Column

President Trump was uncommonly lucky in his first term, neither inheriting nor provoking a crisis of the sort that tests U.S. presidents, until COVID struck in his final 10 months. (He failed that test, contributing to his 2020 reelection defeat.) Trump 1.0 was bequeathed a growing economy from President Obama, and the incoming president assembled a roster of capable advisors who often acted to prevent him from doing nutty things at home and abroad.

Trump 2.0 made sure that no such human guardrails populated his second Cabinet, only genuflecting enablers. Unrestrained, he has presided over one crisis on top of another, all of his own making. Tariff mayhem and high prices. Armed agents and troops in American cities. Repeated violations of court orders. Demolition at federal agencies and the White House.

And now Trump has taken the nation to war against Iran in league with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Depending on the moment and the audience, a contradictory Trump is either claiming the war is “very complete” or that much remains to be done to “decimate” Iran. On Wednesday he blithely told Axios, “Any time I want it to end, it will end,” even as U.S. officials planned further actions.

In any case, Trump’s war of choice and the killing of the supreme leader of Iran’s terroristic theocracy now has spawned another potential crisis, counterterrorism experts warn: the risks of retaliatory terrorist threats at home. And that is a threat, whether from homegrown extremists or sleeper cells of the sort that came alive for 9/11, that is likely greater because of the initial self-induced crisis of Trump’s second term: his whacking of the federal government.

Trump authorized Elon Musk’s destruction of the bureaucracy in the name of “government efficiency” and continues to exact retribution against any federal employee who had anything to do with investigating and prosecuting him during his interregnum. Longtime agents and operatives have been eliminated at the FBI, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and elsewhere. Especially at the FBI, counterterrorism experts with centuries of collective experience are gone and many who remain have been diverted to Trump’s top priority: mass deportations.

Consequently, the president who promised to “Make America Safe Again” has arguably made Americans less safe.

I raised this scary prospect just over a year ago as Trump’s teardown of the purported Deep State was underway. And now a Mideast war that Trump promised never to start has further incentivized Iran and its jihadi proxies to hit back, just as he’s diminished the nation’s early-warning systems.

Enough intelligence remains, however, that even in the days before Trump ordered the first strikes against Tehran, government analysts were picking up “worrisome signs” of Iranian plotting against U.S. targets, the New York Times reported. After the U.S.-Israel onslaught and death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, the government intercepted a possible Iranian “operational trigger” to “sleeper assets” outside Iran, according to ABC News.

Counterterrorism expert Colin P. Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, which focuses on global security and transnational terrorism, wrote this week in the Atlantic that U.S. agencies’ record of disrupting Iranian-backed plots in America was in jeopardy given the recent changes in funding, personnel and priorities. “Because of this,” he concluded, “the U.S. homeland is arguably more vulnerable than it has been in a long time.”

In a follow-up exchange of emails, Clarke told me, “Many of this administration’s moves have been myopic — shifting counterterrorism resources to immigration, firing FBI agents working counterintelligence, etc. A week before the U.S. went to war with Iran, the FBI Director Kash Patel was off gallivanting in Milan at the Olympics [where he struggled to chug a Michelob Ultra, a firing offense in its own right] when he should have been preparing for the potential for an Iranian response on U.S. soil.”

Patel’s preposterous partying with the U.S. men’s hockey team while war-planning was underway in Washington was widely, justifiably mocked. But it stands as a metaphor for the entire Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward homeland security. Its abusive focus on both migrants and citizens protesting on the migrants’ behalf is a distraction from actual threats to the country.

Patel, like his boss at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, has made plain in words and actions that the president’s political enemies are the real public enemies No. 1. One of Bondi’s first acts was creation of a “weaponization working group” to identify, fire or prosecute those in her department who’d investigated and prosecuted Trump, many of whom also had experience in domestic and transnational terrorism. The association representing FBI agents called her purges “dangerous distractions” from the work “to make America safe again.”

Days after starting the Iran war, when homeland security should have been on red alert, Trump fired his secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Her costly cosplaying as the homeland’s heroine on horseback in anti-migrant videos, along with her penchant for luxury jets allegedly to transport deportees, was too much even for him.

Yet all three “national security” officials — Noem, Bondi and Patel — simply reflect Trump’s own warped approach and blasé attitude toward the homefront.

When Time magazine last week asked the commander in chief whether Americans should be worried about potential terrorist strikes at home, he replied, “I guess.”

“We plan for it,” he added. “But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”

The administration is planning for it all right. An extraordinary number of senior Trump officials have taken up residence in houses on military bases, including Bondi, Noem, the secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, and White House consigliere Stephen Miller.

The rest of us just have to keep our fingers crossed. I guess.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
— Donald Trump, in his victory speech Nov. 6, 2024

It’s bad enough that President Trump has broken that oft-repeated pledge and unilaterally started a war, without engaging either Congress or the American public. And that, by his war of choice against Iran, he has in the most perilous way to date betrayed his signature “America First” standard, at least as longtime proponents Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and others mean it, and as many people thought he did too.

What’s even worse than Trump’s mendacity about stopping foreign wars is the broader truth that his war on Iran underscores: In the major theaters of U.S. foreign policy — the Mideast, Europe and Asia — he is essentially letting foreigners set his course, America’s course. And to state the obvious: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping do not have America’s interests at heart.

It has long been a defining contradiction of Trump that the wannabe strongman repeatedly shows himself to be in thrall to the world’s actual strongmen. His affinity for them has for years puzzled observers in this country and abroad. Trump strikes a pose — say, on negotiating with Iran about its nukes program, promising peace in Ukraine, hitting China with tariffs — only to crumple after a phone call, a meeting or a slap back from his opposite number.

It’s always hard for a person without a strong core to maintain a stand.

Obviously different factors are at play in Trump’s relationships with Israel, a U.S. ally, with longtime adversaries Russia and China and, more specifically, with each nation’s leaders. But all three cases reflect a personalization of foreign policy that is dangerously unique to Trump. For him, it’s less “what’s good for my country” than “what’s good for me” and “who likes me.” Time and again, he’s been explicit about that.

For all Trump’s cosplaying as a strongman, he shows his weakness as a national leader when he lets foreign counterparts share the wheel with him. As a consequence, he’s driving America erratically at best. At worst, he’s steering into another costly, bloody “forever war” of the sort he railed against for decades.

He’s gone in a direction in the Middle East that, polls show, pluralities or even majorities of Americans didn’t want to go. Trump has received none of the initial rally ’round support that past presidents enjoyed after initiating military operations. That’s a hazardous place to be domestically. Most Republicans are behind Trump on the war, but not by the usual high numbers. After all, it was disgust with forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that sent many people flocking to Trump’s “America First” banner to begin with.

For years he warned that other presidents and presidential candidates would start a war in Iran, World War III even. Yet here we are. And after days of what Kelly derided on air as the “10,000 different explanations” that Trump has given for attacking Iran and killing its top political and military leaders, on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphatically provided just one: Because Israel was going to strike Iran first, the United States had to join the attack to protect U.S. personnel and assets in the region from Iran’s retaliation.

Cue the blowback in MAGA world: “He’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand,” MAGA pundit Matt Walsh lashed out online. And then Trump contradicted his secretary of State on the rationale for the attacks. Yet Rubio wasn’t the only one citing Israel’s plans as the war’s predicate. So did House Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson. On Tuesday, Trump himself said he had to act fast because the Iranians “were getting ready to attack Israel.”

As Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded, “If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”

Similarly, in June, Trump ordered a devastating one-off strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to support Israel’s 12-day war against Iran. For months after, Netanyahu hounded Trump to stop the subsequent peace talks with Iran and go back on offense with Israel. So now Trump has complied, striking even as negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the once respected Republican from South Carolina, offered his sycophantic spin: “Bibi and Trump are the modern Roosevelt-Churchill combination.”

The latters’ grave sites surely trembled.

As for Asia, Trump talks a good game against China, and, yes, he’s imposed big tariffs. But just as often he’s backtracked, often after talking with Xi. Trump’s admiration of the Chinese autocrat and his eagerness to please him is palpable. In fact, in dealing with Xi, Trump in both of his terms has violated his own words in “The Art of the Deal”: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

No one is more worried about Trump’s regard for Xi than the Taiwanese, living under threat from China. Just recently Trump delayed arms sales to Taiwan approved by Congress lest he upset Xi ahead of their Beijing meeting in April.

In Europe, meanwhile, Trump continues to be played by Putin at the “peace” table to end Russia’s war in Ukraine — the war that candidate Trump said he’d settle in a day. More than a year later, he continues to harangue Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to make concessions to the invader, never demanding anything from Putin.

Most heinously, Trump’s 28-point “peace” plan last November incorporated everything that Putin/Russia dreamed of extracting from Ukraine, and for good reason: The proposal came from Moscow, passed from Putin’s flunky to Trump’s. That followed Trump’s humiliating summit with Putin last August in Alaska, giving the globally reviled Russian an American stage and pageantry and serving no purpose for the United States, only for Trump the showman. All the while, Russia continued ravaging Ukraine.

So much for Trump’s election promise. He doesn’t stop wars (his repeated claims to the contrary). But he does start them.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Plumes of smoke rise above the skyline of Tehran, following explosions in Iran, on sunday on March 1, 2026. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was confirmed dead after a joint U.S.–Israeli strike on February 28. In response, Iran launched waves of missiles and drones targeting Israel and U.S. allies across the region. File. Photo by Hossein Esmaeili/UPI | License Photo

March 3 (Asia Today) — The escalating conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran may not end quickly, and South Korea must prepare for the possibility of a prolonged crisis.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has launched retaliatory strikes following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes. Tehran has moved to block the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that handles roughly 20% of global seaborne crude oil shipments, and has fired missiles toward Gulf neighbors including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

Although U.S. and Israeli forces reportedly killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and senior military commanders in a surprise attack, it remains unclear whether the conflict will conclude swiftly as President Donald Trump has suggested.

Trump has framed the strikes as an effort to achieve regime change, urging the Iranian people to rise up against the country’s theocratic leadership. However, the situation differs markedly from past U.S. interventions. Achieving regime change solely through airstrikes on military and strategic targets is unlikely.

Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, has argued that history shows regime change is rarely accomplished without occupation. He also warned that with Khamenei dead, the most hardline elements within the current system could consolidate power.

David Ignatius of The Washington Post likewise cautioned that a U.S. attack on Iran would not be a “one and done” operation but could become a drawn-out conflict. He wrote that the president has a responsibility to explain the stakes and unpredictable risks to the American public.

Global financial markets have already reacted. Japan’s Nikkei index fell as much as 2.7% on Monday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures briefly surged 13% to more than $75 per barrel. The Economist warned that oil prices could remain elevated even after the initial spike.

The magazine assessed that hardliners gaining influence in Tehran is more likely than a smooth regime transition. It cautioned that if Iranian forces target oil infrastructure in Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates or Kuwait, defending those facilities would prove difficult.

South Korea must assume the conflict could drag on. The economic shock would affect both financial markets and the real economy. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, then-President Joe Biden released 4.4 million barrels per day from the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, yet oil prices remained volatile. At the time, U.S. reserves stood at 570 million barrels; they now total about 415 million barrels.

The government should prepare for currency volatility and stock market declines. Surging oil prices and shipping costs, along with renewed supply chain disruptions, would pose significant medium- to long-term risks to production, investment and consumption in South Korea’s trade-dependent economy.

This crisis should not be viewed as a short-term event. Policymakers must respond with the understanding that the conflict could persist and plan accordingly.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260302010000297

March 3 (Asia Today) — North Korea’s ninth congress of the Workers’ Party, held in Pyongyang from Feb. 19 to 25, reinforced leader Kim Jong Un’s centralized rule and reaffirmed the country’s nuclear posture, according to Cho Young-ki, secretary general of the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of the Korean Peninsula.

The party congress, convened every five years as the party’s highest decision-making body, drew about 5,000 delegates. It reviewed the Central Committee’s work, revised party rules and elected key leadership posts. Cho wrote that while the congress is formally tasked with deliberation, it primarily ratifies decisions already made by Kim and the leadership.

Kim declared that the past five years produced economic achievements “worthy of pride” despite internal and external challenges and said the country had permanently secured its status as a nuclear power. He pledged to pursue qualitative economic development under a “people-first” principle in the next five-year period.

Kim also defined inter-Korean relations as those between hostile states, dismissed Seoul’s reconciliation policies and reiterated North Korea’s nuclear deterrence. At the same time, he left open the possibility of negotiations with the United States if Washington withdraws what Pyongyang calls a hostile policy.

A key feature of the congress was renewed emphasis on what the regime calls a “Five-Point Party Building Line,” first proposed in 2022 and formalized in 2023. The line centers on strengthening political, organizational, ideological, disciplinary and work-style controls within the party.

Cho argued that reaffirming the five-point line formalizes Kim’s governing ideology and tightens centralized discipline under a party-centered system. The congress re-elected Kim as general secretary, revised party rules and reshuffled leadership posts.

Notably, the Political Bureau Standing Committee expanded from four to five members, and Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, was reinstated and promoted, reinforcing what Cho described as a patronage structure around the leader. Twenty-three of 39 executive members were replaced in a generational reshuffle. Senior official Choe Ryong Hae was reported to have stepped back from his previous role near the top of the hierarchy.

Cho wrote that the five-point line ultimately serves to justify and entrench Kim’s centralized authority. He argued that the congress underscores North Korea’s lack of intention to abandon its nuclear weapons and signals a hardening of its stance toward South Korea.

Since the mid-1990s, Cho wrote, South Korea has operated under what he described as illusions that goodwill or dialogue alone could persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize. He said the latest congress challenges those assumptions.

Cho concluded that outside information remains one of the few factors that authoritarian systems fear. He pointed to North Korean laws enacted in recent years aimed at blocking foreign cultural and ideological influence, arguing they reflect the regime’s sensitivity to external information flows.

He said South Korea has a responsibility to expand technological and institutional means for North Koreans to access outside information, enabling independent thought and action.

Cho Young-ki, secretary general of the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of the Korean Peninsula and former professor at Korea University

※ The views expressed in this column are those of the author and may not reflect the position of this publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260303010000561

March 3 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s exports are riding a semiconductor boom, but lawmakers risk undermining that momentum by delaying legislation tied to a major U.S. investment plan.

According to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, exports in February reached $67.4 billion, the highest ever for the month, despite fewer working days due to the Lunar New Year holiday. Exports have set new monthly records for nine straight months since June.

Still, vulnerabilities are emerging. Automobile exports fell 20.8% from a year earlier in February, reflecting the impact of U.S. tariffs on specific items. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down reciprocal tariffs, the administration of President Donald Trump has continued to pursue tariff measures. Lawmakers should move swiftly to pass the Special Act on Investment in the United States to remove potential grounds for further trade friction.

Semiconductors once again drove export growth. Chip exports surged 160% from a year earlier to $25.1 billion, marking the third consecutive month above the $20 billion mark. The gains reflect increased artificial intelligence investment by global technology firms and a sharp rise in memory chip prices. The price of DDR4 8Gb DRAM has climbed 863% over the past year, while 128Gb NAND prices have risen 452%.

But heavy reliance on semiconductors has deepened disparities across industries. Of the country’s 15 key export categories, only five posted gains last month, including computers, wireless communication devices, ships and biohealth products. Exports of auto parts, petrochemicals and steel declined amid global oversupply and tariff pressures.

Geopolitical risks add further uncertainty. The recent U.S. airstrikes on Iran have heightened concerns about instability in the Middle East. According to the Korea International Trade Association, every 10% increase in global oil prices reduces South Korea’s export volume by 0.39%. A prolonged conflict could jeopardize the government’s goal of achieving $800 billion in annual exports this year.

Against this backdrop, the ruling Democratic Party and the opposition People Power Party remain locked in a dispute over passage of the Special Act on Investment in the United States, which would support a planned $350 billion investment in America.

On Sunday, Han Byung-do, floor leader of the Democratic Party, warned that his party would take “a major decision” if the opposition continued to block proceedings. The People Power Party has boycotted related committee activities in protest of separate judicial reform bills passed by the majority party.

While the ruling party bears responsibility for pushing through controversial judicial legislation, it is also unwise to hold a bill tied to national economic interests hostage to partisan conflict. The government has already conditionally approved Google’s request to export high-precision map data in an effort to avoid giving Washington grounds for additional tariffs.

Failure to pass the investment bill in the coming days could carry further costs. Both sides should exercise strategic flexibility to safeguard national interests amid mounting external risks.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260302010000303

SACRAMENTO — The race for California governor couldn’t be much closer. And that’s scary for Democrats.

Only the top two vote-getters in the June 2 primary — regardless of their party — will advance to the November election. And although still unlikely, it’s increasingly conceivable that both could be Republicans.

“Scare tactics,” claim naysaying Democrats of such speculation.

But Democrats should have heeded scary rumblings 10 years ago when long shot Donald Trump was first running for president — and not buried their heads in the sand again two years ago when Joe Biden was feebly seeking reelection.

They ignored the warning signs and paid the price.

Now, the latest independent poll of likely voters shows that Republican candidates are running in two of the top three places for governor — meaning it’s possible both could qualify for the November ballot, guaranteeing the first election of a GOP chief executive in 20 years.

The best odds are on one Democrat and one Republican finishing in the top two — virtually assuring a Democratic victory in November.

California is too solidly Democrat — and President Trump too despised here — to envision a Republican beating a Democrat to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

But Democrats could beat themselves if the current field of candidates remains intact. There essentially are eight Democrats and only two Republicans competing in the primary.

If the combined Democratic vote is splintered among the eight Democratic contestants, the two Republicans could end up finishing first and second.

“It’s hard to come up with the math that makes that work,” asserts Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. He just completed a survey in which “a lot of things show that a Democrat and Republican [top-two finish] is the likely outcome,” he says.

But political data guru Paul Mitchell has been running primary election simulations and after Baldassare’s latest poll, he calculated the chances of an all-Republican finish at 18%.

That seems like the danger zone.

The solution is for some Democratic candidates who have little hope of winning to drop out of the race — very soon, in fact. They shouldn’t even file their official candidacy papers that are due by Friday. After that deadline, it’s impossible to remove their names from the ballot even if they’re no longer really running.

The PPIC poll, released last week, showed a statistical tie between the top five contenders — three Democrats and two Republicans, all within 4 percentage points of each other.

The breakdown:

Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, 14%; Democratic former Rep. Katie Porter, 13%; Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, 12%; Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, 11%; Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, 10%.

Then came five Democratic stragglers.

Former U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee each had 5%. Trailing them were San José Mayor Matt Mahan with 3% and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond at 2%.

Mahan’s a centrist wild card who jumped into the race while the polling was underway. So, there’s a valid excuse for his poor showing.

Swalwell and Steyer entered late last year and apparently took votes away from Porter and Becerra.

Porter and Yee are the only prominent female candidates, but they aren’t particularly being helped by female voters, the poll showed.

There was good news in the survey for Democrats hoping to pick up more congressional seats in California and help the party seize control of the House of Representatives from Republicans.

Asked whether they’d vote for a Democrat or Republican for Congress, 62% replied Democrat and only 36% Republican. That’s not surprising, since Democrats already hold 43 of California’s 52 seats.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature last year gerrymandered California’s House districts with the goal of gaining at least five more seats. Voters approved that move by passing Proposition 50.

The especially bright news in the poll for Democrats was that in the five new House districts considered the most competitive, Democrats had a slight edge in voter preference. That was also true in districts held by Republicans.

Additionally, Democrats are much more enthusiastic than Republicans about voting in the congressional contests.

In the competitive districts, nearly two-thirds of voters disapprove of tactics by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in corralling undocumented immigrants. And 57% disapprove of Trump.

Anti-Trump sentiment is extremely high among all voters — 30% approval and 70% disapproval.

One head-scratcher in the poll was the voters’ denial about their political polarization. They were asked what qualification they considered most important in choosing a governor. Only 6% said it was the candidate’s political party. Rubbage.

“There are very few people who are voting outside their party,” Baldassare notes.

Two-thirds of voters answered that a candidate’s stand on issues is the most important consideration for them. Voters of both parties, plus independents, rated a candidate’s position on “affordability” as “very” important — and it topped their list of concerns.

A majority of voters said California is “going in the wrong direction.” This is a gloomy finding for Democrats who have been ruling state government — and most large cities — for many years.

But a much larger majority believe the country also is headed in the wrong direction. Back at ya, Republicans. It’s the GOP that’s in total control of the federal government.

Both parties in California have reasons to run scared this year.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California Democrats unite against Trump, differ on vision for state’s future
Salud: Retired 100-year-old fighter pilot from Escondido receives Medal of Honor
The L.A. Times Special: Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have traveled parallel paths. Will they collide in 2028?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Amid the chaos in Kabul, politicians and pundits have declared the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan a defeat from which U.S. influence may never recover.

“Biden’s credibility is now shot,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief oracle of Britain’s Financial Times.

“A grave blow to America’s standing,” warned the Economist.

But take a deep breath and remember some history.

When South Vietnam collapsed after a war that involved four times as many U.S. troops, many drew the same conclusion: The age of U.S. global power was over.

Less than 15 years later, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War began to end, and the United States soon stood as the world’s only superpower.

The lesson: A debacle like the defeat in Kabul — or the one in Saigon two generations earlier — doesn’t always prevent a powerful country from marshaling its resources and succeeding.

I’m not dismissing the tragedy that has befallen the Afghans or the damage that U.S. credibility has suffered. When President Biden told a news conference that he had “seen no questioning of our credibility from allies,” he sounded as if he was in denial — or, perhaps worse, out of touch.

No questioning? How about the question from Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the British Parliament’s defense committee: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

Or the complaint from Armin Laschet, the German conservative who could be his country’s leader after elections next month: “The greatest debacle NATO has experienced since its founding.”

Whether he likes it or not, Biden has repair work to do.

The first step, already underway, is making sure the endgame in Kabul doesn’t get any worse.

That means keeping U.S. troops on the ground until every American is out, as Biden has promised. It also requires an energetic effort to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions, even if that requires risking the lives of some American troops. Those Afghans trusted us; if we abandon them, it will be a long time before we can credibly ask the same of anyone else.

And, of course, the administration needs to prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from replanting themselves in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If the United States fails at that — the original reason we invaded the country almost 20 years ago — Biden’s decision to withdraw will justly be judged a fiasco.

There’s repair work to do beyond Afghanistan, too.

“We’ve got to show that it would be wrong to see American foreign policy through the lens of Afghanistan,” Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and a former top State Department official, told me.

The United States has more important interests that need attention and allies that need reassurance, he said.

“The most important thing is to deter our major foes,” he said, referring to China, Russia and Iran.

“This is a moment to strengthen forces in Europe, mount more freedom of navigation operations [by the U.S. Navy] in the South China Sea,” he said. “This is a good time to say we’re serious about our commitment to Taiwan,” which China periodically threatens.

Biden took a step in that direction in his recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, listing Taiwan along with South Korea and Japan as places where the U.S. “would respond” to an attack.

If anything, Haass and other foreign policy veterans say, the questions about American credibility are likely to make Biden react more strongly to the next few challenges overseas.

“The most intriguing question is what effect this episode has on Biden’s thinking,” suggested Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Will he think: ‘I’ve got to be tougher with the Iranians now? Do I have to signal to a country like Taiwan that I’m prepared to protect American interests there?’”

But the notion that American influence has been fatally damaged is overblown, he argued.

“There have been many other instances in which U.S. credibility has been diminished, but our phone continues to ring,” Miller said.

Biden and his aides already know most of this. The premises of his foreign policy — reviving U.S. domestic strength, revitalizing U.S. alliances, and focusing on vital interests like China and Russia — provide a foundation for recovery.

“My dad used to have an expression: If everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you,” the president said last week. “We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.”

The test Biden faces now is whether he can execute that strategy — and show that he’s credible where it matters most — more successfully than in his botched withdrawal from an unwinnable war.

For this year’s State of the Union address, as usual, the president was the center of attention. That’s just where Donald Trump lives, so it’s no wonder that he broke his record for the length of the nationally televised speech. He was the star of his own unreality show, with an audience of tens of millions. In front of him, idolatrous Republican lawmakers popped up and down to applaud like clowns in wind-up music boxes of old.

In fact, a president comes to the Capitol as a guest in Congress’ home, there only by invitation of the speaker of the House. It’s a historical nod to the separation of powers so essential to America’s system of government. But of course Trump acts as though he owns the place. And why not? The Republican majorities in the House and Senate essentially gave him the keys and title, along with much of their constitutional power over spending, federal appointments, war powers and more.

“What a difference a president makes,” a triumphalist Trump imperiously marveled about himself on Tuesday night, after exaggerating or falsely claiming his achievements of the past year.

Got that? Even with a Congress controlled by his party, with its majorities at risk in this midterm election year because of his unpopularity, Trump couldn’t find it within his narcissistic self to share the specious credit. Then again, he does act alone most of the time, and polls show he’s getting blame, not credit, from 6 out of 10 Americans.

For the good of the nation, Congress must take back its powers from Trump and, with them, more of Americans’ attention. No less than Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, pleaded as much just days before the State of the Union address.

In concurring with the Court’s 6-3 ruling last week striking down the centerpiece of Trump’s agenda — unilateral tariffs — as a usurpation of Congress’ constitutional taxing power, Gorsuch all but implored lawmakers to restore Congress’ intended role as a co-equal branch of government — and the president to respect it as such. (Spoiler: He won’t.)

Gorsuch’s opinion was a masterclass in why the founders created Congress in the very first article of the Constitution, saving the presidency and the judiciary for the second and third articles. I don’t agree with Gorsuch on much, but his concurrence should be required reading for Trump and for members of Congress who plainly need remedial civics lessons. It’s worth quoting at length; italics are mine.

“Our founders understood that men are not angels, and we disregard that insight at our peril when we allow the few (or the one) to aggrandize their power based on loose or uncertain authority,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” he closed. “And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future.”

Do you know what won’t endure? Trump’s policymaking by “impulse” and fiat, by hundreds of executive orders. Indeed, it would be in his interest to work with Congress on laws that will outlive him and stand as his legacy. Yet he wants to be a king, getting quick results on a whim, by the thumbing of a tweet or a Sharpie signature on paper. Legislating requires time, compromise and ultimately sharing credit.

Perhaps that’s why Trump is so intent on erecting edifices of tangible marble and gold in Washington and beyond: Those will endure when his policies don’t. And that’s the legacy he craves — mega-ballrooms, arches, statues, busts and buildings in his name and image.

Gorsuch wasn’t in the House chamber to hear Trump’s address and his slap at the court’s tariff decision. Just four of the nine justices were, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the main opinion, and two other justices who’d joined in opposing Trump’s tariff power grab. The president insisted he’d proceed with unilateral tariffs under separate laws, adding that “congressional action will not be necessary.” Republican lawmakers applauded.

The founders, in the Constitution, required presidents to annually report on the state of the union and to “recommend” to Congress “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Then it’s the president’s job to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Yet as usual, Trump outlined little in the way of a legislative agenda.

The president likes to note, as he did in his address, that he’ll preside over this year’s celebrations of the nation’s 250th birthday. But he should know that the nation wasn’t born in a day, on July 4, 1776. The founders squabbled 11 years more over the Constitution, and states took another two years to ratify it.

Yes, democracy has been hard from the start. That’s why Trump’s appeal for some Americans is his action-figure persona — forget norms, laws and the Constitution.

But perhaps if Trump’s poll numbers remain in the tank, even Republicans in Congress will summon the guts to protect the institution’s powers. And if they don’t, that’s all the more reason for voters to turn the keys over to Democrats in November.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Where are the statesmen when the state is under siege by the current head of state?

I’ve been mulling that question, hardly for the first time, but on three occasions just in the last few days.

On Monday, the federal holiday celebrating George Washington’s birth, former President George W. Bush posted an essay on the first U.S. president as part of a civic project commemorating the nation’s 250th year. Simply by hailing Washington for traits that Donald Trump utterly lacks — humility, integrity, dignity, self-restraint, willingness to forfeit power — the piece was widely read as a sneak attack on the current president. Bush never named Trump. He thus maintained his years-long, stupefying silence about the man who’s trashed him, his family, his party, his legacy PEPFAR program and, most of all, his country.

As Jonathan V. Last wrote for the right-of-center, anti-Trump Bulwark, if Bush’s words were a veiled attack on Trump, “the veil is so powerful that even light can’t escape it.”

Bush’s essay came two days after former President Obama finally responded to Trump’s week-old racist post that caricatured the first Black president and his wife as apes, thereby mainlining into the body politic one of the most toxic tropes against Black Americans. Asked about it in a podcast interview, Obama was, as usual, too cool. He called Trump’s behavior “deeply troubling” and said “there doesn’t seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

But, like Bush, he never named Trump. And it’s not even clear that Obama was referring to him. Certainly Trump never was one of those who, as Obama put it, “used to feel … some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

Then there was the third trigger for my musings about America’s M.I.A. statesmen.

On Friday — ahead of the holiday honoring Washington, who as the first president and military commander established the indispensable tradition of a nonpartisan military — Trump yet again violated Washington’s precedent. At Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, he essentially pushed uniformed young troops to violate the military codes enshrining Washington’s legacy of nonpartisanship. Trump treated them like props at a MAGA rally, lauding Republican candidates and officeholders on hand, mocking past presidents and urging the troops to vote Republican in November.

“You have to vote for us,” the commander in chief ordered them.

This is unprecedented, except by Trump himself. In October, he prodded sailors at Norfolk, Va., to boo “Barack Hussein Obama.” In September, he told commanders summoned from around the world that the fight is here at home, a “war from within” American cities. In June, also at Ft. Bragg, Trump damned Democrats and sold MAGA merch, over Army objections.

There’s a darn good reason for the wall that Washington built between the military and civilian government. As the Army Field Manual instructs troops: “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.” Not just Republicans, and not just Trump.

But as multiple officers told the website Military.com, “holding troops to account when goaded by the president, who is ultimately the boss, would be impossible.” Commanders themselves are mute because, after all, Trump is the commander in chief. They’ve watched as one Pentagon purge has followed another, starting with Trump firing the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top military officer. He chose instead an officer who, he often claims, once donned a MAGA cap and said, “I love you, sir. … I’ll kill for you, sir.”

It’s understandable that active-duty officers don’t make a stand. But what about America’s roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals? As veteran ML Cavanaugh wrote in the Los Angeles Times after Trump’s Ft. Bragg performance last year, “The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point.” Sure, individuals have spoken out. But as the military knows better than anyone, there’s strength in numbers.

It’s past time for a large, united front of veteran commanders to challenge Trump. Why wait for him to make good on his talk of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops at the polls in this midterm election year, based on trumped-up conspiracies about Democrats’ fraud?

You know who could give the veteran and active commanders some political cover? The former commanders in chief.

Even more conspicuous than the brass by their silence and virtual invisibility in the face of Trump’s assaults — on the rule of law, civil rights, elections, foreign alliances and America’s global reputation — are the nation’s four living former presidents: Democrats Joe Biden, Obama and Bill Clinton, and Republican Bush.

It’s past time for the not-so-fab four to come together to publicly demand that Trump honor the oath of office that each man took, and to school the electorate on the many ways in which he’s dishonoring it — including by continuing to justify his refusal to peacefully transfer power in 2021. But each man is so observant of the norm that former presidents should not publicly criticize the incumbent one — again, a precedent from George Washington — that they self-muzzle.

This is Americans’ quandary in these Trump times: Presidents and high-ranking veterans who could speak truth to power are so constrained by their devotion to norms and traditions that they won’t confront a president who’s daily shattering the norms, traditions and laws that form the foundation of this democratic nation.

“This is the master alarm flashing for our democracy,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and veteran, said last week of Trump’s targeting of him and other critics.

That takes us back to my original question: Where are the statesmen to answer that alarm?

Answer: They’re following ordinary rules despite these extraordinary times. And they must stop.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes