Since the day after Thanksgiving is usually a quiet day with not much to do, it seemed like a good day to share this film. It was made in 1991. But it was never released because Donald Trump threatened to sue anyone who showed it. It is titled: “Trump: What’s the Deal?“
Archives for the month of: November, 2025
Let us be thankful for the good things in our lives. Our families and friends. Health. Food. The blessings of freedom and democracy, which we must defend every day.
Let us think about those who do not enjoy the blessings of family, friends, good health, shelter, and food.
Do what you can to support those less fortunate than yourself. Lend a helping hand at a local community center or church or synagogue or mosque. Support groups that are helping immigrant families who are living in terror, fearful of being kidnapped by ICE.
Remember that it is not normal to have armed military patrolling the streets of our cities. It is not normal to see masked men pepper spraying fellow citizens in the streets. It is not normal to see armed men chasing people on farms, where they are picking the fruits and vegetables on our Thanksgiving table, tackling them, and whisking them away to unknown detention centers.
We don’t have a crisis of too many immigrants. We have a crisis of a do-nothing Congress that has been unable to pass legislation creating a process for honest, hard-working immigrants to have a legal path to citizenship.
We have a crisis of bigotry, of white nationalists who think they can restore a world of white supremacy that has disappeared. Nope, won’t happen. Twenty percent of our population is Hispanic. About 57-58% is Caucasian. Among children 17 and younger, about 49-50% is Caucasian.
Like it or not, our society is diverse. Banning the word “diversity” doesn’t change reality.
We must, all of us, practice kindness. Gratitude. Generosity of spirit.
This Thanksgiving is a good time to start.
Many powerful people have a vested interest in making sure that the public never sees what and who is in the Epstein files. Democrats, Republicans, powerful corporate leaders. They prefer to keep the files under lock and key.
But didn’t Congress just pass a law requiring the release of those files? Didn’t Trump sign the legislation? Even though no legislation was needed, because Trump always had the power to release the files.
Ethan Faulkner, who blogs at Substack as the “Common Sense Rebels,” says that the files that are released will be carefully redacted and curated. Most, he writes, will never be released. Who used Epstein’s services? The names the public wants to know will be blacked out.
He writes:
Everyone imagines a government cover-up as a team of men in suits throwing files into a furnace.
That’s fiction.
The real cover-up is boring. It’s procedural. It’s legal.
And it works.
The United States doesn’t destroy evidence. It manufactures delays.
It fabricates uncertainty.
It deploys exemptions instead of fire.
The truth isn’t burned.
It’s redacted.
And the machinery that performs this ritual — the system that is right now digesting the Epstein files — is something I’m calling:
The Redaction Engine.
Once you understand this machine, the Transparency Act stops looking like a win and starts looking like a transmission belt feeding secrets into a shredder that no one touches by hand.
- The Architecture of Obscurity
FOIA was sold as a “Right to Know” law.
What Congress actually built is a filtration system — and one that agencies quickly learned how to weaponize.
Inside the FOIA framework sits a set of exemptions that function like hardware components in an industrial shredder. The Redaction Engine uses them as gears.
According to the technical audit in The Redaction Engine: National Security Information Control Architectures , the most powerful of these gears are:
Exemption 1 — The National Security Black Hole
Everything “classified” stays sealed.
But classification isn’t an objective fact — it’s a prediction.
The law only requires a “reasonable expectation” of harm.
Speculation becomes legal justification.
Courts almost never challenge it. They review whether the stamp was applied correctly — not whether the classification itself is absurd. That is not oversight. That is choreography.
Exemption 3 — The Files That Don’t Exist
This one is an entire legal universe.
Statutes like the CIA Information Act let agencies designate “Operational Files” that don’t even have to be searched. They can legally pretend an entire category of documents has left the physical plane.
The public can’t request what the government asserts is not real.
Exemption 5 — The “Embarrassment Privilege”
The “Deliberative Process” clause was meant to protect drafts and brainstorming.
Instead, agencies use it to hide:
*evidence of wrongdoing
*internal dissent
*contradictory analysis
-*early warnings that were ignored
It’s the single most abused exemption in the system.
And then there’s the Mosaic Theory.
This is the government’s favorite intellectual cheat code.
It says:
Even harmless information must be hidden, because it might complete a larger secret picture.
Meaning they can withhold anything, because everything is theoretically meaningful.
This is the neural network of the Redaction Engine.
A legal philosophy that transforms silence into law.
2. The “Active Investigation” Loophole
If the national-security exemptions are the shield, Exemption 7(A) is the sword.
This single exemption — explained in The Active Investigation Shield in Federal Information Law — is the most devastating transparency-killer in the entire system.
It says the government can withhold any record if releasing it could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding.
Notice that phrase again:
Could. Reasonably. Be expected.
Before 1986, the government had to prove disclosure would interfere.
Then Congress changed one word —
and agencies gained the power to hide anything under the logic of “maybe.”
This birthed the most sinister creature in federal information law:
3. The Zombie Investigation.
An investigation that:
*is technically open
*is not being actively worked
*has no timeline
*and can remain “pending” for decades
Jimmy Hoffa’s file?
Withheld for twenty years because “new leads could theoretically emerge.”
This is not oversight.
This is a loophole weaponized into a vault.
Once an investigation is declared “active,” the Redaction Engine locks the file indefinitely.
At this point, open the link and read the rest for yourselves!
Stories have circulated for years about a young woman who claimed that Trump raped her when she was 13. After the case was filed, the young woman–who used the pseudonym “Katie Johnson”–withdrew the charges and was never heard from again.
There are two possibilities:
- The story was withdrawn because it was fraudulent.
- The complainant was offered money to shut up or was threatened with violence if she didn’t shut up.
Now Andy Borowitz revives the story in a podcast with a philosophy professor at Cornell University who was determined to find out what happened. He interviewed her on a podcast.
Andy Borowitz wrote:
Davidoff Studios/Getty Images
(Warning: This post contains upsetting content.)
Last week on my podcast, I interviewed the writer Kate Manne about the disturbing case of Katie Johnson.
Although Johnson’s accusations have never been adjudicated, her account is extremely detailed and, in my opinion, credible.
I interviewed Manne about this case because she has spent a significant amount of time researching it. She also created a transcript of Johnson’s testimony, something that corporate media, which have largely ignored the story, have never done.
After the podcast episode went live, I received many requests from paid subscribers asking me to remove its paywall so that the story of Katie Johnson could reach a larger audience. I have done so, and you can now access it for free here.
In video testimony recorded in 2016, the pseudonymous Johnson alleged that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and raped by Donald Trump when she was thirteen.
It is, as I’ve warned, an extremely upsetting story, but I think it’s important that people know about it. Please consider watching it and sharing it. And thanks, as always, for your support.
What do you think?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. quietly installed an anti-vax extremist as #2 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Ralph Lee Abraham is both a doctor and veterinarian. He served in Congress. In 2024, he was appointed Surgeon General of Louisiana. During the pandemic, he advocated hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin as cures for COVID, echoing Trump. Mainstream scientists found both to be ineffective. He opposed mass vaccinations.
Another blow against intelligence, science, medical knowledge and good health. Another strike against the nation’s premier public health institution. Look elsewhere for sound advice on medical issues.
I discovered Lisa Gonzalez’s blog on Substack recently. It is called “Eleanor’s Squad.” I read this post, which originally appeared on November 11, Memorial Day, as a tribute to members of her family and other people of Hispanic origin who served our country with their heart and soul.
The big surprise in reading her post was learning that about 20% of our population is Hispanic. Most have citizenship, some don’t. ICE is arresting people because they have brown skin. Many are citizens and must suffer days of detention before they are released. Very likely, some are unjustly deported. No way that Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem will deport 20%. Not to mention the many other Americans who do not have white skins,
“For those that will fight for it… freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.”
— Tim Craft, U.S. Marine Corps
I was born on the Fourth of July — fireworks overhead, and a tornado tearing through the edges of town. Maybe that’s why I carry the American spirit of both celebration and storm. And although I was born on the day this nation celebrates its freedom, my uncles and my cousin taught me what the word freedom really costs.
Four men—two Army soldiers, two Marines—each the sons or grandsons of a Puerto Rican foundry worker who came home every night with grease on his hands and pride in his posture. My grandfather never finished high school, but he was proud of his country and raised sons who served—earning medals, scars, and degrees without anyone handing them a thing. They served in Vietnam, in Germany, in Bosnia, in Iraq. They carried radios, rifles, and the weight of a flag that didn’t always claim them back.
One of them was shot up in the jungles of Vietnam and learned he had a newborn niece—me—from a telegram delivered as he was being flown to a hospital. He still carries the shrapnel, and the leukemia that came later from Agent Orange. The medals came too, but no medal will ever heal what he saw. They are proof that he bled when his country asked him to.
And yet, every one of them could be stopped for being brown or speaking Spanish and asked to prove their citizenship. That’s what it means to be a veteran of both war and bigotry: to have risked your life for a nation that still questions whether you belong in it.
And while their loyalty has never been in question on the battlefield, it’s still doubted in the streets and at the ballot box. That’s not only insulting—it’s mathematically absurd.
For the first time in American history, one in five people living in the United States identify as Latino. According to a 2024 study by the University of California, Los Angeles and California Lutheran University, our population has passed 68 million—two million more than just a year before. Latino labor now includes more than thirty-five million workers, growing more than seven times faster than the non-Latino labor force.
Together, our labor produces a $4.1 trillion GDP—large enough to rank as the world’s fifth-largest economy, larger than India’s. And yet, men like my uncles—who bled for this country—can still be told to “show their papers.”
What kind of nation demands proof from the very people who sustain it? What kind of nation questions the citizenship of those who keep it alive? What kind of patriotism forgets the hands that built the bridges fought its wars, and believed in its promise long after it stopped believing in them?
Economist Matthew Fienup, executive director of the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at California Lutheran University, put it plainly: “Time and time again, we find that hard work, self-sufficiency, optimism, and perseverance are the characteristics that underlie the strength and resilience of U.S. Latinos.”
Because resilience is in our DNA.
What we have can’t be taught.
My family didn’t inherit America; they helped make it. And now the numbers finally tell the stories they always knew—and Stephen Miller wants you to forget: that Latino service, labor, and love of country are not exceptions—they are the backbone of the republic.
For at least three decades, the U.S. Census published the most popular surnames in America. The last list, released in 2010, showed us the truth they’re trying to bury:
Garcia. Rodriguez. Martinez. Hernandez. Lopez. Gonzalez.
Thirty percent of the nation’s top twenty surnames trace back to families who crossed oceans, borders, and language lines to build this country. And that’s just from 2010—because, for some reason, they decided not to publish the most popular surnames from 2020. That’s how truth gets contained so the lies are easier to spread (see author’s note).
And that last surname—Gonzalez—is ours.
It’s the name sewn onto uniforms and stitched into birth certificates; the name called out on roll calls and whispered in hospital rooms. It’s the name that’s been saluted, misspelled, profiled, and still carried with pride.
They’ve never needed to prove their loyalty. They’ve already lived the truth of a Marine’s words I once saw hanging on my uncle’s wall: “For those that will fight for it…freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.”
That’s what my family understands—what so many Latino families understand—that freedom isn’t a speech; it’s a promise you keep even when the country doesn’t keep it for you.
They’ve paid for that promise in ways the record books don’t list. As boys, they learned what doors were for—sometimes to open, sometimes to close. White families smiled until the invitations reached their daughters; then the air shifted, polite and poisonous. They learned early that courtesy was armor, and excellence the stealthy weapon that left those who tried to thwart their progress in the dust.
Decades later, after wars and degrees and decorations, they have worked twice as hard to be called qualified. Men who have led troops into fire get reduced to talking points while those who cosplay as soldiers that never saw battle call themselves patriots and wrap themselves in excuses instead of service. They call veterans like my uncles DEI hires, as if discipline, intellect, and courage were diversity quotas. Their ignorance speaks volumes about who’s truly afraid of real merit.
And yet my family will keep showing up, still believing in a country that too often forgets them. Their endurance is not compliance; it’s faith in the possibility that the nation will one day live up to the flag they salute.
The uncle who came home from Vietnam carrying shrapnel and a telegram that said he had a niece was eventually blessed with a beautiful granddaughter—two firecrackers born decades apart who share the same birthday—they all share granddaughters joined by the same Spanish name, carrying the same pride and promise of what this country was meant to be.
They are proof that our story doesn’t end with propaganda, lies, or hatred. The promise lives on in the next generation—in children who instinctively understand that freedom and fairness mean the same thing. Now they carry our family name into classrooms and playgrounds where they will learn what it means to be both proud and careful. They may not know the weight of the history yet, but they feel its rhythm—the music of stubborn belonging that refuses to be silenced.
On Veterans Day, we hang flags and post photos, but the real observance happens in the quiet—in the lives still shaped by service and by the contradictions it exposes. It lives in the way my uncles still stand a little straighter when they hear the anthem, even as the country they defended still asks them to prove they belong. It lives in the children and grandchildren who bear their names and inherit both the pride and the vigilance that freedom demands.
Freedom isn’t fireworks; it’s endurance—the decision to keep showing up, to keep believing, to keep building the country that was promised. So on this Veterans Day, I honor them all: the men and women who valiantly served and fought the wars abroad, the children and grandchildren who carry their names forward, and the families who love this nation enough to tell the truth.
Freedom’s flavor runs in our blood now—salt, sweat, and faith—and with every July Fourth candle we blow out, we’re still making good on the promise they fought to defend.
Author’s Note
On November 11, 2025, while finalizing this piece, I personally watched two official U.S. Census Bureau pages vanish in real time—the main genealogy index for the 2010 “Frequently Occurring Surnames” report and its linked sub-page, as well as those for 2000, and 1990. One moment they were live; but after refreshing, they both returned a 404 error. As of this writing, the surname dataset no longer appears in the Census archive, and the 2020 update has never been released.
Before the links went dark, I saved the files and screenshots that show what those pages contained: the 2010 table listing Garcia, Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, and Gonzalez among America’s twenty most common surnames—each more than 90 percent Hispanic in origin.
Below is my downloaded copy of that list, saved before the disappearance. Here is the link that used to list them:
Original URL (now 404): https://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy/data/2010_surnames.html
Some truths deserve a backup—and screenshots.
Ismael Loera writes in The Fulcrum about the recent scandal at Success Academy, the celebrated charter chain that regularly posts high test scores. Recordings leaked, showing that the leadership required teachers and all other staff to contact legislators on behalf of charter schools.
To a seasoned New Yorker who follows the shenanigans at charter schools, this is no scandal. It’s simply the charter school way of doing business. Both students and staff are props for their political and financial interests. Loera lives in Boston, so she might not be accustomed to Success Academy’s tactics.
Success Academy has been systematic about mobilizing its teachers and its students to demand legislation to protest any restrictions and to oppose accountability. This not a New York City phenomenon. It’s the way that charters get a firm foothold in state legislatures.
The fact that Loera finds this blatant political activity disturbing seems to reflect a certain naïveté. The charter lobbyists in every state have worked as other lobbyists do: they write the legislation; they build in privileges and protections; they attack the motives of anyone demanding accountability. Eva Moskowitz has been more eative than most charter leaders in using students to pack legislative hearings, to take buses to the state Capitol, and to engage in activities to protect the charters’ interests.
Loera wrote:
When I was running a school, I knew that every hour of my team’s day mattered. A well-prepared lesson, a timely phone call home to a parent, or a few extra minutes spent helping a struggling student were the kinds of investments that added up to better outcomes for kids.
That is why the leaked recording of Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz pressuring staff to lobby elected officials hit me so hard. In an audio first reported by Gothamist, she tells employees, “Every single one of you must make calls,” assigning quotas to contact lawmakers. On September 18th, the network of 59 schools canceled classes for its roughly 22,000 students to bring them to a political rally during the school day. What should have been time for teaching and learning became a political operation.
This is not simply about one leader’s poor judgment. It exposes a structural reality in the charter model. Unlike traditional public schools, charters must continually secure their share of taxpayer dollars, which creates pressures that blur the line between education and politics. Public money intended for classrooms can easily be redirected toward political activity.
Success Academy has a history of doing this, having mobilized staff and families for rallies during the early days of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration. More recently, charter leaders aimed pointed comments at Zohran Mamdani’s opposition to lifting the charter school cap in NYC beyond the current limit of 275, avoiding his name but making clear he was the target. That level of hostility toward an elected official’s policy stance edges close to electioneering and shows how charters use taxpayer resources and compromise public trust.
The pattern makes clear that this is not a one-time mistake but a recurring strategy. If a school cannot survive without turning its teachers and its students into a lobbying force, then it does not deserve to survive.
The costs of this pressure are real. Every hour assigned to calling legislators is an hour lost to lesson planning, supporting a struggling reader, or improving curriculum. Involving children in rallies goes even further, turning students into props for a cause they did not choose. Families send their children to school to learn, and taxpayers expect their dollars to fund classrooms, not political campaigns.
I know from personal experience how easily this kind of mission drift happens. As a charter school leader, I once sat through an anti-union presentation about blocking organizing. The tactic was different, but the impulse was the same: using institutional power to shape employees’ civic choices. Whether the issue is suppressing a union drive or directing staff to advocate for legislation, coercing political activity erodes trust and undermines the purpose of schools.
Charter networks have also invested heavily in professional lobbying. Families for Excellent Schools, a former NYC advocacy group for charters, once spent nearly $10 million on lobbying in a single year in New York. Success Academy itself reported $160,000 in federal lobbying in 2024. Those outlays are legal. But was Moskowitz trying to save money by conscripting educators and even students into the work that paid lobbyists usually do? That is legally questionable. The fact that someone on the inside took the risk to leak the recording shows some recognition of how inappropriate these practices were.
Lawmakers have already taken notice. State Senators John Liu and Shelley Mayer called the Moskowitz rally “an egregious misuse of instructional time and state funds” and urged a formal investigation.
Publicly funded institutions should never compel political participation, and clear boundaries protect everyone. Leaders know their limits, employees know their rights, and families can trust that students will not be pulled into political theater.
Policy reforms can strengthen those boundaries. Oregon bars employers from disciplining workers who refuse to attend political or religious meetings, and Connecticut bans mandatory political meetings outright. New York should adopt similar protections and go further for publicly funded schools. Any requirement that employees engage in political lobbying during work hours or with public resources should be explicitly prohibited. Students should never be taken out of class to participate in political events.
Some will argue this is only one leader’s excess. That response ignores the incentives built into a model that ties school growth and charter renewal to political capital. Unless lawmakers act, the cycle will repeat. The safer and fairer path is to set boundaries that keep politics out of the school day, protect staff from coercion, and safeguard children’s learning.
When I left school leadership, a mentor told me, “The real test of a model is what it makes people do under pressure.” The Success Academy scandal is a test for the charter sector, and it’s failing. Institutions that rely on coerced speech to sustain themselves are not just bending rules; they are breaking faith with the families and taxpayers who fund them.
Ismael Loera is the Director of People and Culture at Room to Grow and a Paul and Daisy Soros and Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project.
Make no mistake. Trump is Putin’s ally. Putting Trump in charge of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. On more than one occasion, Trump has sent his emissaries to devise a “peace plan” without asking Ukraine or the representatives of Europe to participate in the discussions.
Trump campaigned by claiming that he could end the war in a single day. All that was required would be a phone call to his good friend Putin.
That hasn’t happened, but Trump continues to threaten to cut off all aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky capitulates to Putin’s demands. These demands would give Putin everything he wants.
Max Boot spelled out the situation in The Washington Post:
Russia’s barbaric assault on Ukraine continues: A single Russian drone and missile strike on an apartment block in western Ukraine last week killed at least 31 civilians. Meanwhile, Russia is ramping up its campaign of sabotage in Europe: Polish authorities blamed the Kremlin for a Nov. 15 explosion on a rail line used to transport supplies to Ukraine. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said recently, Europe “is not at war” but it is also “no longer at peace” with Russia.
The growing threat from Vladimir Putin’s despotic, expansionist regime calls for Churchillian resolution, unity and strength on the part of the transatlantic alliance. Instead, Neville Chamberlain-style irresolution and confusion reigns on both sides of the Atlantic. The situation is far more concerning in the United States than in Europe, with the Trump administration having seemingly endorsed, at least for now, a “peace plan” that would give Russia a victory at the negotiating table that it hasn’t earned on the battlefield.
The Europeans have stepped up, providing weapons and funding to Ukraine as U.S. support has dried up. The European Union has a plan to do even more by sending Kyiv some $200 billionin frozen Russian assets as a “loan” that would likely never be repaid. Obviously, given the current corruption scandal in Kyiv, safeguards on the disbursement of the money would be needed. But this is a vital — indeed, irreplaceable — source of funding that can keep Ukraine afloat for years. Yet tiny Belgium, where most of the funds are frozen, is wringing its hands and holding up the plan. There is no Plan B: Europe has to send the Russian funds or else Ukraine will run out of money. So why dither and delay?
As for the peace plan floated by the White House last week: The 28-point plan amounts to a holiday wish list from the Kremlin. It would require Ukraine to cede the entire Donbas region — even the parts that Russian troops have been unable to conquer — and to cut the size of its armed forces by roughly a third. Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, and NATO would not be allowed to dispatch peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. Ukraine would hold elections within 100 days and “all Nazi ideology” would be “prohibited”; this is Kremlin code for toppling the Zelensky government. Russia isn’t being asked to limit the size of its armed forces or to hold elections; all the demands are on Ukraine.
What does Ukraine get in return? A separate draft agreement specifies that in the event of renewed Russian aggression, the United States could respond with “armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, economic and diplomatic actions.” But the U.S. wouldn’t be compelled to do anything. Ukraine would be left to rely on a worthless Russian pledge of “nonaggression” — something it already promised in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
This isn’t a peace plan. It’s a blueprint for Ukraine’s capitulation. If implemented, it would turn this pro-Western, democratic nation, which has been courageously resisting Russian aggression since 2014, into a Kremlin colony….
In the New York Times, Thomas Friedman was scathing in his view of the Trump-Putin “peace plan.”
He predicted that Trump would not get the Nobel Peace Prize, which he covets, but would certainly win the ““Neville Chamberlain Peace Prize” — awarded by history to the leader of the country that most flagrantly sells out its allies and its values to an aggressive dictator.”
He wrote:
This prize richly deserves to be shared by Trump’s many “secretaries of state” — Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio and Dan Driscoll — who together negotiated the surrender of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin’s demands without consulting Ukraine or our European allies in advance — and then told Ukraine it had to accept the plan by Thanksgiving…
If Ukraine is, indeed, forced to surrender to the specific terms of this “deal” by then, Thanksgiving will no longer be an American holiday. It will become a Russian holiday. It will become a day of thanks that victory in Putin’s savage and misbegotten war against Ukraine’s people, which has been an utter failure — morally, militarily, diplomatically and economically — was delivered to Russia not by the superiority of its arms or the virtue of its claims, but by an American administration…
He was the British prime minister who advocated the policy of appeasement, which aimed to avoid war with Adolf Hitler’s Germany by giving in to his demands. This was concretized in the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Chamberlain, along with others in Europe, allowed Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain boasted it would secure “peace for our time.” A year later, Poland was invaded, starting World War II and leading to Chamberlain’s resignation — and his everlasting shame.
To all the gentlemen who delivered this turkey to Moscow, I can offer only one piece of advice: Be under no illusions. Neither Fox News nor the White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt will be writing the history of this deal. If you force it upon Ukraine as it is, every one of your names will live in infamy alongside that of Chamberlain, who is remembered today for only one thing:
This Trump plan, if implemented, will do the modern equivalent. By rewarding Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine based on his obsession with making it part of Mother Russia, the U.S. will be putting the whole European Union under Putin’s thumb. Trump’s message to our allies will be clear: Don’t provoke Putin, because as long as I am commander in chief, the United States will pay no price and we will bear no burden in the defense of your freedom.
Which is why, if this plan is forced on Ukraine as is, we will need to add a new verb to the diplomatic lexicon: “Trumped” — to be sold out by an American president, for reasons none of his citizens understand (but surely there are reasons). And history will never forget the men who did it — Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Dan Driscoll — for their shame will be everlasting.
As a Wall Street Journal editorial on Friday put it: “Mr. Trump may figure he can finally wash his hands of Ukraine if Europe and Ukraine reject his offer. He’s clearly sick of dealing with the war. But appeasing Mr. Putin would haunt the rest of his presidency. If Mr. Trump thinks American voters hate war, wait until he learns how much they hate dishonor. … A bad deal in Ukraine would broadcast to U.S. enemies that they can seize what they want with force or nuclear blackmail or by pressing on until America loses interest.”
Mind you, I am not at all against a negotiated solution. Indeed, from the beginning of this war I have made the point that it will end only with a “dirty deal.” But it cannot be a filthy deal, and the Trump plan is what history will call a filthy deal.
Even before you get to the key details, think of how absurd it is for Trump to strike a deal with Putin and not even include Ukraine and our European allies in the negotiations until they were virtually done. Trump then declared it must be accepted by Thursday, as if Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who has a parliament that he needs to win acceptance from, could possibly do so by then, even if he wanted to.
As my Times colleague David Sanger observed in his analysis of the plan’s content: “Many of the 28 points in the proposed Russia-Ukraine peace plan offered by the White House read like they had been drafted in the Kremlin. They reflect almost all Mr. Putin’s maximalist demands.”
Ukraine would have to formally give Russia all the territory it has declared for itself in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The United States would recognize that as Russian territory. No NATO forces could be based inside Ukraine to ensure that Russia could never invade again. The Ukrainian military would be capped at 600,000 troops, a 25 percent cut from current levels, and it would be barred from possessing long-range weapons that could reach Russia. Kyiv would receive vague security guarantees from the U.S. against a Russian re-invasion (but who in Ukraine, or Moscow, would trust them coming from Trump?).
Under the Trump plan, $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be put toward U.S.-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine, and the U.S. would then receive 50 percent of the profits from that investment. (Yes, we are demanding half of the profits generated by a fund to rebuild a ravaged nation.)
Trump, facing blowback from allies, Congress and Ukraine, said Saturday that this was not his “final offer” but added, if Zelensky refuses to accept the terms, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” As always with Trump, he is all over the place — and as always, ready to stick it to Zelensky, the guy fighting for his country’s freedom, and never to Putin, the guy trying to take Ukraine’s freedom away.
What would an acceptable dirty deal look like?
It would freeze the forces in place, but never formally cede any seized Ukrainian territory. It would insist that European security forces, backed by U.S. logistics, be stationed along the cease-fire line as a symbolic tripwire against any Russian re-invasion. It would require Russia to pay a significant amount of money to cover all the carnage it has inflicted on Ukraine — and keep Moscow isolated and under sanctions until it does — and include a commitment by the European Union to admit Ukraine as a member as soon as it is ready, without Russian interference.
This last point is vital. It is so the Russian people would have to forever look at their Ukrainian Slavic brothers and sisters in the thriving European Union, while they are stuck in Putin’s kleptocracy. That contrast is Putin’s best punishment for this war and the thing that would cause him the most trouble after it is over.
This would be a dirty deal that history would praise Trump for — getting the best out of a less than perfect hand, by using U.S. leverage on both sides, as he did in Gaza.
But just using U.S. leverage on Ukraine is a filthy deal — folding our imperfect hand to a Russian leader who is playing a terrible one.
There is a term for that in poker: sucker.
James Traub wrote anoter excellent analysis of Trump’s “peace plan.” It would be worth your while to open the link and read in full.
He concludes:
My first reaction on reading the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine was shame. That’s a different emotion from the anger I feel when Trump does something deplorable at home, like use the Justice Department to terrorize his enemies. When he abandons people elsewhere I feel ashamed of my country before the world.
This latest exercise in coercive diplomacy does not merely give the Russians what they want and deprive the Ukrainians of what they need. What is extra specially Trumpian, and thus shameful, about the proposal is that its second beneficiary is the United States. Point 10 guarantees the United States “compensation” for the completely unspecified security guarantees alluded to in Point 5. From whom? The plan doesn’t say, but presumably the answer is Ukraine, from which Trump demanded a preposterous $500 billion earlier this year in exchange for ongoing support. So we will profiteer off Ukraine’s subjection….
If the United States walks away, we will have vindicated Putin’s belief that in the end nothing matters except force. We will leave Europe to live in fear of an emboldened Russia. We will have washed our hands of a democratic and patriotic nation.
Rebecca Redelmeier writes in Chalkbeat about passage of a new law in Pennsylvania mandating the use of “evidence-based” reading instruction. By that, they mean that teachers should teach reading by relying on what is called “the science of reading.” This terminology is based on a federal report that was released to the public in 2000, affirming the importance of phonics, the connections of letters and sounds.
The Department of Education spent $6 billion testing the “science of reading” recommendations. The program–Reading First–was abandoned after investigations found conflicts of interest and self-dealing among Department staff who awarded contracts.
When Reading First was evaluated, the results were unimpressive. Students did well in phonics but comprehension levels were unchanged.
Now states are mandating the same approaches that were tested 25 years ago.
Redelmeier wrote:
Pennsylvania will require schools to adopt evidence-based reading curriculum by the 2027-28 school year and institute new literacy instruction training for teachers.
The new requirements come as part of the state’s 2025-26 budget, which Gov. Josh Shapiro signed into law Wednesday, four months past the budget deadline. Literacy instruction and initiatives will get $10 million in the budget. The $50.1 billion budget deal puts $665 million total towards public schools.
Moments before signing the bill, Shapiro said the budget invests in “something known as structured literacy,” referring to an approach to reading instruction that includes teaching students phonics and phonemic awareness, which research supports as effective.
The approach “puts a renewed emphasis on teaching [kids] to read well and training our teachers to teach reading effectively,” Shapiro said.
Last year, national test scores showed only about 1 in 3 Pennsylvania fourth graders could read at a proficient level.
Some Pennsylvania school districts previously used reading curriculums that did not follow research-backed methods. In Philadelphia, the school district implemented an evidence-based curriculum last school year. But the rollout has been rocky. Students’ reading scores dippedafter the first year.
The curriculum mandate brings Pennsylvania up to speed with several other states that have passed laws that require literacy instruction to follow the science of reading, a body of research that has found young children need phonics instruction to learn how to read well.
Andy Spears of the Tennessee Education Report writes that a lawsuit has been filed in state courts challenging the Tennessee voucher plan. Not only does it violate the state constitution, the plaintiffs say, but the cost will bankrupt the public schools.
Spears writes:
Tennessee’s expanded, universal school voucher scheme violates a state requirement to maintain a system of free public schools, a new lawsuit says.
The Education Law Center, on behalf of a group of Tennessee parents, filed the suit in Davidson County Chancery Court.
“I taught for 12 years, and I fought to get my children into Rutherford County Schools because I knew the quality of education here,” said Jill Smiley, Rutherford County parent and former teacher. “Now the state is systematically defunding the very schools families like mine depend on. You can’t expect excellent schools on a shrinking budget.”
The suit cites the requirement in the Tennessee Constitution that the state establish and support a system of free public schools.
According to the plaintiffs:
The lawsuit argues the voucher law violates the Education Clause of the Tennessee Constitution in two ways:
- The Education Clause’s adequacy requirement: By diverting public funds away from already underfunded public schools, the law prevents Tennessee from providing students with the adequate education guaranteed by the state constitution.
- The Education Clause’s mandate of a single system of public schools: By funding schools outside the system of free public schools, the voucher law violates this Education Clause mandate.
Estimates by state analysts suggest the program will cost more than $140 million this year alone and may cost over $1 billion a year within 5 years.
Additionally, an issue advocacy group calling itself Tennessee Leads says it will fight to expand the school voucher program as well as the state’s charter schools so that as many as 450,000 students are removed from the state’s public school system by 2031.
Diane Ravitch's blog 