As regular readers of my blog doubtless know, I try hard to look at the facts in a given situation, all of the facts, if possible, rather than just those facts that support my beliefs or values. This can be difficult when you’re evaluating actions by Trump and his followers, because they have a continuing tendency to misrepresent facts, or to ignore those which are inconvenient or which conflict with their objectives.

I won’t use the terms “beliefs” or “values” with regard to Trump and company because either term implies a consistency which appears lacking in Trump and most Trumpists, with the exception that everything that Trump does or supports appears designed to increase his own personal power. Add to that the apparent fact that Trump has no fixed beliefs or values, except narcissistic self-interest, and the fact that a large segment of his followers appear to accept whatever he says as fact, even when hard and/or visual evidence contradicts what Trump has declared to be true.

When federal law enforcement agents, such as those in ICE, ignore due process, Constitutional rights, and shoot individuals who have not threatened them or who have questioned the legality of ICE actions, and Trump supports those actions as legal, it should be clear to all Americans that the basics of law and order are being trampled.

When Trump uses federal investigations as a weapon of intimidation and effectively repudiates the Constitution and the right-wing-dominated Supreme Court finds ways to support Trump or to avoid addressing the underlying issues, it becomes more and more obvious that Trump, his lackeys in government, and his supporters have little interest in either law or morals.

The great danger of this situation is that those opposing Trump may decide that facts and words – and even votes – are insufficient in stopping his erosion of legal process and human rights, and that they will have to resort to force in order to preserve those rights.

Doesn’t anyone recall the results of the past attempts of arrogant white males to impose and maintain power through various forms of dubious legal inequality?

If the news reports are accurate, the United States used more aircraft and ships to “extract” Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela than it did on the mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.

While the Trump administration insists that removing the head of state from his own country was in pursuit of a criminal, which Maduro doubtless is, attacking and kidnapping a head of state runs perilously close to an act of war, particularly when the removal required such massive forces.

Under federal law, eight bipartisan, senior members of Congress must receive prior notice of sensitive covert actions. In June 2025, the administration told Republicans, but not Democrats, in advance about the forthcoming U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. For the Venezuela operation, it appears no lawmakers were notified in advance.

Trump insists that the need for secrecy overrode existing law.

What that means is that Trump believes that he can ignore existing law any time he thinks it’s necessary, and I’m fairly certain that the framers of the Constitution didn’t have that in mind.

In addition, Hegseth is now attempting to reduce Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement pay from his service as Naval officer and to censure Senator Kelly for his statement that military officers have a duty not to obey illegal orders. Although Senator Kelly is a former Navy captain and astronaut, his statement was, first, an opinion in line with what all officers are taught, and, second, made as part of Kelly’s position as a senator.

When the Secretary of Defense attempts to punish a retired officer – and sitting Senator – because the Senator disagrees with the Administration, Hegseth’s actions are against both long-standing precedent and the U.S. Constitution, as well as a sign of the contempt both Trump and Hegseth have for the Constitution and the laws supporting it.

Equally unfortunate is the failure of Republicans in the House and Senate to oppose the continuing disregard for the Constitution and the very laws passed by Congress to rein in Presidential overreach.

What good are laws if those controlling Congress allow the administration to break them at will?