In my August 1, blog post, I wondered if Donald Trump’s second term was “Topping Out”? The President looked like the King of the Hill. The Stock Market hitting new highs and tariff-induced deals seemed to promise a manufacturing boom that would take us to untold prosperity, or at least that’s what Trump endlessly told us.

The passage of the Great Big Beautiful Bill, which allows businesses to write off capital investments immediately, is expected to contribute to the upcoming boom. Trump trumpeted his imminent settling of the world’s wars. What’s not to like? I warned of shoals ahead. One problem is that Trump has never had Reagan’s widespread appeal:

The cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy is his ability to use tariffs as a bludgeon to extract concessions from the rest of the world and force American businesses to plead their cases on bended knee, some even giving the Government an ownership stake. The world awaited Trump’s next action.

Yet, the majority of the tariffs had already been deemed illegal by two courts. The appeals court has upheld those verdicts, and we’re awaiting the Supreme Court’s final decision after just hearing oral arguments. If the High Court had only wanted to nullify the tariffs imposed under the single subject law, it could have refused to take the case. That action would’ve avoided prolonging the pain while ending most tariffs.

It’s too horrifying to think that the court wants to take the power to tax away from Congress and award it to the President, so it may wish to clarify how narrow the executive power is in this area, defining what actually constitutes an emergency, setting limits as to the time before you have to go to Congress. The bludgeon may become a twig, and Trump’s economic policy, domestic and foreign, evaporates.

While the President has had some success in fostering peace in some places, the two most significant areas of conflict, Israel and Ukraine, have received vastly different responses from Trump.

Both featured an unprovoked attack seeking to destroy these states ultimately. Israel and Ukraine seek to embrace Western values, while Russia and Hamas profess the opposite. Both Ukraine and Israel have waged truly brave and intelligent innovative wars, much to the shock of their enemies. America should know what the right side is to support, given our values.

While Israel has received the utmost Trump administration support, including direct defensive support and the bombing of a common enemy, Iran, the U.S. only provides arms bought and paid for by others and intermittent intelligence to Ukraine. Trump fetes Israel’s Netenyhu, but treats Ukraine’s Zelensky like a pariah.

Given the similarities of the two wars, what accounts for Trump’s differing positions? The administration, and even the special envoys, are mostly the same. The scientific method seeks to isolate and identify a single, distinct factor that explains a phenomenon.

Vice President Vance’s distaste for Ukraine is hardly a secret, given his part in humiliating Zelensky in the Oval Office. His and his supporters’ views dominate the administration of Ukraine policy. The same people are present in discussions of Middle East policy, but with two notable additions: Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both Orthodox Jews, have also taken part in this area. During the previous Trump administration, they played a significant role in facilitating the Abraham Accords, arguably one of Trump’s most notable foreign policy achievements.

Continue reading →