If you’ve followed along with my political ramblings over the past few years, you know that I do not think very highly of Donald Trump. As Trump’s former Chief-of-Staff, Gen. John Kelly said, Trump is the most flawed person he has ever known.

In his heart, Trump is a condo salesman, saying whatever he has to say to get the sale. He is a reality TV star who played a successful businessman despite a string of real life business failures and bankruptcies. He is father to five kids with three different women. He’s an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon. I could go on. But this missive isn’t about Donald John Trump. No, this is about the worst person in the world, Trump’s pal, Elon Musk.

Why do I say that Musk is the worst person in the world? There are plenty of reasons. Let’s start with the fact that Elon Musk is the wealthiest person in the world, yet he spends his time taking jobs away from average Americans, benefits away from poor people, and healthcare away from the sick and disabled. He is an over-the-top movie villain; an insanely wealthy man who’s only goals in life are to become wealthier and to run the most powerful country in the world for his own benefit. But what he’s doing isn’t fiction. It’s real life, and real people are being hurt by his actions.

Why do we know so much about Elon Musk? Is it because he has used his wealth to build medical clinics in impoverished countries? Is it because he has built wings at children’s hospitals? Is Musk known for the money he has contributed to finding a cure for cancer or housing the homeless or building libraries? No, he hasn’t done any of these things. We know Elon Musk because he is a wealthy guy who bought a president. He’s a guy who received millions in taxpayer-funded grants, loans, and subsidies, then proceeded to take taxpayer-funded benefits away from the poor.

Musk also tried to buy the Supreme Court in Wisconsin, paying people to support his chosen candidate. He spent an obscene $22.6 million on the race. Thankfully, the good people of my beloved Wisconsin rejected his largess and elected Susan Crawford, a woman that Musk can’t stand, primarily because he has a case coming up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and thinks Crawford will find against him.

But it’s not just the horrible public stuff that Musk does that makes him the worst person in the world. It’s the stuff he does in his private life that really shines a light on just what a terrible person he really is. For instance, Elon Musk has had fourteen children with four different women. He rarely sees many of those children, and two of the women he had kids with are suing him for sole custody and child support, claiming that Musk never sees his kids and he’s not supporting them financially.

One of his children, Vivian, is transgender. Musk has disowned her and claimed that she is dead to him. For her part, Vivian says that Musk is a cold and narcissistic father, rarely present in her life. She also says that Musk berated her when she was young for exhibiting feminine traits, pressuring her to be more masculine as early as in elementary school.

It’s hard to exaggerate the mess that the world’s richest man has made of his personal life, including the lives of his children and his baby mamas. He is exactly the type of person we tell our sons not to become. Even so, many young men look up to Musk, idolizing his wealth and seeming power. They view him as the epitome of what a man should be. But the opposite is true. A man should be a provider and a protector, two things Musk refuses to do. With all of his money, he could financially care for his children without it negatively impacting his wealth at all, yet he forces two of the mothers of his children to sue him for child support. He could spend time with his kids, yet he chooses not to, instead cosplaying in his custom black “Make America Great Again” ball cap and DOGE T-shirt.

If you’re a fan of Elon Musk, let me ask you a question: What would you say about a rich guy who has more than a dozen kids with multiple women and refuses to provide child support to many of them if that man was a black basketball player rather than a white businessman? Would that change your opinion of him? I think we know your answer. We’ve already heard what MAGA has to say about black men having kids outside of marriage, then not taking care of the kids. So, how is this different?

Despite his stated goal of ridding the government of waste, fraud, and abuse, the Wall Street Journal indicates that Musk’s efforts will only save the United States about $2.6 billion. To put that into perspective, Musk’s electric car company Tesla has received between $15 and $50 billion in grants, loans, and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. In other words, the man taking jobs away from hard working Americans, closing down entire government agencies, and denying poor people SNAP benefits and healthcare has received far more in taxpayer dollars than he is saving.

We should not put men like Elon Musk up on a pedestal. Despite his riches, he is a horrible person; the kind of guy decent people avoid befriending and the type of hateful, cruel, misogynistic creep we would point to as the type of man we would not want our sons to become. That’s why Elon Musk is the worst person in the world.

Let me start this conversation with a caveat: I am not the world’s most  devout or knowledgeable Christian. In fact, there are some people who would contend that I am not Christian at all. Although I do consider myself a Christian, I am unaware of any Christian denomination that shares my exact beliefs.

Also, I am not in the practice of hoisting my beliefs on other people. Although I have a strong interest in religion writ large, I am not always comfortable writing about it. To me, religious or spiritual beliefs are personal. If your beliefs work for you, that’s great, just as long as you don’t think they should apply to me as well. Our country was founded on the idea the people should be free to worship any God they chose, but once you think your God’s rules should apply to others, you’ve violated the Constitutional right of freedom of religion.

Okay, having that out of the way, I want to talk about a Facebook discussion I saw between two of my friends. Before I tell you about their conversation, I want to tell you that I like and respect both of the people involved in the conversation. I won’t name these people because the discussion I want to have isn’t about them personally. It’s about the stand that one of them took. What he said made me think about the point he made, and it led me to do a little research. In the end, it’s up to you to decide if you agree with him.

Friend #1 posted a meme on his Facebook page that listed several things Donald Trump had done that he felt were contrary to both American and Christian values. For instance, the meme pointed to how Trump has deported people without due process and how he tried to overthrow a free and fair election. For our purposes, what the meme said is less important than who created it. The meme in question was created by a Facebook page called the “Christian Left,” and it was the creator of the meme rather than the substance of it that Friend #2 commented on.

Here’s what Friend # 2 wrote:

“The Christian left sounds like a good title for a group that doesn’t live by the Bible. Why do they use the word Christian? They should call themselves the Satanic left.”

Let’s pick that statement apart a little to get to the underlying beliefs of Friend #2. It is apparent that Friend #2 does not believe that people on the political left—normally referred to as liberals or progressives—can be true Christians because they do not live by the Bible. In fact, he questions why someone with liberal political beliefs would even invoke the Christian moniker to describe themselves. Instead, he feels that they should call themselves the “Satanic left” because he apparently not only believes that Satan exists, but that people with political views to the left-of-center follow satanic (i.e. Unchristian) principles.

As you might guess, my kneejerk reaction was to disagree vehemently with that line of thinking. Not only do I believe that people who espouse liberal political views can be Christian, it seems to me that those liberal views are often more in line with the teachings of Jesus than are the views of what currently passes as conservatism.

But as I said in the beginning, I don’t hold myself out as the most knowledgeable Christian, so I decided to make a list of Jesus’ teaching and compare them to the policies being pushed by Republicans who almost unanimously self-identify as conservative Christians. First, let’s look at the teachings of Jesus.

The Teachings of Jesus

Let’s start with why looking at the teachings of Jesus is important for this discussion. It should be obvious on its face, but let me make it even more obvious. The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus. Christianity is not the religion that Jesus followed. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Christianity is the religion about Jesus and his teachings. That’s why, when we consider the statement made by Friend #2 and the beliefs that can be inferred from that statement, it’s necessary to know what Jesus actually taught.

In the Bible, the teachings of Jesus can be found primarily in the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Mark was written first, and was written closest in proximity to when Jesus was still alive, containing more early traditions of the teachings of Jesus than later writings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source. Other Books of the Bible contain Jesus’ teachings, but most will come from the Synoptic Gospels.

Let’s look at a few of them.

Love

Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In particular, John 13:34 says “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Matthew 5:43-45 tells us that we should love our enemy. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.”

In other words, Jesus is commanding us to treat others with kindness—including our enemies—whether they are righteous or not.

In both Matthew (22:39) and Mark (12:31), Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, Jesus talks a lot about love—for God and for each other—in his teachings. After the death of Jesus, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and in 1 Corinthians 13:13 he writes, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Forgiveness

Jesus emphasized the importance of forgiveness, both for ourselves and for others, as a reflection of God’s mercy. For instance, in Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus says “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

In fact, the need to forgive one another is featured in the Lord’s Prayer—a foundational Christian prayer pattern taught by Jesus—which includes the phrase “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The desire to be forgiven by God is conditioned on first forgiving those who wrong you.

Humility & Service

Jesus modeled humility and taught his followers to be humble, serving others rather than seeking to be served. In Mark 9:35, Jesus called his disciples together and said, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” He was saying, in order to be worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven, you must put others before yourself.

Jesus’ teachings also emphasized the importance of serving others, especially the poor, the marginalized, and those in need. In Luke 3:11, Jesus says “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” He continues this line of thinking in Luke 12:33 when he says, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Give to those who need it, and your purses will not wear out; you will have treasure in heaven.”

The Golden Rule & Caring for the Least Among Us

Jesus taught the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” as a way to live a life of love and compassion. To me, this is the essence of Christianity. In fact, Jesus says that the Golden Rule, found in Matthew 7:12, is a distillation of the entire Hebrew Bible.

Matthew 25:37-40 reads, “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

In other words, Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the needy, and visit the sick and imprisoned. He is commanding us to care for one another, particularly the least among us.

The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount

Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with a series of blessings, or “Beatitudes,” which describe the qualities of those who are blessed in God’s eyes. Matthew 5:2-12 reads:

“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
‘Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Jesus goes on to challenge his listeners to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, a radical departure from the prevailing mindset of the time. He emphasizes the importance of humility, urging his followers not to worry about material possessions or outward appearances, but to focus on living a life of righteousness and integrity. He stresses the importance of forgiveness, both towards others and towards oneself, as a key element of living a life pleasing to God. And he tells his followers that they are the light of the world, and that their good deeds should shine before others, so that they may see their good works and glorify their Father in Heaven.

Distilling all of this down to the basics, Jesus teaches us to love God, love one another, forgive one another, live a life of service and humility, practice the golden rule, care for the least among us, and to be a light unto the world by practicing good deeds. How does this list of teachings compare to what Donald Trump and the Republicans are currently doing? Let’s take a look.

Republican Priorities

Some of the biggest issues being tackled by the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress involve:

• Deporting both legal and illegal immigrants;
• Imprisoning immigrants (both legal and illegal) in horrifying conditions, punishing them although they have not been convicted of any crimes.
• Stripping trans citizens of civil rights and medical treatment;
• Dishonoring women and citizens of color by denying them recognition for their contributions to the military and the country;
• Destroying relations with our allies while cozying up to tyrants;
• Suspending refugee resettlement;
• Increasing use of the death penalty;
• Damaging the Environment through irresponsible energy policies;
• Establishing male and female as the only two recognized genders, despite scientific evidence to the contrary;
• Renaming locations, landmarks, and institutions to honor some of the darkest periods and most unpatriotic people in our history;
• Attempting to take healthcare and access to food away from the poor and disabled;
• Stripping citizenship rights from people born in the United States to non-citizens;
• Cutting off food aid and medical treatment to people in other countries dependent on the United States for help;
• Giving tax breaks to the wealthy, essentially redistributing money from poorer Americans to richer Americans.

How do Republican priorities jibe with the teachings of Jesus? In a nutshell, they don’t. Republican priorities are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus. They strip rights and care from the least among us, giving more to those who already have more. They single out certain groups for ridicule and disdain. They intentionally harm the natural environment both at home and abroad. They glorify our country above others, and favor certain people (Trump’s friends) and punish others (Trump’s enemies); And they bolster tyrants while alienating our allies and friends.

I’d be interested in your thoughts. Have I read this wrong? It seems to me that Friend #2 is way off the mark with his beliefs and comments. But he’s not alone. A large portion of self-described Christians in the United States are also cheering on Trump and the Republicans as they attempt to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the poor, the disabled, and the marginalized in our society.

I agree with Idaho pastor Rev. Benjamin Creamer when he says, “Declaring ‘Christ is king!’ with your mouth while supporting tyrants with your actions so that they will crush all the people you think are your enemies is the epitome of using Jesus’ name in vain. The way of Jesus is compassion, not control.” I hope that Friend #2 and those like him are listening.

The Trump Administration is making a mockery of our immigration laws. Last week it was reported that ICE agents arrested a U.S. citizen in the Chicago suburb of Berwyn.

Julio Noriega, 54, was born in the United States and is a U.S. citizen. ICE agents took his wallet—which contained his driver’s license and Social Security card—but didn’t bother to look at his ID or ask him about his citizenship status. Instead, they handcuffed the Chicago resident and threw him into the back of an ICE van along with other suspected illegals the ICE agents had rounded up. He was taken to the ICE processing center in Broadview where he spent the night in detention. He was finally released when ICE agents “discovered” his ID and realized he was a citizen of the United States.

The arrest of Noriega and others in the Chicago area revealed that ICE agents are creating administrative arrest warrants in the field after arresting suspected illegal immigrants. In order to justify arrests, ICE agents are required to have probable cause that a crime has been committed (including entering the United States illegally) and that the person is a flight risk, or they must have an arrest warrant prior to making the arrest. These requirements were imposed as part of the NAVA class action lawsuit settlement. The suit was filed in 2018 as the result of ICE agents illegally targeting Hispanic individuals for arrest without probable cause.

In ICE’s zeal to round up and deport illegal immigrants, they are arresting many legal immigrants—some of them U.S. citizens—who are being jailed, and in some cases, deported to countries they’ve never before lived in.

Consider the case of Jerce Reyes Barrios, a professional soccer player from Venezuela. He fled his home country after being beaten by government thugs representing Nicolas Maduro, the far-right President of Venezuela. Barrios came to the United States seeking asylum, and was in the country legally after following our laws and filing his asylum application.

Barrios was among the Venezuelan immigrants who were deported to El Salvador, despite a Federal District Court judge ordering the Trump Administration to not deport them. As the court found, the Venezuelans were not afforded any due process before being scheduled for deportation. After being jailed, they were placed in shackles, had their heads shaved, they were marched before cameras, then loaded onto a plane to El Salvador. Trump and ICE officials, including Tom Homan, the President’s so-called border czar, claimed that the Venezuelans sent to El Salvador were criminals and members of the Venezuelan gang, Tien de Aragua (TdA).

However, his attorney claims that Barrios is not a member of TdA or any other gang. They also say he was never charged with a crime in either Venezuela or the United States. Trump Administration officials dispute Barrios’ attorney’s, contending he is a gang member, and they offer two bits of evidence to prove their contention.

First, they say that Barrios had a gang tattoo on his arm. They also say that he posted a photo of himself flashing a gang sign on one of his social media accounts. That’s not much evidence for ICE to rely on, but even those two pieces of evidence are shaky at best.

The tattoo in question is actually a replica of the logo for the soccer team Real Madrid. And in the photo in question, Barrios can be seen making the “Hook ‘em Horns” hand sign associated with the University of Texas. Several Republican lawmakers and Trump Administration officials, including Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have posted similar photos on their social media accounts.

Regardless, Barrios was sent to a hard labor prison in El Salvador. At the moment, he does not have a release date (it could be months or years from now) and there is no way he will be able to make it to his asylum hearing scheduled for April 17, 2025.

Even if you believe that illegal immigrants should be arrested and deported, you can’t possibly think that the same thing should happen to immigrants who are in the United States legally, or worse yet, to U.S. citizens. This is an afront to decency and what the United States stands for. We must demand that the Trump Administration follow the law, abide by court rulings, and make absolutely sure that a person is in the country illegally before they are arrested, jailed, or deported.

And remember, these cruel, hateful policies being carried out by ICE at the insistence of Donald Trump are just beginning. If we don’t demand that any arrests and deportations be done legally now, in the early days of the Trump Administration, things will only get worse.

Fascists do not announce that they are fascists. Often, they downplay the label, claiming they are anything but. Even so, it’s not an announcement or declaration that makes a leader a fascist; it’s the things they do and say.

So, based on the things he does and says, is Donald Trump a fascist? You be the judge.

In the two months since he became the 47^th President of the United States, Donald Trump and/or his administration has (in no certain order):

• Ignored judicial orders
• Demonized judges and called for their impeachment
• Illegally eliminated Departments and Agencies
• Illegally created a “Department” to do his bidding outside of the law
• Illegally fired government employees
• Abandoned allies and cozied up to dictators
• Empowered an unelected, unconfirmed billionaire to take criminal actions
• Rewarded his friends and punished his enemies
• Disappeared 48 ICE detainees
• Deported 300 asylum-seeking immigrants to Panama (although none of them are from Panama)
• Deported people without due process (in some cases contrary to existing law and court orders)
• Turned the Guantanamo Bay Military Outpost into a prison camp largely outside the reach of the American judicial system
• Cracked down on free speech that he disagrees with, black-bagging and disappearing a Columbia University graduate student who is in the country legally
• Issued an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship, disregarding the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent
• Issued EOs that disfavor trans Americans, including forbidding them to serve in the military
• Defunded higher education, cutting funding for colleges and universities that disagree with him or who have policies or programs he doesn’t like.
• Done away with legal protections for minorities and other marginalized groups
• Nominated clearly unqualified white males (and a few females) to his cabinet. For all of them, their strongest qualification seems to be that they will carry out Trump’s orders without question, even if illegal
• Attacked the press, claiming certain outlets are illegal and/or should be shut down because of their criticism of him. Other media organizations have been prohibited from attending WH press briefings or using the press facilities at the WH
• Deleted links to black, Hispanic, and women veterans (including Medal of Honor recipients) interred at Arlington National Cemetery under the guise of DEI
• Deleted the Pentagon webpage about Ira Hayes, a Native American who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, again, under the guise of DEI
• Fred the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Chief of Naval Operations, the vice-chief of the Air Force, and the top JAG lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, replacing them with loyalists.
• Ignored laws he doesn’t like (ignoring the wishes of Congress in the process)
• Ignored the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, accepting gifts and business from foreign governments
• Purposely violated the Hatch Act by promoting the sale of Tesla cars at the White House on behalf of its owner, and his biggest financial supporter, Elon Musk
• Rescinded the ban on segregated facilities for federal contractors (Welcome back, segregated lunch counters and water fountains).
• Pardoned 1500 people who pled guilty or were convicted by a court, for participating in the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol. Some of these people were convicted of violent crimes against police officers, while others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

This list does not include things he did or said prior to becoming the 47^th President, such as using the military to go after his political enemies or suspending parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like. In just two months, Trump has ignored Congress and the Judiciary—both of which exist as a check against the Presidency—and he has ignored our nation’s laws in order to carry out his agenda. Without the checks and balances proscribed in the Constitution or the rule of law, Trump is free to act like any other fascist dictator, revoking rights, imprisoning enemies, and dismantling democracy.

He has done all of this in just two months, and has not suffered any significant consequences for his words or actions. Can you imagine what he’ll do moving forward?

So, I ask again: Is Donald Trump a fascist?

When Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, Republicans in Congress met and agreed that their charge was to make sure that he became a one term president. They banded together, and worked to thwart Obama’s agenda and to elect a Republican when the next presidential election rolled around.

I was a Republican at the time of Obama’s election, but even I thought what Republicans in Congress were doing was wrong. Obama had been elected in a free and fair election and deserved to implement his agenda. That didn’t mean Republicans had to agree with him or vote for legislation they opposed, but I felt they had a duty to work with the President for the good of the country.

I recently wrote something similar about Donald Trump. He won a free and fair election, and he’s entitled to pursue his agenda, provided he does so within the bounds of the law. Of course, he’s not staying within the bounds of the law. He could be pushing his agenda through Congress, the way the Founders intended, but he’s not. Instead, he’s trying to rule like a king, believing that being president gives him the authority to do anything he wants, in any way he wants. But that’s not how things work.

The U.S. Constitution is written in a way that makes it clear that the United States has a president, not a king. So, when Trump tries to act as a monarch, he is threatening our democracy and the rule of law. If ever there was a time that Democrats should band together, it’s now, with the country experiencing an existential Constitutional crisis. So, what have they done?

They held up small auction-style signs at the State of the Union and refused to applaud for a young cancer survivor. It was embarrassing.

Then a few days later, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave one of his patented sleep-inducing speeches and agreed to vote for the Trump budget. He didn’t use the filibuster to prevent the vote from moving forward, and he didn’t negotiate anything in the process, such as protecting Social Security or Medicaid. He simply voted with the Republicans.

As a leader, Schumer is a feckless operator. He is a man out of his time, perhaps equipped to lead a political party in the 1980s or 1990s, but completely unequipped in today’s political reality.

Democrats in Congress need to do two things. First, they need to elect leadership that can muster the troops into a strong and effective coalition that can pushback in a meaningful way against Republican overreach. Second, they need to find an effective way to resist Republican efforts to rollback civil rights legislation and Trump’s illegal wielding of power. Holding up tiny signs is not effective.

The good news is that every single day, Trump and the Republicans give Democrats more and more material to fight back with. Much of what Republicans are doing is wildly unpopular with the majority of Americans. Yet, Democrats can’t seem to get their act together in any organized way to take advantage of the daily political gifts they are receiving.

Granted, Democrats are the minority party in both the House and the Senate, so their options are limited. But they need to make the case against Trump and his undemocratic policies. They need to offer better options. And they need to set themselves up to take back the House in 2026, and make headway in the Senate (Sadly, taking back the Senate appears unlikely).

And more than anything, they need to fight legislation they disagree with. Bipartisanship is great when both parties are willing to practice it. That is not currently the case and has not been for years. The game has changed, and Democrats need to start playing by the new rules. Someone needs to step up to lead the Democratic fight. Until they do, Chuck Schumer will continue to make monotone-infused speeches that don’t accomplish anything and plays right into the hands of the Republicans. And in the meantime, our democracy continues to circle the drain.

Donald Trump seems to really like Vladamir Putin, President of Russia. He refers favorably to Putin often, and I’ve yet to hear him criticize the Russian President, which is notable because criticism comes easily to Trump. His policies favor Russia, and he opposes policies from former administrations designed to sanction the former Soviet flagship. But does that mean Trump is a Russian asset? I don’t know, but…

I hate to make the claim that Trump is a Russian asset because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no clear evidence to back up that claim. However, there is circumstantial evidence. Lots of circumstantial evidence.

For instance, as far back as 1984, Trump met with  David Bogadan, who the FBI claims was a member of the Russian mafia. Bogadan was in New York and put down $6 million on five condos in Trump Tower. Over the years, again, according to the FBI, thirteen members of the Russian mafia owned condos or otherwise lived in Trump properties in the United States.

A few years later, in 1987, Trump met with an undercover KGB agent in New York. At the time, the KGB was recruiting U.S. businessmen. Previously, they had recruited Armand Hammer, the president of Occidental Petroleum, who became a close ally of the USSR during the Cold War. Hammer was aging (he was 89 years old at the time), and Russia needed a prominent businessman to take his place.

The KGB didn’t need businessmen to spy for them. They needed people who were prominent and influential, and who were open to wielding that influence and prominence on behalf of the USSR. They were willing to pay handsomely with business transactions, travel opportunities, as well as access to morally casual Soviet women. Trump was at the top of their recruitment list.

In 1987, Trump was developing the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York, and like every new hotel, he needed a lot of televisions. He sourced those TVs from an electronics store that was a front for the KGB. Later that year, Trump traveled to Moscow on a trip that was reportedly arranged by the Russian intelligence service.

According to a book by Russophile Craig Unger (House of Putin, House of Trump), Trump was groomed by the KGB while in Moscow, and returned to the U.S., where he made a brief run for President in 1988. As part of his campaign, Trump took out a full-page ad in the New York Times assailing the United States’ alliance with NATO. Of course, at that time during the Cold War, the Soviets hated NATO and felt, as they do now, that NATO would collapse if the United States broke ties with the alliance.

Today, Trump continues to push for the United States to withdraw from NATO, and has made it clear that he does not support Ukraine in their war with Russia. This, despite the fact that previous administrations have strongly supported Ukraine, and Republicans, until recently, have advocated for military and humanitarian aid for Ukrainians. And despite strong support among Americans for Ukraine, Trump has moved the country’s alliance much more strongly toward Putin and the Russians.

When Trump again ran for President in 2016, the Russians had his back. They conducted a covert campaign to prop him up as a candidate and damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Trump denies that Russia worked on his behalf, but investigations conducted by the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee all confirmed that Russia worked to get Trump elected.

While running for president in 2016, Trump campaign officials met with a Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who represented Putin’s government. Veselnitskaya was later charged with money laundering and obstruction of justice. The purpose of Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and others meeting with the Russian attorney was to share dirt on Hillary Clinton. Later in the campaign, Trump confided in Russian diplomats that sanctions against Russia would be lifted if Trump was elected. Amazingly, during a debate with Clinton, Trump asked Russian intelligence to find and expose the former Secretary of State’s emails, a stunt that was as audacious as it was potentially treasonous.

During Trump’s first term as President, he met with Putin in Helsinki, and told reporters during a press conference that the Russian president told him that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election, and that he trusted Putin over U.S. intelligence sources. Think about that for a minute. The President of the United States offered to the media, in front of Putin, that he trusted the former KGB agent more than he trusted the entire U.S, intelligence community. That really is quite extraordinary.

When Covid hit the United States in 2020 and we were short on Covid testing machines, Donald Trump sent four such devices directly to Vladimir Putin, denying U.S. hospitals and American citizens use of the machines. This, despite the fact that Putin had put a bounty on killing American soldiers in Afghanistan just a year or so earlier. That’s how badly Trump wanted to be in Putin’s good graces. What happened to America First?

Since he was re-elected in 2024, Trump has continued to make moves that tend to indicate his closeness to Russia. Others would say he is demonstrating how compromised he is. Again, the evidence is circumstantial, but there’s a lot of it.

First, he nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard has long been rumored to be a Russian asset, and even while serving in the U.S. Army Reserve as a lieutenant colonel, frequently criticized U.S. policy toward Russia. Whether or not Gabbard is a Russian asset is a tough call. What isn’t a tough call is that Gabbard, a former Democrat, is not particularly well-qualified for the position of Director of National Intelligence, and that there were certainly many more people who were better qualified and didn’t carry the baggage of being a supposed Russian asset. Even so, Trump chose Gabbard over those better qualified and less hampered candidates.

Trump chose Pam Bondi to run the Department of Justice (after the disaster of Matt Gaetz), and the first thing Bondi did in her new job was to disband the DOJ task forces on foreign influence and Russia sanctions. The Foreign Influence task force was responsible for investigating violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law passed by Congress to make sure that agents for foreign governments trying to influence American lawmakers first had to register so we had a record of who these people represented and who they spoke to.

The task force responsible for enforcing sanctions against Russia was also disbanded, making it much easier for the sanctions to be violated without consequence. In other words, without the DOJ task force, the Russian sanctions become much weaker without Congress ever having to vote to weaken them.

On the same day Bondi disbanded the two task forces, she also ended the FBI’s effort into fighting foreign influence in U.S. politics. The FBI unit was in the process of investigating Russian, Chinese, and Iranian efforts to influence U.S. elections. In 2024, the unit exposed a scheme by Russian-backed media that funneled $10 million to conservative social media influencers to spread Russian propaganda and talking points. The were apparently effective, but Bondi eliminated them anyway.

Bondi’s gutting of the FBI’s efforts to track foreign influence also impacted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within Homeland Security, where several cybersecurity experts were either fired or reassigned. This allowed Elon Musk to essentially take over CISA as part of his efforts with DOGE, where he installed a 19-year-old cyber hacker with a history of criminal hacking and ties to Russia.

In January of this year, Trump signed an Executive Order allowing the government to give temporary security clearances to anyone he might choose without requiring so much as a background check, which can turn up things like financial improprieties and foreign connections. These security clearances would allow individuals access to some of our most highly classified documents without ever having to be vetted. Why?

On February 19, the CIA announced the largest round of mass firings in 50 years. That came on the heels of newly installed CIA Director John Ratcliffe sending a list of CIA employees—some of them in covert positions—to the White House in an unclassified email, which Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) termed a “counterintelligence disaster.”  Why do we suddenly need many fewer CIA agents? Reducing the size of the CIA doesn’t seem to be in the US’s best interest. So, who does it help?

To my mind, one of the most damning bits of circumstantial evidence is Trump’s decision to go after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as Elon Musk’s first target for DOGE. USAID provides humanitarian aid to countries around the world. The money spent by USAID is less than one percent of the federal budget (since 2001, USAID’s budget has ranged from 0.7% to 1.4% of the federal budget), but it is among the most effective dollars spent by the government. Not only does that money help people badly in need, but it also wins the United States a tremendous amount of goodwill throughout the world, strengthening alliances and making peace much more likely. Yet, Trump’s attack dog (Musk) claimed, without providing any evidence, that USAID was riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, and closed down the entire agency. And despite a court order telling the administration they could not close down the agency without distributing funds that had already been allocated, reports indicate that the money has not started flowing again.

Obviously, shutting down USAID hurts the United States’ reputation and standing throughout the world, but who does it help? Russia, for one. In the Moscow Times, a government-run newspaper in Russia, a front-page headline welcomed the news of USAID’s demise. Russia not only wants to see America’s standing in the world diminished, but the end of USAID gives them an opening to take over our role as a good Samaritan, stealing the goodwill that once was ours.

Among many other things, the stop to USAID funding affected support for Ukraine’s power grid. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin has targeted Ukraine’s power grid with near constant missile and drone attacks. It is only with help from a USAID grant that Ukraine has been able to keep the lights on. Without our help, Ukraine will plunge into darkness, making it all the more difficult to defend themselves from Russian assaults.

Trump’s Defense Secretary and former Fox News host, Pete Hegseth undermined Ukraine’s position further when he spoke to a group of leaders in Europe and said it was unrealistic for Ukraine to win their war with Russia or to ever go back to their pre-2014 border. He went on to state—as if he has authority to make this decision—that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO, now or in the future. This was exactly what Russia wanted to hear, and it eroded Ukraine’s negotiating position in any potential peace talks

Hegseth, like many of Trump’s cabinet nominees, was wildly unqualified for the position he now holds. In fact, he is the least qualified Secretary of Defense in our nation’s history. Trump had his choice of any number of qualified people to head the DOD, but he chose Hegseth because he knew Hegseth would do his bidding without question or complaint. And as if on cue, one of Hegseth’s first actions as Secretary of Defense was to begin the abandonment of Ukraine in favor of Russia.

This past week, Trump completed our abandonment of Ukraine when he and Vice-President JD Vance ambushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of reporters (including a reporter from Russian-state controlled TASS) in the Oval Office. They berated and disrespected Zelenskyy—a United States ally—making it clear that our country’s allegiance had shifted from Ukraine to Russia. It was the most disgusting, shameful act I have ever witnessed done by a U.S. president, and it firmly announced to our allies around the world that the United States, at least for the next three years and eleven months, cannot be trusted. It was an insulting display, and a slap in the face to every person who has ever put on the uniform of the United States military and swore an oath to the Constitution.

So, I return to the original question: Is Donald Trump a Russian asset? I don’t know, but if he were a Russian asset, he’d be doing and saying the exact same things he is doing and saying right now. And it makes me sick to think that we have someone like that in the White House.

Addendum: After I completed writing this post, it was reported that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has informed the U.S. military’s cyber command to “stand down” from all cyber planning against Russia. According to the Trump Administration, the change in policy was an attempt to bring Vladmir Putin to the negotiating table in his war of aggression against Ukraine. But does that make sense? I don’t think so. What I think does make sense is that the change was made to curry favor with Putin and has nothing to do with potential peace talks. The move is just another tick on the side of the ledger that indicates that Trump is owned by the Russians, and as U.S. President, he is working to benefit the Kremlin.

Addendum 2: On Monday evening, it was announced that Trump has cut off all military aid to Ukraine, including aid that was approved during the Biden Administration. This cannot be viewed as anything other than a pro-Putin move, designed to cripple the Ukraine military from defending themselves from Russian aggression. The impoundment of funds earmarked by Congress for Ukraine is almost certainly illegal (under the Impoundment Control Act) and unconstitutional. I don’t think Trump cares. He may get a slap on the wrist from a court some time in the future, but in the meantime, he gives Russia what they want: a weaker Ukraine. Ironically (or not), impounding funds meant for Ukraine to get them to do his bidding is exactly what Trump was impeached for the first time. It’s unlikely (understatement of the year) that the current House of Representatives will impeach him again.

Addendum 3: Another day, another bit of circumstantial evidence. On Tuesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe announced that the U.S. would no longer share intelligence with Ukraine. The announcement also indicated that the UK would not be allowed to share intelligence either, which is an oddity considering that the Trump Administration does not control UK intelligence services, and I’d have to assume that the Brits do not take kindly to Trump giving them orders. This development is bad for two reasons. First, not sharing intelligence with Ukraine hurts their efforts to fight Russia. Second, intelligence is a two-way street. Ukraine shares information with the U.S. involving Russia military capabilities and equipment specs. By shutting off intelligence channels, the U.S. hurts it’s own intelligence efforts. All so Trump can stay in Putin’s good graces.

Addendum 4: With America’s turn away from Ukraine and toward Russia, and the freeze the Trump Administration put on military aid to Ukraine, our allies in NATO–including Canada, the UK, and Germany–have begun re-evaluating their relationship with the United States. These other countries do not want to share intelligence with the U.S. for fear that the intelligence will find its way into Russian hands. These same countries have begun working on ways they can continue to provide military aid to Ukraine without our involvement, have begun talks to navigate a future without America’s military involvement. This is exactly what Putin has been trying to do for years. Trump was able to accomplish it in just six weeks.

This past February 15 was the anniversary of the mass shooting in my hometown of Aurora, IL. On that day in 2019, six people were killed, including the perpetrator, and seven people were injured, including six cops. The Police Chief in Aurora at that time was Kristen Ziman. If you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you may recognize Kristen’s name from a review I did of her book, Reimagining Blue: Thoughts on Life, Leadership, and a New Way Forward in Policing.

I began following Kristen on social media after the George Floyd murder and have found that she and I have very similar opinions about a number of subjects. But one subject we disagree about is compassion. In this post, I want to examine our disagreement and look at a Facebook post she shared on the sixth anniversary of the Pratt shooting.

Here’s what Kristen said on her Facebook page:

“Yesterday, during my interview with WGN Chicago about the Pratt and Uvalde shootings, I was asked if I’ve reached a point where I feel compassion for the shooters.

“Before the interviewer could even finish the question, I cut in—“No.”

“I don’t care what road led them to that moment. I don’t give a damn about their trauma, their struggles, or their mental health. There are millions of people who have endured horrific circumstances, who battle demons daily, and yet they don’t pick up a gun and slaughter innocent people.

“I don’t feel compassion. I feel rage. And when I think about the families who have to endure another anniversary without their loved ones—the first responders who will never be the same, some carrying scars both seen and unseen—my rage only deepens.

“Today marks another year since the Pratt shooting. Stop and reflect. Mourn the angels stolen that day. Honor the heroes who ran into gunfire, who took bullets trying to stop a coward.

And don’t waste a second of sympathy on the one who caused it.

Let me address the elephant in the room right off the bat. Kristen was there. I was not. Kristen was in the thick of it. She and her fellow cops—many of whom I’m sure she counts as friends—were being shot at. To the best of my knowledge, I didn’t know anyone—cop or civilian—that was in harms way that day. So, when I say I disagree with Kristen’s stand on compassion in this case, I have the luxury of saying it with a certain amount of detachment. I hate what happened that day. I hate that six people, five of them innocent, were killed. But I will never know what Kristen must feel; what she felt that day and what she must carry with her every day since. I’m going to get into my disagreement with her in a second, but don’t think for a moment that I know what Kristen and the other cops went through on that fateful day. I don’t and I never will.

Okay, now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about compassion. To read Kristen’s words, I can see that she has no compassion for the man who killed five innocent people that day in Aurora (I prefer not to use his name). Instead of compassion, she feels a sense of rage that has only grown since the day of the shooting. As she says, she doesn’t care about the shooter’s background—their trauma, their struggles, or their mental illness. Whatever led them to pick up a gun and take five innocent lives, she doesn’t care. What she cares about are the victims and their families. What she cares about are the cops who put their lives on the line so even more innocents weren’t killed. But she doesn’t care about the perp or what happened in his life that led him to become homicidal.

Truthfully, I can understand her feelings. I don’t agree with them, but I completely understand them. I’ve shared Kristen’s thoughts with other people and some felt the same as she did. They said that the perp could rot in hell and they only hope he felt the same pain he had caused. But other people had a different take. One person said that compassion wasn’t something that was earned by other people but was instead generated by the person feeling the compassion. I compare it to forgiveness, where the person doing the forgiving is the one that benefits from it.

I view compassion that I have for others as coming from a place of love and gratitude inside of me. I have compassion for other people—even bad people—because they are fellow human beings; children of God, just like me. They may have done something horrible, but that doesn’t change the essence of who they are.

Here’s an example. I do not like Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer from Milwaukee. He isn’t someone I would ever want to be around. I think what he did is deplorable. But I have compassion for him, for the things he went through in his life, and for the sick thoughts that went through his head and that led him to do the horrible things he did. I absolutely think someone like that should be locked up and kept away from civilized society. But that has to do with justice, not compassion. Justice is what we as a society do to him. Compassion is what we do for ourselves.

Having compassion in no way requires approval of another person’s actions. It does not require a lack of accountability. In fact, just the opposite. I have enough compassion that I want to see someone like Jeffrey Dahmer kept away from the rest of the world. And when we hold him accountable and mete out justice, I want compassion to go hand-in-hand with justice. That doesn’t mean going easy on someone or looking the other way. It means giving them a sentence that is commensurate with the crime they committed. It means requiring that they pay an appropriate debt to society. It should be justice that we seek, not vengeance.

Also, Kristen said she felt rage, not compassion toward the Pratt shooter. Those things are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to feel both emotions, sometimes simultaneously. She also encouraged other to not waste their sympathy on the shooter. That’s fair. Sympathy is not required to feel compassion. As I think about it now, I still feel rage toward the shooter, but I also feel compassion. What I don’t feel is sympathy, so we do have that in common.

I strive to be a compassionate person. I don’t want to lose the ability to see the person behind the monster, although it’s fair to say that I also never want to lose sight of the monster. Monsters need to be punished for the bad things they do. But for my own sake, I hope I never lose the ability to feel compassion for my fellow human beings, as flawed and complicated as they might be.

Donald Trump, in the opening days of his second term in the White House, has revealed a huge scandal involving the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a government program that makes grants, primarily in poor and developing countries. Trump and others in the MAGA movement have been ultra critical of these grants recently, claiming that they take US taxpayer dollars and provide extravagances for foreign countries while Americans go hungry and homeless.

In recent interviews, Trump claimed that USAID was rife with corruption, and said that money from the grants given by USAID was being used for ridiculous purposes, often in ways that end up harming the United States. One of his favorite examples of wasted spending is a grant given to Gaza for $50 million worth of condoms.

Obviously, such a grant on it’s face seems wasteful. Why are we providing condoms to people living in Gaza? And if we’re going to provide condoms, why would we spend so much. After all, fewer than 2.2 million people live in Gaza. The whole premise reeks of mismanagement and the potential for corruption.

The only problem was, it wasn’t true. (It took Elon Musk several days, but he finally admitted it wasn’t true) The grant Trump referred to spent exactly zero dollars on condoms for Gaza. That didn’t stop him from doubling-down, claiming that Palestinians were using the condoms to build bombs, although it wasn’t clear exactly how that was possible.

The controversy brewing up around USAID is a test case for the Trump Administration. It is a trial balloon that Trump and his accomplices hope they can use to dismantle government agencies and institutions, and consolidate power in the Executive.

Author Joel Emery has written about how Trump is using the totally manufactured scandal over USAID, and his writing has been eye-opening. I normally don’t share complete articles from other writers, but I was so impressed with what Joel had to say, I wanted to share it here in its entirety.

Here’s what Joel wrote on 2/8/25:

---

From Joel Emery:

The USAID “Scandal” and the Playbook of Manufactured Outrage

The dismantling of USAID isn’t about fraud. It’s not about waste. And it’s certainly not about making government more efficient. Instead, it’s a test case for a new era of governance—one where facts are optional, reality is shaped by cherry-picked narratives, and faith in a leader replaces independent sources of truth.

Rather than conducting an actual audit, Musk and Trump have used a familiar tactic—manufacture a scandal, flood the space with selective outrage, and use it to justify dismantling an agency they already wanted gone. It’s an attack on facts themselves—and if it works here, it will be repeated elsewhere.

***

Misinformation doesn’t have to be an outright lie to be effective. The most powerful form of disinformation is cherry-picking—taking a real event or number, stripping it of context, and reframing it for maximum outrage.

Take a look at a few of the White House’s official justifications for gutting USAID:

Claim: “USAID spent $6 million on tourism in Egypt.”
Reality: This funding was for education and economic development in North Sinai, not tourism. The grant was announced in 2019 during Trump’s first administration. Stripping away the date and purpose makes it sound like a recent, frivolous expenditure rather than part of an established economic aid initiative.

Claim: “USAID spent $1.5 million to promote workplace diversity in Serbia.”
Reality: This was part of a broader economic initiative to increase job opportunities in Serbia—where workplace discrimination limits economic participation. The program focused on helping businesses grow by improving inclusivity—but was reframed as an ideological “waste” rather than an economic development effort.

Claim: “USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia.”
Reality: This was not a USAID grant at all—it was issued by the State Department, not USAID. The grant supported an arts program aimed at increasing representation in Colombia’s opera scene. By misattributing the funding to USAID and framing it solely as a “transgender opera”, the claim was designed to provoke cultural outrage rather than discuss arts funding in global diplomacy.

Could an actual audit be conducted on how these funds were used? Absolutely. In a functioning government, there should always be room for debate over whether certain initiatives are priorities or whether they are effective. But that is not what is happening here.

Instead of evaluating whether these programs delivered results or whether better alternatives exist, these numbers were stripped of context and framed for maximum outrage—not to improve policy, but to justify dismantling an agency outright. A real debate would analyze impact and effectiveness, not manipulate selective facts to push a predetermined conclusion.

The biggest red flag? If USAID were truly corrupt, they would be showing full financial audits, not vague accusations.

***

If the goal were actually to root out inefficiencies, a proper USAID audit wouldn’t be done in a day or two based on cherry-picked spending line items. Audits—even for small organizations—are lengthy, comprehensive, and detail both strengths and weaknesses.

A real audit would:

• Be conducted by independent agencies (GAO, OIG, CBO), qualified and experienced leaders, or objective, appointed and vetted contracted individuals or organizations.
• Use full financial forensic analysis, not cherry-picked line items.
• Compare USAID to other government expenditures for context.
• Provide publicly available, transparent findings.
• Recommend measured reforms, not mass firings.

Real audits include:

• Positives and negatives—not just failures.
• Strengths and weaknesses—where the agency is effective and where it isn’t.
• Successes and failures—not just the failures someone wants to highlight.
• Annotated findings with full transparency—each claim links back to data.

This takes months, not days—because an audit can’t be done by just extracting data, running it through an algorithm (AI or otherwise), and issuing selective pronouncements. Instead, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) simply declared USAID “beyond repair” and started shutting it down—no audit needed.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about eliminating institutions. And if they can do this to USAID, they can do it to the CDC, NOAA, or any other agency that provides inconvenient facts.

***

The attack on USAID is just the beginning. If this strategy works, other congressionally created and funded agencies that provide oversight, enforce regulations, or provide objective information will be next.

The same manufactured outrage playbook will be applied to:

• The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – Criticized for interfering in free markets and overregulating financial institutions.
• The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) – Framed as an obstacle to economic growth by restricting corporate and investment practices.
• The IRS – Cast as a weaponized agency persecuting political enemies.
• The Pentagon – Attacked over spending inefficiencies and social policies.
• The Federal Reserve – Accused of economic manipulation and globalist control.
• The DOJ & FBI – Portrayed as corrupt institutions waging partisan investigations.
• The Department of Education – Framed as a wasteful bureaucracy pushing ideological agendas.
• The EPA – Blamed for stifling business growth through overregulation.

Each will be misrepresented and undermined not through comprehensive audits and evidence-based reform, but through cherry-picked data, selective outrage, and preordained conclusions that justify dismantling their authority.

The irony? Real audits of these agencies would be fantastic. If the goal were truly efficiency, effectiveness, and responsible governance, independent reviews would be welcomed. A thorough, transparent audit of USAID, the CFPB, the SEC, the IRS, or the Pentagon would provide critical insights for better decision-making. But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead of pursuing genuine oversight and accountability, the administration is manufacturing outrage and using it as a justification to dismantle institutions outright—not to fix them, but to eliminate their independence.

***

The final step in this process isn’t just about cutting waste—it’s about removing any part of the government that isn’t directly controlled by the executive branch.

• No independent oversight.
• No neutral agencies providing inconvenient data.
• No checks on power.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about whether any institution will be allowed to exist outside the direct control of a single leader.

The next time an agency or institution is suddenly declared “too corrupt to fix,” ask yourself:

• Where’s the full audit?
• Why is the data missing?
• Who benefits from removing this institution?

When facts disappear, power takes their place. That’s what’s happening here.

Addendum: One aspect of this attack on USAID that isn’t getting enough press is that it is being led by Elon  Musk, an unelected tech entrepreneur and the world’s wealthiest person. Musk claims that USAID is corrupt, is pushing a far-left Marxist agenda, and is a criminal organization. However, until recently, neither Musk nor Republicans in Congress have had much negative to say about USAID. In fact, Musk’s businesses have been the recipients of USAID grants.

Musk heads up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an organization created out of whole cloth. This “department” is made up of Musk and six “DOGE Bros” aged 19-24. The Doge Bros are computer programmers, not forensic accountants, some of whom have a history of illegal computer hacking and racist behavior. Only the best and brightest.

It’s odd that Musk and his minions started their supposed attempt to save taxpayer funds by going after USAID, an agency who’s budget accounts for only about 0.5% of the government’s budget. They could have gone after the Pentagon, which is the single largest discretionary item on the US budget and which failed the last seven audits it has undergone, but instead, he went after one of the smallest. Why?

You may be surprised to learn that prior to his assault on USAID, Musk was under investigation by that agency for money his StarLink business received as part of America’s contribution to Ukraine in their ongoing war with Russia. Ironically (or maybe not), Musk has not mentioned anything about the now defunct investigation or the money his company received.

But that’s not all. Tesla and Space X, both Musk-owned companies, were the target of 17 separate open investigations by the Department of Labor. The Department of Transportation had an open investigation looking at Tesla. The Department of Defense was investigating SpaceX, and the Agriculture Department was investigating Neuralink, a Musk-owned company involved in brain-computer interfaces. In every one of these departments, the inspectors general–the very people tasked with investigating and exposing fraud, corruption, and abuse–were fired once Donald Trump took office. Does that make sense?

And despite Musk’s attack on USAID and other agencies, it’s important to remember that Musk himself is one of the biggest beneficiaries of government largess. He received money to help start Tesla, the electric car company, including a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Tesla also received government grants that helped the company develop its supercharger network.

Space X, has received more that $18 billion in government contracts over the past decade, helping to grow the business into the world’s largest aerospace company. In fact, in 2025, Elon Musk-owned companies are scheduled to receive $8 million per day in taxpayer funds. It seems odd having one of the biggest individual beneficiaries of government spending also be the one investigating corruption and fraud in government spending, doesn’t it?

The bottom line is, as Joel Emery points out above, actual audits of government departments would be welcome. If there’s fraud or corruption–and there almost certainly is–it should be discovered and addressed. That is done by forensic accountants, not an unelected billionaire and six guys of questionable background. Do the audits, publish the results, and hold wrongdoers accountable. But don’t allow some rando, who just happened to spend more than $270 million to get the President elected, rummage through the government departments, disrupting  their work and tearing things apart. The chaos he’s causing effects real people.