What Would Truly Make America Great Again?

Donald Trump ran three presidential campaigns under the banner Make America Great Again (MAGA). He also promised to put “America First,” a reference to the 20^th century interwar movement that opposed further involvement in foreign wars. Instead, its adherents then and a large portion of Trump’s supporters now believe the wars America has fought have not served the interests of Americans and that the federal government should address those instead of “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

But therein lies the rub. Whether or not MAGA and America First are compatible largely depends upon how one defines “great.” And based upon the president’s actions thus far during his second term, his definition does not jibe with that of his America First supporters nor their 20^th century predecessors.

Trump’s supporters are sometimes criticized for romanticizing the 1950s, a period of relative peace and domestic prosperity. From the early 50s through the mid-1960s, life most approached what they consider the American ideal. Jobs were plentiful, including high paying manufacturing jobs, and most American households could live comfortably on one income.

They believe economic “globalization” ruined this idyllic lifestyle. Specifically, “free” trade agreements like NAFTA and allowing China to enter the WTO resulted in U.S. manufacturing being outsourced to cheaper labor markets abroad. This, they contend, has resulted in a dearth of high-paying jobs and the necessity for at least two people in the average household to work just to scrape by.

Thus, Trump’s first inaugural promised to reverse this “American carnage,” bring high paying manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., and restore the idyllic lifestyle Americans once enjoyed as their birthright.

It’s a compelling story and has certainly created a vast political movement. It’s also demonstrably false on every point.

First, American manufacturing has not been “hollowed out.” Manufacturing output is currently at an all-time high and any honest analysis of its virtually uninterrupted ascent over the past 100 years would conclude that the only interruptions to this success story have been the two financial crises – and accompanying monetary inflation – in 2008 and 2020. More on that later.

It is true that manufacturing jobs have declined precipitously, but that just means that the U.S. manufacturing sector is becoming more efficient, able to produce more output with fewer workers. The same thing has happened in farming over the past 100 years. In any case, the trend has nothing to do with NAFTA or China entering the WTO, as this chart clearly demonstrates:

If one were to take away the years at the bottom of that chart, no one claiming NAFTA or China entering the WTO were the driving factors in the decline of manufacturing jobs would be able to find those trade agreements on the chart. In fact, if one were to pull the timeframe out to include pre-WWII periods, it would show that WWII and the years immediately afterward were the highwater mark in terms of manufacturing jobs as a percentage of all jobs.

In other words, for most of American history, including most of the 1950s, 70% or more of American workers had non-manufacturing jobs. And somehow they were able to live middle class lifestyles.

It isn’t even true that increasing the number of manufacturing jobs would make the average American wealthier today. The median annual wage or salary for all full-time jobs in the U.S. economy is about $62,400. The median for full-time manufacturing jobs is about $45,960. Americans leaving the average job for a manufacturing job would not live a higher lifestyle. Quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be an “affordability” problem for average Americans. And the U.S. has been running large net trade deficits for decades, with no foreseeable end in sight. If Trump’s story doesn’t explain these problems, what does?

That brings us back to the definition of “greatness.”

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and host of the Tom Mullen Talks Freedom podcast.

Iran exposes the delusional empire and its mad king

Leave a reply

Eight days after threatening on Easter Sunday to end Iran’s civilization should it not open the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump on Monday began blockading the strait himself. He also threatened to “seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.”

This latter threat, which if carried out would amount to acts of war against the country of origin of the vessel(s), would include Russian and Chinese ships.

It is one thing to demand the strait be opened and, when Iran refused, to “close it harder” yourself. It is quite another to declare your intention to commit acts of war against the two most powerful countries in the world besides the United States, both with significant nuclear arsenals.

Fortunately, April 14 turned out to be another “TACO Tuesday” as previously sanctioned ship Rich Starry, bound for China and carrying a Chinese crew, successfully exited the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials explained its inaction based upon the ship having loaded its cargo in a United Arab Emirates port, rather than an Iranian port, and having not paid a toll to Iran. The ship therefore did not meet U.S. criteria for stoppage.

Whatever. That the U.S. did not commit any acts of war against a Chinese-crewed ship bound for China is a good thing. Iran has been allowing the ships of its allies to navigate the strait since the beginning of the war. It remains to be seen what will happen if a Russian or Chinese ship which does meet the U.S. criteria attempts to leave the gulf. The Murlikishan, another Chinese-crewed ship under a foreign flag and eventually bound for China, is currently in the gulf.

The blockade is the latest in a series of erratic attempts by President Trump to find an exit ramp from a war even he clearly realizes was a major blunder. The problem is that no matter which direction Trump goes in, the Iranian’s have the upper hand.

His threat to “end Iran’s civilization” by bombing their energy plants, desalination plants, and other civilian infrastructure was countered by Iran’s threat to do likewise to the GCC states. While this wouldn’t save Iran from devastation, it would effectively take the entire world down with it as about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply would no longer merely be interrupted by a temporary blockade but destroyed. The U.S. can’t afford a global depression. Iran’s capability to take down the global economy effectively gives them a trump card (intended) on military escalation.

Neither will Trump’s blockade be effective. Trump was willing to go to the extremes he did on Easter Sunday precisely because Iran’s own closure of the Strait of Hormuz was already damaging the world economy and that damage would increase exponentially the longer the closure went on. That fact hasn’t changed. Trump is saying that if Iran won’t let its enemies ships pass through the strait, then the U.S. won’t let its friends pass, either.

That not only doesn’t solve the economic problems caused by Iran’s closure; it makes them worse. It just means that even less oil, gas, and fertilizer is leaving the Persian Gulf than under Iran’s blockade alone. If Iran’s friends can no longer obtain those commodities from the Persian Gulf, they are going to compete with the U.S. and its allies for them in other markets, driving up the price for everyone. Iran wins again.

The madness of King Donald is driven by desperation. He cannot admit to himself he made a mistake starting the war in the first place nor face the reality that his tried-and-true bag of tricks – including making extreme demands and then pivoting to a more reasonable but advantageous position – is not going to get him out of this. Iran simply responds with the Art of the No Deal and leaves Trump flailing.

Iran has all the cards in this hand precisely because the administration has given them nothing to lose. It is true that the U.S. and Israel have destroyed a huge percentage of Iran’s above ground capabilities. But Iran anticipated that eventuality for decades. They’ve been preparing to survive this war since before Trump started hosting The Apprentice.

Given that all Iran must do to win is survive, maintain its capabilities to control the Strait, and retain its ability to respond to external attacks, it had a huge advantage before the first shot was fired. On the other hand, for the U.S. to win, it must either change the entire structure of Iranian government or truly eliminate Iran’s missile and nuclear enrichment capabilities, both of which may be far enough underground that even nuclear weapons cannot reach them.

Thus, the U.S. stumbles from one strategy to the next, trying to find one that has any leverage. It has lately moved several thousand ground troops to the region either for appearances or as a contingency. But again, what will the winning strategy be on the ground? Conquering Iran would take hundreds of thousands of troops if it were possible for the U.S. at all. Anything short of that would be short lived and indecisive. Indecisive means Iran wins again.

It isn’t only the emperor who has lost touch with reality but the empire itself. The 20^th century was the American century. The U.S. built its global empire fighting and defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. While there were plenty of blunders to point to and at least one defeat in Vietnam, the empire in general achieved its strategic goals. Whether the average American would have been better off without the empire is an argument for another day. But on its own terms, the empire set reasonable goals and achieved them.

This century tells a different story.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Where will a U.S. defeat in Iran leave the world?

Leave a reply

Monday April 6 will mark the end of President Trump’s 10-day extension of the 5-day extension of his March 21 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to either agree to a peace deal or face destruction of its energy infrastructure. Trump claims productive “talks” are occurring between the adversaries; Iran denies them. It is increasingly clear that what Trump is calling “talks” are in reality his administration’s attempts to contact the Iranian government through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan.

The peace deal Trump is insisting on contains all the terms presented to Iran before the war, including complete cessation of uranium enrichment, surrender of all previously enriched uranium, curtailment of their missile program, cessation of sponsoring proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis), and cessation of any attempt to build a nuclear weapon.

Apart from the last item, the terms comprised an offer the Iranians couldn’t accept, rather than one they couldn’t refuse, and appeared to be merely a pretense for the U.S. and Israel to launch the war they planned regardless. That they attacked Iran while the latter was meeting internally to discuss the terms all but confirms that.

In addition to making clear they are no longer interested in negotiating with the United States, the Iranians have issued their own set of demands to end hostilities: cessation of attacks and a binding agreement(s) it will not be attacked again, reparations for the damages caused by the attacks, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, continuation of its non-military nuclear program.

Although these also seem like “an offer the U.S. can’t accept,” they are eminently reasonable demands outside of control of the strait. The Strait of Hormuz is only partially in Iran’s territorial waters, the southern half belonging to Oman. Iran has already expressed a willingness to consider joint custody of the strait and would likely also consider an international arrangement if its other demands were met.

Iran’s demands are reasonable. Washington’s demands are not. The latter would leave Iran utterly defenseless against Israel and the U.S., both of which have repeatedly demonstrated their predisposition to attack it.

Should Trump follow through on his threats to destroy Iran’s energy infrastructure and possibly its desalination plants on Monday, Iran has vowed to do likewise to the energy and desalination infrastructure of every GCC state hosting American military bases. And despite Trump’s claims that their missile capability has been “dramatically curtailed,” they have since demonstrated a robust capability in their missile attacks on Tel Aviv immediately following Trump’s address.

If Trump and Iran follow through on their threats, a significant portion of the world’s energy infrastructure will be destroyed. The civilian populations of Iran and the GCC states will be devastated. Tens of millions could die. And the rest of the world would undoubtedly plunge into a global economic depression that could kill tens of millions more.

Contrary to Trump’s claims that oil from the Strait of Hormuz is largely not imported into the U.S. and therefore of no concern to the U.S., Americans are already suffering from the effects of Iran’s closure of the strait. This is basic economics. When the world supply of oil decreases, the price paid worldwide increases. Regardless of whether the particular oil exported through the strait normally reaches the U.S., those who do import that oil will compete with U.S. importers for what the latter do import when supply is reduced or eliminated from the strait.

That is why American importers are currently paying double what they paid for a barrel of oil just three months ago. And that price will rise dramatically if the supply of oil from the region is indefinitely reduced due to destruction of the region’s energy infrastructure rather than merely interrupted by Iran’s blockade.

This would seem far too high a price to bring Iran to heel, but for anyone arguing it is “worth it” in the long run, there is a very important question one must answer: Will it actually bring Iran to heel?

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

The emperor is defeated in Persia

Leave a reply

Flavius Claudius Julianus, known to modern students of history as “Julian,” was an unlikely emperor. A nephew of Constantine the Great through Constantine’s half brother Julius Constantius, there were long odds he would survive at all during the family purge that occurred following Constantine’s death.

After previously ordering the execution of his own son by his first wife, whom he may also have had executed, Constantine bequeathed the Roman empire to three sons by his second wife, Constantine II, Constans I, and Constantius II. After Constantine II died while waging war against Constans, Constans himself was killed in a revolt by the usurper Magnentius. This left Constantius II as the sole emperor of Rome, once the defeated Magnentius took his own life at the end of a three-year civil war.

Having survived this Corleone-style bloodbath, Constantius was understandably concerned about the threat his two cousins posed. After all, he was responsible not only for killing their father but much of their extended family. However, as Julian and his half brother Gallus were only children at the time, their lives were spared. They lived more or less under house arrest during their childhood but were provided a Christian education.

Ironically, talent was often a liability among Roman men of public renown. Specifically, a demonstrated ability to lead men in battle and defeat Rome’s enemies made one popular with the troops and the Roman citizenry but suspected as a rival by the emperor. Such was the fate of Julian’s brother Gallus, whom Constantius had killed after previously making Gallus a Caesar, allowing him to marry his sister, and tasking him with avenging Constans in the civil war against Magnentius.

Gallus performed far too well as a military leader and was summoned to Constantius’ court at Milan. During his journey thereto, he suddenly found the military garrisons in his path absent and was arrested and eventually executed.

Julian, on the other hand, did not immediately demonstrate any ability that could pose a threat to his cousin. After Gallus’ death, Julian was summoned to Milan where he was interrogated and detained for several months. However, partially due to the intervention of Constantius’ wife Eusebia, Julian was allowed to travel to Athens.

Julian had long wished to make this trip and immerse himself in the city’s philosophical culture. Once there, he attended lectures, developed relationships with prominent Christian and pagan teachers and students, and was eventually initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. There he hope to spend his life in academic and philosophical study.

Unfortunately for Julian, his genuine love of philosophical life persuaded Constantius that he was not a rival for his throne after all, prompting Constantius to make him Caesar! Under the system established by Diocletian, Caesars were subordinate to the emperor (or emperors) who bore the title “Augustus.”

Julian had no desire to leave his contemplative life in Athens and had good reason to suspect his trip to meet Constantius would end similarly to Gallus’. But Constantius was sincere and the young academic was made Caesar of the West and packed off to Gaul to represent the emperor.

Julian at first took up his duties reluctantly, lamenting while performing military exercises, “Oh, Plato, what a task for a philosopher!” according to Gibbon. But in time, he became a capable administrator and military leader, defeating the barbarians who had breached the Rhine, and establishing peace once more in the province.

Of course, Julian’s demonstrated ability as a leader now provoked the same suspicion in Constantius as had Gallus’. However, with civil war once again looming, Constantius died of a fever in 361 CE, having allegedly recognized Julian as his successor before his death.

Julian was a divisive leader due to his religious and civil policies. Known as “Julian the Apostate” to the Catholic Church, Julian attempted to reestablish the empire’s traditional pagan religion and persecuted Christians. Devoted to the aesthetic life himself, he viewed the opulent court apparatus as wasteful and inefficient. He fired thousands of servants and officials and had scheming eunuchs within the court system (the “Deep State” of the day) tried and executed.

Julian was adored by his supporters, especially in the military, and hated by his detractors, especially in the Church. Equally divisive were his economic policies. Accusing wealthy merchants of price gouging, he fixed the price of grain, imported additional stores from Egypt, and forced reluctant landowners to sell at the artificially low prices.

By 363 CE, although only in his early thirties, Julian had gone from exile to absolute ruler of the Roman empire. His reign was lauded as wildly successful by his supporters, and even his political adversaries would have had to concede that the rise of this non-politician to the most powerful office in the world was extraordinary.

Then came the Persian campaign.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Why the Trump experiment was a failure in shrinking government or ending ‘forever wars’

Leave a reply

On Saturday, February 28^th, President Trump launched an undeclared war on Iran without even the formality of the watered-down version of a Congressional declaration of war, an authorization to use military force (AUMF). Unfortunately, like most of Trump’s unconstitutional actions, this was not unprecedented. Barack Obama launched his war in Syria even after Congress voted to prohibit him from doing so. But it was the first time a president embarked on a full-blown war without even attempting to make a case to the public.

Americans generally acquiesce to foreign adventures if they’ve been made to feel they were part of the decision, delusional as that may be.

What makes Trump’s war so shocking is its brazenness in betraying his voters. Not involving the United States in a new war was a pillar of Trump’s campaign. If curbing illegal immigration was his first and foremost promise, not doing precisely what he’s doing in Iran was at least tied for second, alongside imposing mercantilism on the American economy.

Right behind those, especially after Elon Musk joined his 2024 campaign, was a promise to shrink the size of government by taking a cleaver to the administrative state. Trump seemed well on his way to following through on this when USAID was dismantled, complete with video of the sign on the door being ceremoniously removed.

It was a symbolic gesture, to be sure. USAID only cost taxpayers about $20 billion per year out of the government’s almost $7,000 billion per year budget. But USAID punched far above its budget, being a key mechanism for funding the NGOs the empire uses in fomenting coups in other countries (and maybe this one on occasion).

Moreover, Trump talked about it at the time as if it were only the beginning. Bigger administrative game was to be hunted, he said, especially the long promised (by Republicans) abolition of the Department of Education and even cuts to the Department of Defense..

Given the start the Trump administration got off to, the startling difference in cabinet appointments from the first Trump term, and the antiestablishment momentum Trump and MAGA seem to have coming into power, even libertarians had reason to believe some good might come out of the supposed revolution.

It may not have been realistic to hope for what’s really needed – 200,000 troops ordered home from overseas, repeal of the New Deal root and branch, and an end to the Federal Reserve – but perhaps an end to involvement of the Ukraine War, if not Israel’s war in Gaza, and the elimination of a department or two. Perhaps, if all the stars lined up, a fiscal year spending number lower than the year before for the first time when a Republican president is in office.

Instead, we got precisely the opposite on all fronts. In less than a year, Trump has gone from talking about cutting the DOD to increasing its budget by fifty percent. The Department of Education got a haircut at best once you do the accounting the same as it was done up until 2025. But worst of all, Trump launched a war of choice against Iran, the war neoconservatives have dreamed of this entire century but that even War on Terror presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were wise enough to avoid.

Trump’s most loyal diehards are trying to spin this as a defensive action, or not a war at all, or anything other than a complete betrayal of one of Trump’s most important promises and the America First philosophy in general. But everyone else who supported Trump, in principle or pragmatically, has whiplash.

For those who supported Trump primarily because they hoped his second term would at least be a break from nonstop military adventurism and runaway federal spending, the experiment has completely failed.

Why? Many have suggested Trump has no political principles; that he acts purely on instinct and political dealmaking. But that’s not true. Trump has a clearly defined philosophy that he consistently articulated for decades before entering politics.

No, it’s not fascism.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

War and socialism

Leave a reply

But I repeat myself

War and socialism have a lot in common. Many would argue that war is, in fact, socialism. After all, the government owns the means of production of war. It is centrally planned, completely funded with other people’s money and therefore devoid of market discipline, and directed by a hierarchy of government employees barking orders at the people directly below them.

The warmongers would vehemently disagree. War, they maintain, is a legitimate and necessary security service that is delegated to government only because it is impossible or impractical for the market to provide it. Defense of life and property is necessary to the security of a free state, free markets, and for truth, justice, and the American Way to prevail. Or something.

But being wholly owned and operated by the government isn’t the only similarity between war and socialism. They’re also both sold the same way and tend to go the same way over time. It’s almost like the same Hollywood scriptwriter wrote both movies. And they both have lousy endings.

The sales talk for socialism sounds great to most people. Who wouldn’t rather have “free” food, education, healthcare, etc. than have to pay for it? Especially when the price is so high. Forget that these things are only unaffordable due to previous government interventions demanded by the voters themselves. It’s much simpler to blame evil rich people. “We’ll make them pay their fair share,” say the politicians. And the crowd goes wild.

Then, the politicians get elected, the industries are nationalized, and the “real socialism” phase begins. “Real socialism” is the period at the beginning, when the government is handing out all the free stuff. It’s a nonstop party. “Greed has been defeated,” say the politicians, and they promise it will just keep getting better. Anyone who warns it won’t end well is ridiculed or demonized.

Then comes the “not real socialism” phase. It starts when the government has run out of other people’s money, the economy has been rendered completely unproductive, and all the zoo animals have been eaten. That’s when the rationing begins and the government becomes even more overtly authoritarian. Those who tried to warn the public and whose predictions came true are demonized as enemies of the state and scapegoated. “It’s the kulaks,” politicians say. “That’s why it didn’t work.”

Later, socialism’s supporters will say “that wasn’t real socialism.” But it was. We know this because the pattern is always the same.

The war script isn’t identical, but it rhymes. Instead of telling the suckers that rich people are the reason they’re miserable, people in another country are blamed. That evil country, or more precisely that country with the very evil government.

(In Jack Nicholson voice): “Is there another kind?

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Trump’s attack on Iran violated the War Powers Resolution

Leave a reply

And, as usual, nobody cares

President Trump commenced “Operation Epic Fury” this morning, a joint military action with Israel against Iran. He did not receive authorization from Congress and was not responding to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Therefore, he has violated the War Powers Resolution (WPR) and should be impeached.

Given that Congress has already impeached Trump twice during his previous term for far less egregious reasons, if they were valid at all, it would seem uncontroversial to suggest that for illegally and unconstitutionally taking the nation to war, impeachment would be a slam dunk. But it isn’t, and not just because Republicans control the House of Representatives.

The truth is presidents are far more likely to be impeached for trivial violations that don’t affect the lives of their constituents than for egregious flouting of Congress’ most important laws. It would be to hard argue there is a more important statue than the one defining the circumstances under which the president can initiate military action. The War Powers Resolution is very clear on this:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

That’s it. Simple. There is no ambiguity here. None of the three conditions the law stipulates have been met. Therefore, President Trump’s action this morning was illegal. Period. And nobody cares.

The law goes on to impose reporting requirements on the president and sets a 6-day limit on any military action the president has taken without Congressional authorization. But all that only applies after condition 3) above has been met.

No, the law does not authorize the president to undertake any military action he wishes for sixty days. Many people get confused about this because they want to be confused. The law does not allow the president to initiate military action for a day or even an hour if one of the three conditions aren’t met.

Trump’s statement regarding his reasons for the attack does not even attempt to justify them under the WPR. He cites Iran’s 1979 seizure of U.S. hostages without mentioning it being in retaliation for the U.S. overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953 and propping up a dictator over them for the next twenty-six years. He then lists a series of attacks on the U.S. military Iran is alleged to have funded on U.S. military in the Middle East, where they shouldn’t be stationed in the first place. He ends with alleged Iranian funding of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which is irrelevant to any justification of U.S. military force.

One can debate the veracity of the various accusations against Iran, whether any of them rise to justification for war, and what the U.S. response should be. And that’s just what the Constitution calls for – a debate. The members of Congress certainly have the constitutional authority to consider everything Trump has cited and decide whether to declare war on Iran or authorize a military response that falls short of war.

Even the latter option for Congress is constitutionally dubious. In fact, a compelling case can be made that the declaration of war power doesn’t even give Congress the power to start a war. It gives it the power to declare one. And one can only declare something that already exists.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupidand Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

The Epstein Saga and the Libertarian Delusion

Leave a reply

Libertarians are often characterized as a fringe movement, advocating limiting government far beyond what most Americans would even consider and prone to promoting conspiracy theories.

All of that is true.

That doesn’t mean we aren’t right, even about the conspiracy theories. We almost always are. We were right about the war on terror. We were right about Obamacare. We were right about the intelligence community conducting unconstitutional mass surveillance on Americans, that it was a fundamental violation of our most basic liberties, and that it wouldn’t catch a single terrorist (it didn’t).

We were right when we predicted the free market would solve deplatforming and online censorship without government intervention. We were right about Covid hysteria.

The Epstein saga has been a different story. Most libertarians believe the basic tenets of the narrative – that Epstein not only was “trafficking” underage girls to a vast number of prominent “elites,” but also filming their indiscretions to use as blackmail for…well, it’s not clear what for but something really, really bad that’s for sure.

After multiple releases of the so-called “Epstein Files,” there is still no evidence of any part of that story. On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence against the idea that anyone other than Epstein sexually abused minors. This is the official position of the FBI:

“The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography. Teams of agents, analysts, attorneys, and privacy and civil liberties experts combed through the digital and documentary evidence with the aim of providing as much information as possible to the public while simultaneously protecting victims. Much of the material is subject to court-ordered sealing. Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect victims and did not expose any additional third parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing. Through this review, we found no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography.

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Now, this writer certainly doesn’t take the FBI at its word. But in this case, it isn’t just the FBI’s statement that is persuasive, it is the sheer volume of files (over three million) released that seem to be completely consistent with this statement.

To this, proponents of the Epstein narrative reply that the government is holding back the incriminating material. They also point out that there are still redactions in the released files that are concealing perpetrators. On this point, the first six names unredacted under pressure from Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna were a colossal failure.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack (no paywall)…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupidand Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Where will the rudderless Trump administration drift next?

Leave a reply

Following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s disastrous testimony in Congress, all attention is currently focused on the Epstein scandal. And while the appearance of both rank incompetence and a sinister cover-up further damage the Trump administration’s approval ratings, it also provides a momentary diversion from a much bigger problem: Trump’s failure to deliver on his core campaign promises.

Aside from partial success on immigration issues, the Trump administration has failed to deliver on any of the others. A large part of the reason is lack of effort. Instead of working with Congress to deliver the America First agenda, the administration squandered its first and most important year in office on foreign military adventures.

It bombed Iran, invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president, and has rattled its saber at several other countries, none of which pose a threat to the United States. Trump has also talked about acquiring Greenland, either voluntarily or by vaguely implied force, depending upon his mood. He has entertained the Prime Minister of Israel seven times since taking office himself. And he has cozied up to arch neocon Lindsey Graham while making yet another effort to get libertarian Thomas Massie, who supports much more of the MAGA agenda than Graham, booted out of Congress.

Just six months after having declared Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program “totally obliterated” during the 2025 airstrikes, the administration sent massive military resources to within striking distance of Iran, making that nation an offer it couldn’t accept rather than couldn’t refuse. But after more bluster, it again backed off, just as it did during Trump’s first term, rendering yet another fool’s errand on behalf of a foreign nation just one more waste of time and resources, albeit this time without significant loss of lives.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Summarily Murdering Venezuelan “Narco-Terrorists” is Profoundly Un-American

Leave a reply

President Trump said on Tuesday that in addition to the airstrikes on Venezuelan boats suspected of trafficking drugs to the United States, the U.S. military would begin hitting targets on land. Not only are all these strikes unconstitutional by any construction, but they are also unprovoked acts of war against a country that poses no threat to the United States.

Since September, the administration has carried out at least twenty-one attacks on civilian vessels in the Caribbean, resulting in eighty-three deaths. Not one of those killed by American forces was charged with a crime in any court, much less convicted at trial. This behavior wouldn’t pass muster under Magna Carta, written by barbarians by our standards today, much less the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This doesn’t require any fanciful 20^th-century reading of the Bill of Rights, like the one that produced Roe v. Wade. That this is impermissible is firmly rooted in constitutional interpretation dating to the man who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights himself.

There were several reasons for the War of 1812, not all of them legitimate. A certain faction among the war hawks of the day just wanted to steal Canada from the British empire. But foremost among the legitimate grievances cited by James Madison in asking Congress for a declaration of war, and frankly the only one most people remember, was the impressment of sailors on American ships into service in the British Navy.

It is important to understand the complaint was not against returning true deserters from the British Navy to Great Britain. As Madison said in his address, “And that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British Government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects were real and sole object.”

The problem the Madison administration had was that, in addition to disrespectfully boarding American ships by force, the British “so far from affecting British subjects alone, that under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American Citizens, under the safeguard of public law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from everything dear to them.”

That’s the whole point of due process. The government not only has to prove a crime was committed, but that they have indeed arrested the right person, which they frequently haven’t. This is why the mobbish retort, “narco-terrorists don’t deserve due process” is so counterintuitive. Without it, we don’t even know if the government has arrested the person they believe they have, much less whether this person committed a crime.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…