THE PUTIN APPEASEMENT PLAN

The 28-point Trump peace plan for Ukraine, as leaked to the public last Friday, would have been better named The Putin Appeasement Plan. The so-called peace plan, as leaked, might as well have been authored by the Kremlin (and perhaps was).

In fact, at the start of talks between US and Ukrainian officials this week in Geneva, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ended up having to deny that the Russian government had anything to do with drafting the plan.

Summed up briefly, the plan’s talking points—which were clearly unacceptable to Ukraine, and would be to any country that had been the victim of such massive foreign aggression, and that had fought as long, as bravely, and as hard as Ukraine has—included measures that would basically have tied the hands of both Kyiv and the leaders of Europe, while opening the way for further expansionist aggression by the Putin regime. Indeed, if it is true that the document—reportedly leaked to the press by an official of the Ukrainian government—was  formulated solely on the suggestions and demands of President Donald Trump and his Secretary of State (“Little”) Marco Rubio, then these two top-ranking US officials should, from here on out, be considered Russian agents.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed satisfaction with advances made in the Geneva talks on November 23^rd and 24^th and the Trump administration and Ukrainian delegation released a joint statement expressing optimism when the preliminary talks ended.

According to that statement, “Both sides agreed the consultations were highly productive. The discussions showed meaningful progress toward aligning positions and identifying clear next steps. They reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a sustainable and just peace…
Ukraine and the United States agreed to continue intensive work on joint proposals in the coming days. They will also remain in close contact with their European partners as the process advances.
Final decisions under this framework will be made by the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States.”

President Volodymyr Zelensky

It was obvious to everyone, apparently, except Trump that the original 28-point plan wasn’t going to fly. At least not with Zelensky…or the EU…or, it would seem, either of the two main US political parties.

First, from what we know about the original document—the terms of which continue to be re-discussed, not only Ukrainian land illegally annexed and militarily usurped by Russia, but also parts of Ukraine’s territory that Russia has yet to be able to successfully wrest from the hands of its rightful owner would be summarily handed over to Putin.

Second, if some sort of peace deal were reached (by some miracle), Ukraine and the world would simply have to take Moscow’s word with regard to not only the future security of Ukraine, but also of the rest of Eastern Europe. Ukraine is a key piece in the European security puzzle, and, according to Trump’s plan (which was never consulted with the EU), neither Europe nor NATO would be able to post troops in Ukrainian territory as a guarantee against future Russian aggression.

Third, not only would Ukraine be forbidden from having European troops on its soil, but it would also be required to reduce the size of its armed forces, and of its cache and variety of weapons, with long-range arms capable of striking back against Russian aggression being specifically prohibited.  

Fourth, the resulting treaty would have ensured that Ukraine could never become part of NATO—a stipulation that flies in the face of the best interests of both Ukraine and the rest of Europe.  

Fifth, Ukraine would have received no US military aid, meaning that its only supply of additional war materiel would have to come exclusively from Europe.

Trump had originally given Ukraine an ultimatum to accept the US deal by Thanksgiving (that’s this coming Thursday). Trump told White House reporters that President Zelensky could either accept the US deal, or continue to “fight his little heart out”.

Following the leaking of the so-called plan, the Trump administration came under withering attack from Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike.

Former Senate Majority Leader and senior Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said:  “Putin has spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool. If administration officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace, then the President ought to find new advisers.” He went on to say that, “Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests…And a capitulation like Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan would be catastrophic to a legacy of peace through strength.”

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), warned that, “This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace. Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals…Vladimir Putin.” Wicker added that, “Any assurances provided to Putin “should not reward his malign behavior…in particular, any suggestion that we can pursue arms control with a serial liar and killer like Putin should be treated with great skepticism.”

Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska accused the Trump administration of trying to force Ukrainian capitulation. Specifically, he said, “They’re pushing a surrender plan on Ukraine…It looks like Russia wrote it.” He opined that, “In the war between Ukraine and Russia, the first to surrender was America…This will be President Trump’s legacy if he forces this surrender plan on Ukraine.”

Reiterating Bacon’s sentiment, Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) said, “They want to utilize it (the 28-point plan) as a starting point…It looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with.”

On the other side of the aisle, ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), said, “This is a Russian proposal … There is so much in that plan that is totally unacceptable.” She went on to say that, instead of acquiescing, the US should “put pressure on Putin, provide long-range weapons, impose secondary sanctions…and force Putin to the table for real negotiations…We should not be representing Russia’s interests in this agreement.”

So one-sided "Little" Marco had to publcly
deny it was penned by the Kremlin.

Maine Independent Senator Angus King succinctly said that, “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine.” King added that, in talking to Secretary Rubio, he had concluded that this was “not the administration’s plan,” but more like a “wish list of the Russians.” 

These opinions were echoed by the  Royal Institute of International Affairs, a London-based think-tank better known as Chatham House, whose  stated mission is "to help governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous, and just world." Criticizing the Trump plan, Chatham House foreign relations experts posited that it read “more like a demand for capitulation than a peace deal.” They highlight that many of Russia’s long-standing war aims were fully baked into the proposal, including territorial concessions, limits on Ukraine’s military, and constraining its sovereignty by, among other things, dictating when elections would happen there.

Chatham House also warned that Trump’s plan would weaken Ukraine’s long-term deterrent capabilities by restricting its military and future NATO prospects. The think-tank’s experts pointed out that, bottom line, without strong, legally binding security guarantees (comparable to NATO’s Article 5), Ukraine’s future protection remains uncertain.

Virginia Democrat, Senator Mark Warner, made the point, on Fox News (of all places), that the draft plan was “total capitulation (and) a historically bad deal, rivaling Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler before World War II.” He argued that many of its terms—territorial concessions, military reductions, barring Ukraine from NATO—“are likely to make Xi Jinping happy, just like they make Vladimir Putin happy.”

His reference to the appeasement of Hitler at the start of World War II was spot on, but not original. From early on in Trump’s presidential career, observers have repeatedly mentioned Trump’s almost slavish appeasement of Putin, comparing it to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. Among other places, the danger of appeasing the Russian dictator was made clear here, in A Yankee At Large,  back in early 2022.  https://yankeeatlarge.blogspot.com/2022/03/appeasement-history-repeats-itself-in.html

That danger remains, despite reported advances in the Geneva talks, particularly because Trump has repeatedly proven himself  not to be a trustworthy negotiator—when the chess game doesn’t go his way, he simply kicks over the chess board, and can never be counted on to keep his word. The comparison with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler with the terms of Trump’s original “peace plan” was stunning, since there are major parallels between the two men’s actions.  

In the late 1930s, rather than confronting Hitler militarily, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made concessions to the German strongman, most famously in the Munich Agreement (1938). This pact between Britain and Germany allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland (a region of what was then Czechoslovakia) in exchange for a promise of what was called "peace in our time" (basically a vow from Hitler that he could annex Czech territory if he would go no further).

Chamberlain’s motivation was that his country had been deeply scarred by World War I, giving rise to strong pacifist sentiment, fear of another devastating war, and a hope that reasonable negotiation could avert conflict. But the British PM was completely misjudging Hitler—much as Trump has Putin since 2016.  There was simply no way that Hitler’s territorial ambitions could be quelled by limited concessions, or that he would not risk a broader war if given some of what he wanted. Many international affairs analysts also believe this to be true of Putin, who, they indicate, is bent on returning Russia to the power it wielded under Stalin and the Soviet Union, or to even before that, when it was still the czarist Russian Empire.

By giving in to Hitler’s demands, Britain (and France) signaled to him that aggressive expansion would be rewarded. This emboldened Hitler to push further. This policy weakened the deterrent effect of collective security. Rather than a unified front standing up to German expansion, appeasement led to fragmentation and uncertainty.

In the end, Chamberlain’s gamble failed. With each concession, Hitler gained new strength, and the following year, Germany invaded Poland, leading directly to WWII.

To understand the comparison, you need only look at what Trump’s 28-point plan included: namely, a freeze on the front lines roughly where they are now, meaning Russia would forestall further military advances but retain control over significant occupied territory; reduction of the size of Ukraine’s military; the relinquishing of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations; the lifting or easing of sanctions currently enforced against Russia, and only the weakest of security guarantees for Ukraine against renewed Russian aggression.

Zelensky needs full EU support

Critics argue that the spirit and original letter of Trump’s proposal rewards Russia for its war of aggression on Ukraine, and punishes (rather than standing up for) Ukraine for so nobly and fearlessly defending itself against a superior military aggressor.

After seeing the terms of a truly terrible plan, any improvement negotiated will tend to look better. But that doesn’t guarantee that a clearly Russian-prone US administration will eventually agree to throw out the 28-point plan entirely and forge a deal that will be frankly advantageous to both Ukraine and Europe as a whole, which are clearly the aggrieved parties in Putin’s unprovoked aggression and expansionism.  According to the US Council of Foreign Relations,  “This plan comes at the worst time for Ukraine and its partners,” adding that, “at minimum, Russia will try to put the blame on Ukraine for preventing peace in the eyes of Trump.” The CFR points out that, “Territorial concessions…the international recognition of this territory as Russian …would surrender Ukraine’s most formidable defenses.”  The CFR adds that, “The entire agreement is structured to work via incentives and carrots with Moscow, instead of sticks and punishment.”  

This US-based Atlantic Council suggests that Trump’s influence on any final peace deal should be tempered by congressional discretion. The non-partisan suggests that, if a deal is made, it should go through formal US legal and institutional processes (e.g., Senate ratification) to demonstrate seriousness and to create a durable commitment.

The European Council on Foreign Affairs is specific and adamant about the shape any peace deal with Russia should take. The ECFA makes it clear that  “Borders cannot be changed by force? … All gone in the 28 points … which seem to stem from a different assertion: the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.” The foreign relations group believes that forcing Ukraine to accept the loss of territories to Russian aggression “would create a material threat to Ukraine’s independent existence.” According to the ECFA,  “It would strip Kyiv of its defensive ‘fortress belt’ in the Donbas…and send a powerful signal of impunity” to Russia.

The ECFA concludes that a weak deal like the one proposed by the US, “would, of course, be immoral…But more than that, it would also be a mistake. It would embolden (Russia), teaching Moscow all the wrong lessons. The council adds that such a deal “would trade a bad war now for a worse one within a few years.”

To date, Trump has stubbornly and egotistically sought to keep America’s European NATO partners entirely marginalized from the Ukraine peace negotiations. It is easy to speculate that he has done this because the EU, from the start, would have resisted Trump’s consistent tendency to act as an agent for Putin in the framing of any peace plan.

But the outrageously one-sided 28-point draft plan has so weakened the administration’s credibility both at home and abroad that the EU has been emboldened to insist on a more active role in the negotiations. Clearly, Europe must have a major role in setting the stage for ending the war, and Europeans should be actively providing Zelensky with their backing in insisting that Putin not be rewarded for international aggression and for waging an illegal and illegitimate war.  

Because, in the end, how this war ends isn’t a question of Ukraine’s security going forward, but of the future security of both Eastern and Western Europe. And that is far too important an issue to be left solely in the hands of a man as erratic, self-interested, arrogant and willfully ignorant as Donald Trump.

 

HAS THE US INVADED MEXICO? ALMOST…BUT NOT QUITE

Early this week there was an international border incident involving the US and Mexico. This is what happened. Last Monday, a detail of unidentified men traveling by boat landed on a beach in northeast Mexico. There, they put up signs which declared the beach property of the US Department of Defense, and with a legend reading “Warning: Restricted Area”, and with the corresponding translation in Spanish.

The signs additionally stated that the area had been declared restricted by “the commander”, adding that “unauthorized entry is prohibited” and that “if you are found here, you may be detained and searched”. The warning signs additionally prohibited photography or drawings.

The beach is an area frequented by local Mexican fishermen and known as Playa Bagdad. It is also a popular local tourism destination. It was some of the local fishermen who first alerted the Mexican authorities to the fact that a group of presumed military personnel from the US had crossed the Río Bravo and erected six signs declaring the beach American territory.

US personnel on Playa Bagdad

Playa Bagdad is at the mouth of the Río Grande (known in Mexico as the Río Bravo), where it flows into the Gulf of Mexico (aggressively referred to by the Trump administration as the Gulf of America), close to the city of Matamoros in the Mexican state of  Tamaulipas. Matamoros is roughly located across the Río Grande from Brownsville, Texas. As far as can be determined to date, the beach could actually be as much as five miles inside Mexican territory. 

The move obviously raised a major controversy in both Mexico and the US. By late Monday evening the Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry had already issued a statement to the effect that the Mexican Navy has sent a detachment to Playa Bagdad to remove the signs. In her daily press briefing the next day, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo said that she expected the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to get involved and resolve the dispute. “The river changes its course,” she said. “It breaks loose, and according to the treaty, you have to clearly demarcate the national border.” It is worth noting, however, that the border between the US and Mexico has always been the United States north of the Río Grande and Mexico south of the river. The fact that the detail that erected the signs on Playa Bagdad had to cross the river to do it renders their motives suspicious at best.  

The IBWC mentioned by President Sheinbaum was established in 1889, as a binational agency to oversee border and water treaties between the US and Mexico. In the US, it operates under State Department guidance, while in Mexico, it is under Foreign Ministry supervision. The IBWC is responsible for how the US and Mexico share and regulate the waters of the Río Grande and the Colorado River, overseeing the building and operation of dams and reservoirs, flood control, border sanitation and water quality issues. But it is also in charge of maintaining and marking the international boundary.

Mexicans enjoying vacation days on Playa Bagdad

The US-Mexico border has been established through a series of agreements hammered out over the years. Perhaps the most important of these was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed at the end of the US-Mexican War in 1848. According to that treaty, the border between the two North American nations is the middle of the river, running through its deepest trough. But since rivers naturally change course repeatedly over time, the IBWC was established, among other things, to consistently survey the border area and place territorial markers at strategic points along the Río Grande’s course.

As such, the IBWC has been a useful tool in resolving minor territorial disputes between the two countries over the decades. One of the most important of its decisions came in 1963, and involved a century-old dispute over a six hundred-acres near El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The dispute was finally resolved in accordance with the Chamizal Convention signed between the administrations of US President John F. Kennedy and Mexican President  Adolfo López Mateos. According to that milestone agreement, the disputed land was returned to Mexico, and a decision was made to re-channel the river to create a stable boundary between the two countries.

The last time the IBWC was called upon to resolve the details of a bi-lateral treaty was in 1970, when an agreement was signed in Mexico to end remaining boundary disputes and to maintain the Río Grande and the Colorado River as the bi-national border between Mexico and the United States.

This latest boundary disagreement between the US and Mexico comes as Donald Trump has been making illegal drug trade from Latin America a major administration talking point, which he has backed up with aggressive and highly controversial actions in international waters. These actions have included the destruction of multiple unidentified vessels near Venezuela, and the killing of their crews, with no sound evidence whatsoever linking them to the drug trade. The  war-like operations in international waters, where the US has no jurisdiction, have mostly been carried out using indiscriminate drone attacks.

More recently, Trump has been holding out the possibility of military actions in Mexico against the drug trade. This fact has given a great deal more traction to the incident on Playa Bagdad than it might otherwise have raised.

Trump has repeatedly offered President Sheinbaum US military assistance in taking on the drug cartels. But Mexico has seen this offer in the spirit in which it is being given—as Don Corleone would say, as “an offer she can’t refuse.” But refuse it she has, in no uncertain terms, saying, “it’s not going to happen.”

At a recent press conference at the White House, in answer to a reporter’s question, Trump said, ““Would I want strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? OK with me. Whatever we have to do to stop drugs.” But the implication of the US striking wherever it pleases without the permission and cooperation of the other nation involved flies in the face of international law and could easily (and rightly) be taken as acts of war. It resembles his heavy-handed ordering of military action in US cities in spite of their mayors’ and state governors’ vehement objections.

As for non-compliance with international treaties, at least one expert claims the US was in clear violation of standing agreements. According to Professor Stephen Mumme, while admitting that the mouth of the Río Grande changes with erosion, river flow and silting, “the boundary is set at middle of the most substantial and deepest channel of the river as it enters the Gulf of Mexico.” A Colorado State University professor and specialist in the field of US-Mexican water and environmental issues, Mumme went on record this week saying that, “Mexico was completely within its rights to remove the signs and lodge complaints with the US State Department.”

Professor Geoffrey Corn of the Texas Tech University Law School expressed his confusion about the signs. He said that the type of signs erected were of the sort used at US military facilities. Their purpose, he indicated, was to establish a military security zone. The placement of them at Playa Bagdad, within Mexican sovereign territory was, then, “illogical” at best.

USS Gerald Ford sent to the Caribbean

On Tuesday, the US Embassy in Mexico shared a comment from the Pentagon, stating that US “contractors” had placed signs beside the Río Grande, marking “National Defense Area III”. The Pentagon sought to justify this unilateral action by stating that, “Changes in water depth and topography altered the perception of the international boundary’s location. Government of Mexico personnel removed six signs based on their perception of the international boundary’s location.” While this sounded a lot like the six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other argument, the Pentagon added that the contractors would work with “appropriate agencies to avoid confusion in the future.”

Whatever the case may be, the incident stands as a further escalation of less than neighborly actions by the US Defense Department established earlier this year, when a new two hundred sixty-mile-long National Defense Area (NDA) was set up on the US-Mexico border in Texas. At the time, the head of the US military’s Northern Command, General Gregory Guillot, posited that,  “The establishment of a National Defense Area increases our operational reach and effectiveness in denying illegal activity along the southern border.” In more common terms, however, the setting up of NDAs is tantamount to militarizing border zones, assigning combat troops and equipment to areas that would normally be policed by the Border Guard.

They form part of a policy put in place by the Trump administration last April when the president signed a memorandum titled Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions. The hyperbolic title was in keeping with the Trump White House’s attempt to equate immigration difficulties and drug-trafficking on the southern border with a “foreign invasion”, so as to be able to justify the involvement of the military, rather than going to the trouble of creating policies that seek to make policing efforts more robust, and to establish a more effective immigration policy.   

According to the Northern Command website, the Defense Department enforces a “controller perimeter” in the NDAs to “repel unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, and other cross-border criminal activities”. Suspected trespassers can be detained in NDAs, but then should be turned over to the custody of local law enforcement.

There are other Texas NDAs besides the new one. Another one spans Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. There are NDA militarized zones in other states as well—one in Yuma, Arizona, another in New Mexico, and others near the border between California and Mexico.

What has drawn heightened attention to the Playa Bagdad incident is the bull-in-a-china-shop nature of Trump’s current policies in the Caribbean and Latin America as a whole. It is a throwback to the darkest days of American interventionism in Central and South America, under a bastardized view of the Monroe Doctrine. In recent months, the Trump administration has deployed major military force, including B‑52 bombers and elite special operations troops, and the USS Gerald Ford (the most powerful aircraft carrier ever built)to the Caribbean, citing security concerns and the threat of an “invasion” by Venezuelan drug gangs. Trump is also considering land attacks in Venezuela to curb the flow of illegal drugs and has authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations in Venezuela for the same purpose.

The Monroe doctrine was originally created in 1823—under America’s fifth president, James Monroe—when the US was still a fledgling nation. It was a statement of America’s stand against European colonialism in America, and presumed solidarity with Latin American nations that were struggling to shrug off Spanish colonialism and to forge US-style democracies.

But in the twentieth century, it was reinterpreted under several administrations to underscore US influence throughout the Americas and to bend the will of Central and South American states to fit US policy mandates. This was a policy stance that was prevalent into and through the 1980s—with positively notable exceptions, such as the Carter administration—with the US backing and being involved in the rise of some of the worst, if pro-American, dictatorships on the continent. The Falklands War between Britain and the pro-US Proceso in Argentina, and the death of the formerly US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile served to set a new course for US policy in post-dictatorial Latin America, with the most openly cooperative periods for US policy in the Americas being under the Clinton and Obama administrations.

Trump’s two administrations have been marked, in both domestic and international policy, by a government nostalgia for the bad old days—pre-civil rights, pre-women’s rights, pre-human rights, and pre-international cooperation—with a return to the twentieth-century interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine (very likely without the administration’s conscious knowledge that that’s what it is) and gunboat diplomacy.

A number of noted historians have made observations regarding the bastardization of the Monroe Doctrine’s original purpose. They have noted that while the doctrine contained a commitment to resist further European colonialism in the Americas, it resulted in some aggressive implications for US foreign policy, since there were no limitations on its own actions mentioned within it.

Venezuelan fishermen in the type of boat the US is 
indiscriminately blowing out of the water.

Among others, US scholars William Appleman Williams, Jay Sexton and Noam Chomsky have provided some of the most succinct analyses of the doctrine’s post nineteenth-century applications.   Williams has referred to the twentieth-century interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as justifying American imperialism. Sexton saw it as becoming what it had been implemented to prevent, being used to justify a similar colonialism to that under which the US itself suffered in the pre-Revolutionary War era. Chomsky, for his part, has viewed contemporary use of the Monroe Doctrine as successive administrations’ tool for the declaration of American hegemony in the Americas and as a statement of their “right” to intervene throughout the continent.

Since September 2^nd, the US has conducted at least twenty-one military strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, killing about eighty people. Again, it should be noted that there has been no compelling evidence forthcoming from the government that any of these attacks in international waters was justified. In the absence of such evidence, it is just as likely that these were fishing or small private or commercial vessels as that they were boats involved in drug trafficking.  

President Sheinbaum has made it clear that she has repeatedly told both Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that her government refuses to entertain any notion of US intervention on Mexican soil.

She was recently quoted as saying that, “He (Trump) has suggested on several occasions, or has said, ‘We offer you a United States military intervention in Mexico or whatever you need to combat criminal groups’.”

President Claudia Sheinbaum Prado 

Sheinbaum said she was open to accepting collaboration and intelligence-sharing with the US military, but reiterated that her government would not permit outside intervention from the US or any other country within Mexican borders.

Specifically, President Sheinbaum said, “I’ve told (Trump) on the phone. I’ve said it with the State Department, with Marco Rubio. We do not accept an intervention by any foreign government.”

It is worth noting that this is, by all accounts, the general sentiment throughout the Americas. Even though Venezuelan authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro is not broadly supported by leaders of other countries throughout the region, Trump’s gunboat diplomacy with regard to that country will only serve to galvanize regional support for Venezuela, if not for its leader, then at least for the country in the face of American aggression. This is mainly true because, contrary to the Trump administration, political leaders in the rest of the Americas do indeed read and recall history. They are, then, bound to be wary of the sort of actions that once had disastrous consequences for self-determination, when US imperialism reigned throughout the continent.  

 

 

 

WHITE HOUSE FLAG-DOWN

 

This picture was posted by former Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger. I fact-checked it and it's legitimate. The picture was taken on November 17^th by a Getty Images photographer Mandel Ngan.

On posting it, Kinzinger wrote, “If this picture was of Obama, you know Fox News would do three weeks solid on why the flag was on the ground. At least three weeks.”

The White House has released a statement claiming that the flag was never on the ground, but was lowered into a “special receptable” as a precautionary procedure due to high winds and the presidential helicopter that was landing at the time. But I have some questions—which shall, necessarily, remain rhetorical (because I don’t expect any answers will be forthcoming).

First, you’ll note that it is apparently dark in the photo. On every military base where I served during my three years in service in the US and abroad, the flag was retired, in a ceremony known as “Retreat”, at sunset, not after dark. So why was the banner still on the staff after dark? Why hadn’t it already been retired before the president arrived?

Second, also in accordance with my own  military experience, even if there was a “receptacle” there in an abundance of caution to keep the flag off the ground as it was being retired, why did the color guard not already have their hands on the flag, cradling and folding it as it was lowered, according to protocol? In a proper Retreat, the colors are not lowered onto the ground or into a box, and onto a table, or whatever. The flag is received, cradled and properly folded as it is being retired, not dropped into a box and folded afterward at the convenience of those in charge.

Third, this would not be the first time that the Trump White House stooped to changing the narrative post facto in order to save themselves embarrassment when they have violated long-honored norms. Ever since a tradition of “alternative facts” was instituted during Trump’s first term, it has become impossible to take anything coming from the Trump White House’s communications section seriously.

Finally, “receptacle” or no, those in charge of Retreat should clearly have been aware of the optics of the flag lying in a heap at the bottom of the flagpole instead of being properly retired and folded as it was being lowered. The image doesn’t lie when it comes to the disdain shown for what is the prime symbol of American democracy.  

It seems a fitting allegory for the disdain Trump shows regularly for everything that patriotic Americans hold scared. It would appear that, at the Trump White House, the flag is nothing more than a rag, a prop that he drags out for photo ops and then has no problem letting lie in a heap. For him, it seems to have no symbolic meaning whatsoever. 

From Cub Scouts to the US Army I was taught that you never let the flag touch the ground. It's a sign of respect for all of those who have given their lives under it, and for the republic itself.

But Donald Trump –a five-time draft-dodger— probably has no idea about such things, and wouldn't respect them if he did. Like he doesn't respect any other patriotic American tradition…or the Constitution…or due process…or the rule of law…or justice...or the co-equality of the three branches of government…or anything else, other than fellow dictators and his own selfish interests.

 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS UNDER IMMINENT ATTACK

 

Freedom of expression (and the right to dissent that goes with it) is the cornerstone of any democracy. If you are dropped by parachute into a place you know nothing about, you can immediately tell if it is governed by an authoritarian regime, because people will be afraid to talk about anything but the weather—and even then, there had better be no complaints. In authoritarian regimes, “nothing is wrong.” It’s business as usual, no matter what. Everything is hunky-dory…as long as it toes the official line. And if you don’t think so, there’s something wrong with you. You haven’t gotten with the program. You are, therefore, a “subversive” and need to be “re-educated”, or eliminated. Dissent, then, is a capital sin.

Because under authoritarian regimes, there is no left, right or center. There is only the official line—and whatever flag it happens to package itself in. Putinism in Russia, Castroism in Cuba, Orbanism in Hungary, Maduroism in Venezuela, Trumpism in America. No matter which flag they wrap themselves in, what they have in common is the alienation and repression of any view but their own—whatever it may be on any given day.

We Americans didn’t use to believe that was any way to live. We literally fought World War II, and accepted the terrible sacrifices made there during our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generations,  as the necessary cost of defending freedom, a basic tenet of which—apart from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—is, again, the right to have, exercise and freely express our ideals and convictions, no matter whether they agree or not with those of the powers that be…or anyone else’s, for that matter.

The current US administration—and the party, and state and local officials who support and defend it, no matter what action it takes—does not believe in freedom of expression. Or rather, they believe in it on a narrowly limited basis. That is, they vehemently defend their own right to freedom of expression (in fact, to voice whatever bizarre insulting, violent or divisive idea pops into their heads) and that of anyone who slavishly agrees with them, but not anyone else’s. Indeed, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they will move to belittle, undermine, denigrate, attack and suppress any view that does not coincide one hundred percent with that of the party’s leader and the administration’s president.

It is no accident that the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States that was passed and ratified is the one guaranteeing free expression to everyone inhabiting American soil. It is also the first of ten points  (amendments) included in what has since become known as The Bill of Rights. The list of basic civil rights guaranteed to everyone inhabiting US territory, and that are inalienable and inviolable by any other law or authority. Made law in December of 1791, freedom of expression is a two hundred thirty-four-year-old law and democratic tradition in the United States. And the mere fact that this administration feels (wrongly, illegitimately and illegally) that it is above obeying it, and somehow empowered to violate it, is a clear indication of the arrogance and authoritarian nature of the country’s current leadership.

The First Amendment is short, succinctly and brilliantly drafted, and crystal clear. It states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In other words, in questions of conscience, point of view, beliefs and opinions, and the stating thereof, the state is, by authority of the Constitution, powerless to dictate anything to the people. And that is true not only for American citizens but for “the people” as a whole—all people, everybody within the boundaries of the US.

It should be noted that the current administration has repeatedly violated the spirit and letter of this constitutional guarantee. And in far too many cases, has gotten away with it.

As an inalienable right, we have not only come to expect it, but are also entitled to it, as a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution. Free speech is where all rights begin, the concrete foundation and starting point for open all political discourse, social critique, and the exchange of diverse ideas.

It is, then, no coincidence that concerns are growing by the day among small-d democratic Americans of all stripes who understand that, if one person’s right to freedom of expression (and hence, to freedom in general) is suspended or repressed, everyone’s right to free expression and conscience is vulnerable and subject to violation. It is a matter of precedent.

Concerns have grown exponentially regarding the status of free-speech rights since President Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025. This was already a matter of deep concern under Trump’s first administration, but the beginning of his second term has proved to be Trump on steroids, a bull in a china shop with his erstwhile “handlers” standing, arms folded, in the street, gazing impassively through the window as he lays the place to waste.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting laws that abridge the freedoms of speech or the press. This protection extends to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal and state courts have consistently upheld broad free-speech rights. The only legal limitations to free expression are in regard to incitement (a principle clearly violated by Donald Trump himself during the infamous January Sixth Insurrection, in which he tried to overthrow the US government and remain in office as a de facto president), obscenity, and national security. Key legal precedents include Brandenburg v Ohio and New York Times v Sullivan, which establish the contours for permissible governmental regulation of speech. No such precedent exists when it comes to efforts by Trump to repressed criticism of his administration and the statement of facts that he denies.

It is worthwhile recapping some of the most blatant violations of free expression under the first Trump regime.

·      The Trump administration restricted press access to coverage of government activities by revoking reporters’ press credentials. One of the most high-profile cases was that of CNN’s Jim Acosta, a newsman of impeccable reputation, who was serving as the chief White House reporter for that major cable news network. Generally speaking, the first-term Trump White House consistently sought to cast itself as the “owner of the truth” and to label time-honored mainstream media outlets as “fake news.” Such actions raised profound concern about government retaliation against critical reporting, and the chilling effect it could have on journalistic independence. Indeed, that effect has more recently become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as major non-news corporations that have bought out the original owners of many mainstream media outlets have begun seeking to muzzle their own journalists to avoid multi-million-dollar lawsuits threatened by Trump and his political machine. Notably, the “taming” of CNN, and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’s silencing of the renowned paper’s editorial board are good examples, but certainly not the only ones.

·      Protest suppression has also been a growing part of the Trump regime’s efforts to silence critics. In June 2020, federal law enforcement forcibly cleared peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House. The excuse was that the square needed to be cleared to facilitate a presidential photo op. The incident drew widespread condemnation and prompted lawsuits alleging violations of free-speech and assembly rights. It also forced a major split between Trump and the then-head of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Millie, who refused an unconstitutional order from the president to use military force to clear civilians out.

·      President Trump and senior officials pressured social media platforms to remove content deemed unfavorable to the regime. They also threatened regulatory actions, and attempted to block critics on official accounts. However, The Knight First Amendment Institute v Trump established that blocking critics on Twitter from official accounts violated the First Amendment.

·      Whistleblowers from among federal employees and contractors who publicly criticized administration policies or exposed misconduct suffered Trump retaliation, including dismissal and prosecution. Notable cases involved whistleblowers in the intelligence community and public health sectors.

·      Lesser-known First Amendment violations during Trump’s first term include restrictions on scientific communication. Reports from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have detailed instances in which employees were discouraged or barred from sharing scientific findings on climate change and public health, in a clear violation of academic and professional speech.

·      The regime also set limits on protest permits. Punitory actions included delays or denials of permits for protests on federal property, including the National Mall and outside federal courthouses. While the administration cited security concerns, its actions were clearly bent on suppressing dissent. At a state and local level, certain Trump-supporting states (Florida, Oklahoma and Tennessee spring to mind) enacted laws increasing penalties for protest-related offenses, broadening definitions of unlawful assembly, and granting immunity to drivers who injure protesters—a literal invitation to extremists to run protesters down. Such laws deter and discourage lawful protest and openly target social justice movements, thus flying in the face of the First Amendment.

·     The regime is also relentlessly attacking education and intellectual freedom. State legislatures and local school boards in conservative districts have passed measures limiting classroom discussion of topics such as race, gender, and history, citing concerns about "divisive concepts." Educators and advocacy groups point out that such actions infringe on academic freedom and student expression. The regime’s culture re-education efforts have also targeted libraries, imposing book bans in chillingly similar actions to those seen in every high-profile dictatorial regime throughout history—a practice tantamount to cultural erasure. Concretely, local governments in Trump-supporting areas have increased efforts to ban or restrict access to books addressing race, LGBTQ+ issues, and social justice, often in response to parental complaints. These bans have been challenged as violations of students' and authors' free-speech rights.

·      Other less-publicized moves by the Trump regime to suppress free expression include gag orders imposed on public employees. Specifically, city councils in certain conservative regions have slapped gag orders on public employees, restricting communication with the press and prohibiting comments on controversial local policies. Similarly, social and cultural activists and organizers in states such as Texas and Arizona report increased surveillance, harassment, and legal threats in response to their advocacy activities, particularly those critical of law enforcement or immigration policies. Some local governments have also limited or cancelled public forums and town halls addressing contentious issues. While these governments have cited security concerns or issues of “decorum”, it is clear that their actions are designed to   silence dissent.

While many of the both high-profile and lesser-known violations of free expression have resulted in lawsuits in which the defendants’ rights have been upheld, it is apparent that the regime’s purpose is to create nuisance suits that place significant pressure, expense and time constraints on their victims, who are subsequently forced to defend their inalienable rights in court, rather than being able to simply assume that they will be respected by what should be (but is not) a lawful and constitutionally respectful administration.

While most Americans have trouble wrapping their minds around what is happening, the regime’s strategy is clear to anyone who has experienced authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world. The overall chilling effect of consistent and progressive repression is that it creates a climate of caution, and discourages people from expressing dissenting views or participating in protests, particularly in areas where enforcement of speech restrictions is aggressive.

The situation has only grown more grave since Donald Trump returned to office at the beginning of this year.

·      Since January, the Trump administration has imposed new and ever more aggressive federal restrictions on protests. Increased limitations have been imposed on the issuing of permits for demonstrations near federal facilities. The protests of activists citing these restrictions as nothing more than moves to suppress anti-Trump dissent have fallen on deaf ears.

·      The Trump White House has intensified its efforts to control the narrative in the presidential press room by revoking the legitimate credentials of multiple journalists from outlets critical of the administration, thus hobbling these outlets’ ability to report on official events and briefings.

·      Executive orders have been issued to expand federal oversight on major social media platforms, often compelling them to remove content deemed “anti-government” or “incendiary”, when the materials suppressed are usually just run-of-the-mill criticism of the regime’s actions. Civil liberties groups contend that these measures have led to the removal of legitimate political speech from much of social media discourse.

·      In Trump’s new term, federal prosecutors under orders from regime rubber-stamp Attorney General Pamela Bondi have aggressively pursued government whistleblowers, using expanded interpretations of the Espionage Act to deter disclosures of official wrongdoing.

·      At a state and local level, Trump-supporting governments have enacted policies and practices that restrict free-speech rights. Some lesser-known incidents include campus speech restrictions: State legislatures in several pro-Trump states have passed laws restricting campus protests, and otherwise limiting the ability of students and faculty to voice dissenting opinions or to criticize government policies. This is particularly true at all levels, from federal to local, when it comes to foreign students. Under the Trump regime, these students, many of them from authoritarian-ruled countries, are now prohibited from experiencing what was once the pride of the United States—namely, the equal rights of any and all people inhabiting American soil. In the healthy cultural exchange that was once presumed in multi-national educational programs, these students now return home with the sad but authentic belief that there is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world and that the ideas of equality in America are a false narrative and a PR myth.  

·      Other authoritarian advances in education include book bans and curriculum control , with local school boards sweeping numerous books off of library shelves—a grim reminder of book-burning rallies in Nazi Germany before the Second World War—and imposing curriculum changes to eliminate materials perceived as “anti-American” or “anti-Trump” (which MAGA equates as one and the same thing), undermining academic freedom and access to diverse viewpoints.

·      Latest local violations of the constitutional right to free expression include local ordinances against free assembly. City councils in certain municipalities have enacted ordinances requiring prior approval for public gatherings, which have been used to deny permits for rallies opposed to local or federal policies. This is a chilling emulation of local practices under dictatorial regimes in other parts of the world.

·      Local media are also being targeted. Community radio stations and independent newspapers in some areas have faced selective licensing reviews, funding cuts and official advertising boycotts after publishing content critical of local officials aligned with the Trump administration.

We are, furthermore, seeing the development of patterns in governmental actions, and therefore, the institutionalization of repression under the Trump regime. For instance:

·      Use of security to justify authoritarian overreach. Both federal and state authorities frequently cite security concerns as an excuse to restrict the right to protest, the right of assembly, assembly, and media access to government activities.

·      Political dissent is also being specifically targeted, with official actions disproportionately affecting individuals and groups that express opposition to Trump administration policies or to local government decisions.

·     We are witnessing expansion of executive power, including increasing use of  executive orders and administrative regulations to enable swift implementation of speech restrictions. This tactic has often bypassed any legislative debate.

·      State legislatures and local governments have enacted laws and ordinances specifically designed to curtail speech in educational, civic, and media contexts.

These governmental actions have triggered a wave of lawsuits. Federal courts have sometimes issued temporary injunctions against certain protest restrictions and press credential revocations, citing First Amendment concerns. Nevertheless, the composition of the judiciary, which has been significantly altered by recent appointments, has led to mixed outcomes. Some lower courts are thus upholding new restrictive regulations, limiting, as such, access to free expression rights.

Legislative changes at the state level have prompted lawsuits from civil liberties organizations, resulting in ongoing litigation and appeals. But the process of overcoming these de facto hurdles for free expression are long, and have the effect of allowing the regime to get away with violating free speech by imposing impromptu restrictions and then letting the victims fight it out in court.

The expansion of executive powers and reinterpretation of existing laws have had a highly pernicious effect on constitutional guarantees, calling the real durability of free speech into increasing question. Legal scholars are voicing concern about the negative effect of court decisions that create precedents that narrow the scope of permissible speech in public spaces and educational institutions. The long-term implications are clearly nefarious.

Beyond legal battles, the damaging  actions by the Trump regime are creating polarization and mistrust of government institutions on the one hand and of media outlets on the other. Media critical of Trump administration policies, have faced diminished access and heightened scrutiny, hindering their ability to inform the public properly and fully. Civil society organizations have also experienced pernicious effects, with activists and community leaders expressing reluctance to engage in public discourse due to fear of retaliation or prosecution. Academic environments have suffered as well, with restrictions on campus speech, stifling debate and undermining the role of universities as forums for the exchange of ideas. The suppression of community media has limited access to alternative viewpoints, reducing the diversity of information available to local populations.

Overall, the erosion of free-speech rights undermines the ability of citizens to hold government accountable, to participate in policy debates, and to express dissenting views. If current patterns persist, the US risks a decline in civic engagement and a further weakening of democratic institutions, which are already languishing at unprecedentedly low levels.

This is all key in  the advancing authoritarian takeover of the United States. There is a clear reason why the first thing dictatorial regimes do is launch aggressive campaigns to muzzle the press, restrict assembly and discourage the expression of diverse ideas and ideals. The reason is that these are the foundation of a healthy democracy, and democracy is the nemesis of authoritarianism. Seen in this light, and judging by not only its words but also its actions, the ultimate goal of the Trump regime couldn’t be clearer.