s presuming that both sides uphold the agreement. This agreement appears to favor Russia because attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure in the winter to freeze out civilians has long been key to Russia’s strategy, and with the winter ending, attacks on energy are yielding diminishing returns in terms of civilian suffering. At the same time, Ukraine has had major successes lately in damaging Russia’s oil industry with drone attacks. It would seem that by enacting a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure now, the timing gives Russia the net benefit. If you factor in the role this might have played in keeping the US aid pipeline open, it’s easy to understand why Ukraine agreed.

    So, that’s 1 for Ukraine and 1 for Russia. With Trump, it could be a lot worse.

    Also of note, today (March 25), Ukraine and Russia agreed to a ceasefire in the Black Sea, according to the White House. This is the theater in which Ukraine has had its most resounding success. Remember that Russia was using its navy to block Ukraine from exporting grain via the Black Sea. With no navy, just drones and missiles, Ukraine was able to sink several Russian warships and push the Russian navy out of the western Black Sea and resume grain exports. I see this as a symbolic agreement, as Ukraine effectively won in the Black Sea nearly 2 years ago.

    Based on the longtime (and 1-sided) bromance between Trump and Putin and Trump’s outlandish and strident falsehoods about Ukraine (Ukraine starting the war, Zelensky being a dictator, Zelensky gambling with World War 3), I still believe Trump intends to abandon Ukraine and that it’s just a matter of timing. It’s not clear to me why he has not cut off aid to Ukraine already. The punditry has speculated that letting Russia have Ukraine would make Trump look weak. I do not buy that at all. How does it look weak when Trump never expressed any desire for Ukraine to prevail? I continue to watch for revelations that might fill in the gaps on Trump’s endgame on Ukraine, if he has one.

  • Opening

    I’m John Kliewer. Welcome to my new blog. I’m new to blogging and figuring this out as I go.

    I decided to start this blog in response to the actions of President Donald Trump upon taking office in 2025 that pose a clear and present danger to the United States. I don’t know how impactful I can be, but I’ve decided not to let those doubts hinder me from speaking out against Trumpism. Each one of us who believes in American values has to ask: if I don’t take a stand now, who will?

    I’ve always had at most a passive role in politics. I consistently voted in the presidential and statewide elections. I’d also written to my state and federal level representatives, probably no more than I could count on 1 hand. Otherwise, I was content to live my own life and let live. That’s no longer enough, if it ever was. Conscientious citizens must become more engaged, both in oversight and communicating with our leaders and among ourselves. Translating that to work, that mostly means doing our homework: reading introduced legislation on issues we care about, taking it upon ourselves to study those issues in depth, and sharing our thoughts and findings with like-minded (or not) individuals. For me, that’s partly what this blog is about. That’s not to exclude other things like contacting our representatives, organizing, public outreach, holding protests, etc.

    Throughout my life I would have been embarrassed to say I was involved in politics. And for good reason: politics in my lifetime has been an embarrassment. It’s always been a domain of pettiness and schoolyard taunts. Just think about campaign ads. It reveals a shocking lack of seriousness about something so consequential as governance and statecraft if you think about it. Yet, most people accepted this as acceptable enough. In these times we are jolted out of our complacency and forced to reckon with just how consequential governance really is. What Trump’s reelection, and the years of degenerating political discourse, has made clear, is that the status quo of minimal engagement by the citizenry has failed. I think we were on borrowed time for decades, coasting from a bygone era of greatness in statecraft. Time’s up.

    Beyond resisting Trumpism and preserving what actually makes America great, we must learn not to settle for mediocrity. As we’re resisting Trumpism, we need to contemplate what a post-Trump America should be like. Part of that is returning to our American ideals, but it doesn’t mean returning to the way we were pre-Trump, for at least 3 reasons:

    1. That got us to Trump.
    2. The past is past.
    3. We were better off then that now but even so well short of our ideals.

    We didn’t get here because of Donald Trump’s existence but because of societal decay that has festered for decades. Trump merely figured out how to exploit it.

    This blog isn’t all about Trump. Now that I have a blog, I’ll use it as an outlet for my other interests too.

    We’ll see where this goes.