John Kliewer's Web Site

Tag: Trump

  • 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.

  • 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.