Tag Archives: Trump administration

American Opinion on the Deportations in Summer 2025.

Posted on by
Reply

The country is deeply divided over the Trump administration’s treatment of illegal immigrants.  There doesn’t seem to be much resistance this time to closing down the Southern border.  The gap opens over what to do about the illegal immigrants who entered the country before the border got shut down.  Do all or most of them get to stay?  Do they all get deported without regard to how long they’ve been here or what role they now play in the economy? 

In June 2025, 52 percent of Americans supported deporting illegal immigrants.  The partisan divide was stark, but also revealing on minority positions within each party.  Those approving deportations included 90 percent of Republicans, but also 20 percent of Democrats.[1]  

Almost as many Americans (49 percent) said that President Trump had crossed some boundary of reasonableness in his sweeps and arrests. Thus, 50 percent of Americans disapproved of President Trump dispatching National Guard and even Marine units to Los Angeles to cow disorderly demonstrators protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers conducting sweeps for illegal immigrants.  Only a third (35 percent) of Americans approved of the deployment of military forces to deal with a civil policing matter.[2]    

If you desire the end, then you must desire also the means.  Either essentially half of Americans desire the end, but don’t want the reality of it shoved in their faces OR their desire for the end is purely rhetorical.  Hard to tell which is true.  Some of each?  Apparently, President Trump desires the end and accepts—even relishes–the means. 

The Republican opponents of deportation may largely represent businesses that depend upon illegal immigrants because many Americans have never known what hard work for low pay is really like.  The Democratic supporters of deportations provide a warning shot—if any more were needed after the election—of the fragility of the party’s coalition.

The 80 percent of Democrats who oppose deporting illegal immigrants doubtless have a variety of motives.  The illegals toil in vital sectors of the economy where the Native-born don’t want to work.  The illegals are in flight from Hell-hole countries (of which there are a great many).  They are just trying to make better lives.  Immigration is what made America great!  Ideally, there shouldn’t be any immigration restrictions at all, except for identifiable terrorists and criminals.  Broadly, on many issues, Democrats are cosmopolitans (citizens of the world and concerned for their fellow citizens) and Republicans are parochial (American citizens and concerned for their fellow citizens).  It will be difficult to reconcile those two positions. 

            In September 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a stay by a federal judge in California that had stopped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from using ethnicity and language as partial grounds for stopping and detaining suspected illegal immigrants.  Some ethnicity and language communities in California “braced” for impact.  One apologist for the government argued that “[M]ost undocumented migrants in Los Angeles are Latino…”[3]  Fine, but most Latinos in Los Angeles are not “undocumented migrants.”  They still are subject to stops and detentions and “show us your papers.” 

[1] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17.

[2] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17. 

[3] The Week’s summary of Andrew McCarthy’s statement in National Review, in “Trump sends ICE into Chicago and Boston,” The Week, 19 September 2025, p. 4. 

Battering elite universities.

Posted on by
Reply

The Second Addams Administration is pounding on Science. On the one hand, there’s R.F.K., Jr. “Nuff said there. On the other hand, the handful of “elite” universities (the Ivy League, the “public Ivies,” and the other great private universities like Stanford and Chicago) are all being menaced with loss of government research dollars and with investigations.

I suggest, just for the sake of argument, that there is a difference between the two prongs of the offensive. Kennedy’s actions pose a serious threat to public health. We’re talking about the increased potential for dead children and other living things.

The attack on the universities is different from this. What Trump and Republicans really want is to put a stop to the left-wing tilt in liberal arts and humanities faculties and in law schools. The great problem here for the administration is that the government doesn’t have much purchase on these people. The amount of public money spent on support for the liberal arts and law schools is minute in comparison to the money spent on Science and Engineering. There are the miniscule (but very welcome) sums paid by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. There are the miserly sums dispensed to support National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The latter amount to welfare for the intellectual left middle class. These are the parts of the universities and public culture that produce and disseminate D.I.E. scholarship and teaching. Turn off the tap on these funds and universities won’t even blink. “Professor Smithers, you have to be willing to sacrifice for your lonely pursuit of Truth and Beauty.”

If the administration wants to force universities to snap a choke chain on D.I.E. stuff, then it has to act like Willy Sutton. Go “where the money is.” Which it is doing by withdrawing funds for scientific research. If the universities want to tap turned back on, then they need to correct course in the liberal arts and the law schools. Sure, it’s humiliating to bend the knee to someone like Donald Trump. What’s more important to the universities, scientific research on cancer or an inter-sectional reading of bell hooks?

Redeemable.

Posted on by
Reply

            Experts are gravely concerned about the state of the Defense Department and of America’s military forces.[1]  In a nutshell, it is doubted that the United States could win a conventional war with a great power opponent, by which is meant China.  We need an honest and probing discussion of these issues.[2]  Instead, Peter Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense unleashed a cloudburst of moral indignation about his philandering,[3] possible sexual assault, drinking, opposition to women serving in combat arms, and proven inability to organize even a two-car parade.[4]  Hegseth himself talked about restoring a warrior culture and “lethality” to American forces, in part by dismantling D.I.E. initiatives.[5]  Much less senatorial and press attention was devoted to his views on issues of budgeting, recruitment,[6] threat assessments, and strategy.  Then there was the charge that Hegseth “has also defended soldiers convicted of war crimes and urged their pardon, which puts our military’s honor at risk.”[7]  Indeed, he did.[8]  Again, the politics of personalities took pride of place.  (Lots of ‘literation let loose.)  Initially, many Republican senators found the allegations “very disturbing.”  Many people thought that he would go the way of the failed nominee for Attorney, Matt Gaetz.[9]  In response, Hegseth confessed that “I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus.”  However, President Trump dug in behind Hegseth.  After an intense lobbying effort,[10] Hegseth won confirmation by the narrowest margin possible.  If he fails as Secretary of Defense,[11] we’re all liable to be redeemed by his Lord and Savior. 

[1] For an alarming report, see: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog  For well-informed discussions of some specific issues, see: Ep 169: Dmitry Filipoff on Naval Warfare in 2025 | Nebulous; Ep 165: Shyam Sankar on a Defense Reformation | Nebulous; Ep 161: Mackenzie Eaglen on China’s Military Spending and Ours | Nebulous  I am grateful to my son, Evan Hill, for alerting me to Aaron Maclean and his  podcast “School of War.” 

[2] See the testimony to Congress of Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin (ret.).  Bing Videos 

[3] In one sense, this preoccupation is justified, rather than (OK, as well as) purely salacious.  Adultery is barred by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Hegseth would be the civilian chief of an organization whose military personnel are required to live under a moral code he has had great difficulty acknowledging.  See: UCMJ Adultery: Punishment For Cheating In The Military

[4] “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5. 

[5] See the column by Bret Stephens, “D.E.I. Will Not Be Missed,” NYT, 29 January 2025. 

[6] Male recruitment has fallen by about 22 percent since 2015.  Female recruitment has not surged enough to make up the difference.  In any case, too many volunteers cannot meet the threshold qualifications for physical fitness and health (physical fitness).  They are rejected before they can flunk out of Basic Training.  “Noted,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 16 

[7] Editorial in WSJ, quoted in “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5.

[8] At the same time, it is uncomfortable at the least to observe the posturing on this matter by journalists and politicians.  One chief subject of Hegseth’s lobbying was Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher.  Gallagher was charged with—among other crimes—the murder of a wounded ISIS prisoner in Iraq.  Gallagher was on his eighth deployment.  The Defense Department doesn’t send SEALs (or Army Rangers) to guard convoys or the perimeter of airfields.  They send them into high-stress situations.  They do it repeatedly.  Someone is bound to crack.  Then they get court-martialed.  What about the civilian and military command structure that sent them?  In any event, see Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) – Wikipedia 

[9] “Trump taps ‘Deep State’ critic Patel to lead FBI,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 4. 

[10] Some of which targeted Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), herself an Army National Guard veteran who served in Kuwait during the Iraq War.  Reportedly, some the pressure got ugly and went beyond normal jawboning or horse-trading.  “GOP senators fall in line behind Trump’s pick,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 5. 

[11] What am I saying, “If”?  He isn’t Bob Gates. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 13.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Why does health care cost so much? 

One theory is that, traditionally, medicine could not really do much for the sick and injured.  For almost all of human history, science and medicine knew nothing of many things.  Anesthesia and antiseptics for example, or what was a “normal” blood pressure or heart rate.  “Doctors” could be “real” or they could be “quacks” and you couldn’t tell the difference.  Surgeons could lop off arms or legs with a fair chance that the patient would survive.  They could do nothing about deep puncture wounds to the thorax.  They could administer heroic doses of laxatives and they could “bleed” patients to restore the balance of humors in the body.  As for psychiatry, Ben Franklin once helped out his sister by paying for her disturbed son to be chained up in a farmer’s barn to keep him from harm. 

Then, from the mid-19th Century onward, a medical revolution occurred.  It was just as dramatic—and probably more important—than the various political revolutions that have enlivened journalism over the same period.  Invasive surgery became safe and commonplace.  Drugs treated many diseases.  Vaccination warded off a host of terrible killers.  Then, in the second half of the 20th Century, still greater marvels appeared.  However, these ones were vastly more costly than the earlier innovations.  Organ transplants and fertility treatments, for example, are very costly.  Chronic illnesses in a population with an extending life-span is a new development.  In sum, modern medicine is just really expensive.  The best solution is to socialize the costs through government taxation and payments to providers. 

Another theory is that none of this is the real explanation for high health costs.[1]  It isn’t ALL medical costs that are so high.  It is only AMERICAN medical costs that are so high.  On a per capital basis, health care is about twice as expensive as it is in other advanced countries (i.e. Western Europe, Japan).  European doctors with comparable education and skills earn about half of what American doctors earn.  Members of the administrative hierarchy in hospitals and medical networks earn high salaries.  Medical tests, surgeries, and prescription drugs are far more expensive in the United States than they are elsewhere. 

According to this second theory, if you want more affordable medicine, you’re going to have to take it out of the incomes of the health profiteers.  This means everyone from your GP to the pharmaceutical companies.  Trying to compress incomes to cut costs for consumers (patients) will involve battling powerful entrenched interest groups, everyone from the American Medical Association to Big Pharma. 

In all of this, the health insurance industry plays the Bad Guy.  They’re the ones who interact with customers/consumers/patients.  Often they bring bad news.  Some charge is denied, or you still haven’t exhausted your out-of-pocket obligations, or you need to get your doctor to re-authorize some prescription that you’ve been taking—and will be taking—for years.  In truth, health insurers make a profit that is less than half of the average profit for corporation on the S&P 500. 

It is interesting that none of this has come up in discussion of Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.[2]  What could/will Trump force through? 

[1] “The reason health care is so costly,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 14. 

[2] “RFK Jr. softens positions amid Senate scrutiny,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 4. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: deporting the illegals and others. 

Broadly, immigrants vulnerable to President-Elect Donald Trump’s promised “mass deportations” fall into three categories.[1]  First, there are the illegal immigrants, whom Democrats long preferred to call “undocumented immigrants,” as if there had been some kind of bureaucratic snafu.  Second, there are those seeking asylum in the United States on the grounds that they face grave danger in their own home county.[2]  Third, there are those in the United States who have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[3] 

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  One careful estimate for the period February 2021 through October 2023 suggested that 4.2 million people had found entry into the United States.  Of these, about 2.5-2.6 million had been released into the country, while 1.6 million were estimated to have evaded all contact with the Border Patrol.  A further 2.8 million were expelled immediately back to Mexico.[4] 

Who goes first?  Thomas Homan, Trump’s nominated ICE commissioner, says that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the United States in addition to having entered the country illegally, will head the list.  Homan also has said that Texas provides a good model for national policy.  Texas governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” has called out the National Guard and put physical barriers along and in the Rio Grande.  Texas has also sent about 120,000 illegal immigrants to Democrat-led cities in the North. 

For a good while now, some Democrat-led cities have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities where local authorities will not co-operate with ICE.  These same cities often receive federal funding for various programs.  The Trump administration could try to compel co-operation by holding back these funds. 

One question is “Can this policy succeed?”  A second question is “What will it cost?”   The latter question has two sides to it.  On the one hand, there is a monetary expense to the government.  One estimate is that deporting a million people a year would cost $88 billion a year.  On the other hand, the illegals work in great numbers in construction, farming, restaurants, and hospitality.  Who will take those jobs if the illegals are deported?  American teenagers and college kids?  The homeless?  Folks for whom coding “boot camp” didn’t work out?  Another cost will come in fewer houses built, less fruits and vegetables in the grocery stores, slower service in restaurants, and longer turn-around times for hotel rooms.  All of it at a higher price. 

So why do it?  One answer is “Democracy, that’s why.”  According to an Ipsos poll,[5] fifty percent of Americans favor shutting down the U.S.-Mexican border.  Citizens live under the laws of their country.  To see the laws openly flaunted may be infuriating.  To see the spike in demand on various kinds of humanitarian support services in places where the illegal immigrants first arrive may be infuriating.  The pay-off through their eventual contributions to the country may be hard to discern in the current moment.  It’s a tough parlay to make. 

[1] “Immigration: Preparing for the crackdown,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] In 2023, about 750,000 people applied for asylum.  Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands p. 3.  Many of the illegals released from custody are asylum-seekers. 

[3] There were 1.2 million people with TPS in March 2024.  How TPS has expanded under the Biden administration | Pew Research Center 

[4] Lori Robertson, Breaking Down the Immigration Figures – FactCheck.org  27 February 2024.  Old-timers may wonder if the “gotaway” estimates resemble the Vietnam War “body counts” of our youth. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

The Kurdish Crisis-of-the-Moment 16 October 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

The Kurdish crisis requires some explanation. First, the idea of Nationalism[1] began in Western Europe, then spread to other areas, slowly.  Eventually it reached the Middle East during the last stage of the Ottoman Empire. It penetrated the Greeks of Ionia, the Armenians, the Kurds, and the Arabs.

Just as the body’s immune system generates resistance to dangers, so did Nationalism among the subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire generate Nationalism among the Turks. Horrific things followed. In brief compass, the Ottoman Turks drove out the Armenians during the First World War, and the revolutionary Turkish Republic slaughtered large numbers of Greek Christians. Regardless of whether these were acts of “genocide,” a ton of Greeks and Armenians died as a result of Turkish government action. (Certainly, lots of Greek soldiers deserved to die for their actions in Turkey, but most of them got away to ships for home, while the civilian population was abandoned to the revenge-minded Turks.[2])  However, many Kurds remained within the boundaries of modern Turkey.

Second, when the George W. Bush administration decided to attack Iraq in 2003 for no good reason, one effect was to fracture the country into its component parts.  A Shi’a Arab majority in the east opposed a Sunni Arab minority in the west and the Kurds in the northern part of the country. Us liking it or not, the Iraqi Kurds saw their self-governing territory as the core of a united Kurdistan. The projected Kurdistan would include Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan, and even Iranian Kurdistan. So, Kurdistan has many enemies and few friends.  OTOH, “neither are they afflicted by the disease of indecision.”[3]

Third, when ISIS attacked out of eastern Syria and over-ran much of Iraq, the armies of Iraq and Syria were rotted by corruption and civil war. The US faced a choice: leave it to Turkey, Iran, and–needs be–Israel to solve the ISIS problem OR thrust ourselves back into regional affairs. The Obama administration chose a partial re-engagement.  Send Special Forces troops as trainers and target-spotters and send US air power. The real heavy lifting would be done by an “Arab” army of mostly Kurds, with an icing-on-the-cake of “moderate” Arabs.

Fourth, basically this worked OK.  Not perfect, but OK. Now we’re faced with the question of how to get out of the “Forever War.” What do we owe to the Kurds, who have been fighting for their own nationalist interests? What do we owe to Turkey, a NATO ally with a large and restive Kurdish population? What do we owe to ourselves, to our self-image?  “You dance with the girl you brung,” my Dad always said.[4]

Fifth, Russia gets Syria? So what? The place is a ruin. The Russians already have alliances with Iran, the Shi’ites in Iraq, and the Alewites of Syria.  All formed under the Obama Administration. Turkey has already bolted on NATO. Much of that seems to be on the watch of the Obama administration. Focus on the essentials of American interests: oil from Saudi Arabia; and–more importantly–the Far East.

[1] I’ll leave aside all the BS that has been talked about of late about Patriotism as “the love of one’s own country” versus Nationalism as “the hatred of other countries.”

[2] See: Smyrna.

[3] See: “”In Harm’s Way.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXzNQHNsQHk

[4] See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcBplbfXgSY

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 3.

Posted on by
2

Last week, a team of people from the Trump administration told a number of senior professionals at the State Department that their resignations had been accepted and that there would be no need for them to remain in their positions until the administration’s nominees for replacements had gotten up to speed.  (Is this the case in other Departments[1] or is it unique to the State Department?  If it is unique to the State Department, then was it the decision of President Trump or of his Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson or of someone else who shall remain nameless, but whose initials are Steven Bannon?  If the decision originated with Tillerson, did it reflect previous contact with the State Department while negotiating oil deals with foreign countries?)

Over the week-end, President Trump reconfigured the “principals committee” of the National Security Council.  While this has been characterized as, among other things, a diminution of the role of the professional military, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security are retired Marine Corps generals.  Thus, it could be construed—OK, misconstrued—as a shift from the Bureaucratasaurus to the Parrisasaurus Rex.

Currently, an estimated 90,000 people from radical-Islamist-ridden “countries” have received visas to enter the United States.[2]  On Friday, 27 January 2017 (one week after taking office) elected-President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing a 90-day “pause” on immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.[3]  This disrupted the late-stage travel plans of about 700 people, who were prevented from boarding U.S.-bound planes.  An additional 300 were halted upon arrival in the United States.[4]

Critics quickly pointed out that no one from these countries had ever committed an act of terror in the United States.  Implicitly, this left liberals in the awkward position of defending Sudan, which has waged a war of aggression—that the left has been quick to denounce as “genocide–in western Sudan, and that Sudan provided a safe haven to Osama bin Laden until President Bill Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against suspected al-Qaeda terrorist sites inside Sudan.  In contrast, countries whose citizens have engaged in terrorism against the United States—Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia—escaped the ban.

Massive protests followed at airports, in the streets, in Congress, and on editorial pages.  Not to mention that Iran launched a ballistic missile in a “test” shot: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are Iranian-dominated countries, in the Iranian view.[5]  None the less, a snap poll revealed that almost half (49 percent) of Americans approved President Trump’s order, while 41 percent disapproved the order.  Various courts were quick to block the order.  All the same, neither refugees nor those foreigners seeking visas are protected by the Bill of Rights.  Indeed, that’s why so many people want to come to the United States.

The deep polarization of American politics continues into the post-election period.  However, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton appeared to be much of a healer.  So,,,

[1] This leaves the estimable-I’m-instructed Sally Yates out of the discussion.

[2] The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.  To be picky, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian-born “underwear bomber” who tried to bring down an airliner headed to Detroit (why?) had been recruited, trained, and armed in Yemen; al-Shabab in Somalia has recruited a number of Somali-Americans from the upper Midwest.

[3] The temporary and limited ban easily could be extended and broadened.  But why would it have to be?  President Trump has already succeeded in scaring the be-Muhammad out of Muslims and potential immigrants.

[4] “Travel ban prompts chaos, protests,” The Week, 10 February 2017, p. 4.

[5] “How they see us: Trapped by Trump’s travel ban,” The Week, 10 February 2017, p. 15.