Trump Corruption

One of the more ridiculous political truisms that is not in fact true, is that uber-rich politicians somehow can't be bribed or otherwise corrupted. The rationale seems to be that since they already have more money than they could ever spend in 100 lifetimes, they don't need any more and would laugh at attempts to buy them. Of course this isn't how the 1% think. Money is a way of keeping score, of amassing even more power, and there is never enough. Trump has taken political graft and corruption to new depths. Here are a few examples.

• The so-called Board of Peace is a private organization masquerading as a government agency. It sprung from the negotiations to end Israel's bombing of Gaza and is supposed to not only be tasked with rebuilding Gaza, but promoting peace throughout the world. Participating nations are required to pay a membership fee of $1 billion. The board is chaired by Donald Trump in perpetuity. Not the president of the United States, but the individual, the person, Donald Trump. He has ultimate control of the funds and veto power of any board actions. 
• The presidential pardon power has never been free from controversy, and presidents of both parties have rewarded their friends and allies, but under Trump it has sunk to a system where any criminal with access to enough money can "contribute" and be pardoned, released from prison and absolved of any consequences of their crime. 
• Trump family, friends and allies are benefitting by being awarded lucrative no-bid contracts
• Qatar gifted the United States a plane that will be refit as an Airforce One, which will be transferred to the Trump library after his term ends
• He's continued to charge the Secret Service full price to lodge his protection detail when he stays at his own properties. 
• The creation of Trump branded crypto currencies has facilitated bribery — just but a few million in TrumpCoin!
• Cabinet members "coincidently" have made large donations to his PAC's
• Criminal and civil investigations against his donors have been dropped
• Allegations that insider trading of energy stocks have been tied to changes in the conduct of the Iran War have been suggested

That's only part of it, but I think you get the idea.

Trump has turned the United States Treasury into his private piggy bank and made bribery the default policy position. 

They Don't Want You To Vote

There's a saying known as Blackstone's ration that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. We can apply this to voting thusly: It's better that ten non-citizens vote than one citizen be disenfranchised. Make no mistake about it the Republican Party wants to make it more difficult for you to vote. This isn't just about gerrymandering, although gerrymandering is a big part of it. 

The elites who run the modern Republican Party are not concerned about what the voters want. In fact they believe that they know better than the voters. The blue collar Americans who support Republican social warfare and its attendant bigotry and misogyny are merely means to an end. When in power they do little or nothing to benefit that demographic. What they are concerned with is holding on to the power that they have. The biggest obstacle that they have to that objective is changing demographics.  Slowly but surely the white Baby Boomers who constituted the largest bloc of voters are dying off. Younger whites tend to have lower birthrates than minority and immigrant groups. Even though no one demographic group is monolithic, the tendency is for Black Americans, Hispanics and first generation children of immigrants to vote for Democrats. Most of the voter suppression strategies executed by Republicans over the last decade have had an outsize effect on Blacks and Hispanics, and therefore Democrats. 

One of the favorite methods that Republicans use to suppress voting is voter I.D. requirements and its cousin, proof of citizenship requirements. Asked without any background or context, most people would say that they think voter I.D. is a good thing — who could object to requiring people to prove who they are before voting? The problem is that it's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The amount of fraud that involves someone pretending to be someone else to vote is infinitesimal. And any attempted fraud is caught somewhere in the system that is designed to do so. The rest of the problem is that many of the recent voter I.D. laws have been paired with closings of DMV offices (where most people get their identification) and restrictions on the types of I.D.'s that are accepted. Laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote are relatively new. They're also a "solution" in search of a problem. It's already a requirement that a voter be a citizen. Kansas passed one of these laws in 2012. This article outlines what a nightmare it turned into, including the disenfranchisement of around 35,000 Kansans. I suspect that was the point. 

Here in Nebraska we are seeing how even referenda that we voted for has been watered down, slow-walked, or effectively overturned by the legislature. Several states that had outgoing Republican governors being replaced by Democrats saw the Republican legislature reduce the governor's powers. Trump and his Republican allies are pushing for federal laws to restrict mail-in and early voting. Every action that they take, while not technically taking away anyone's right to vote, incrementally makes it harder to vote, effectively potentially disenfranchising millions. 

Of course the current gerrymander mania is getting the most attention. The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting fueled by Supreme Court decisions unmoored from fifty years of precedent and hard-to-deny racial gerrymandering disguised as partisan jockeying is designed to do one thing: engineer the system so that some votes simply don't count. Think about who shouts the loudest that we're not a democracy. Some people want you to vote, some don't. 

"I know who I'm voting for—but what about all you zombies?" *



* Apologies to the late great Robert Heinlein

The Right Wing Is Redefining Our Words

Despite their whining about how the "radical left" has control of the media and entertainment worlds, the Trumpublicans seem to do an effective job of usurping our terms and changing their meaning. They then demonize the corrupted meanings and go from there. Two current examples are "DEI" and "woke". 

DEI are the initials for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. These are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented, marginalized, or subject to discrimination. The diversity part of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is not simply diversity in order to check off a box indicating that the right number of races, genders or religions are represented. (Although, to be honest, some organizations treat it exactly like this) It is a recognition that in the past certain demographics have been overlooked and passed over for job prospects and promotions. In it's pure form it pushes organizations to consider people that they may have not considered in the past. For example, refusing to consider a woman for a position because of the perception that a woman will get pregnant and quit, or that childcare is more important than the job; or a Black candidate being passed over because his background doesn't make him "a good fit". The diversity piece is simply about compelling organizations to look seriously at qualified people that they may have in the past ignored. 

Equity, in short, is recognizing that not everyone comes from the same background, or has the same needs. An organization that values equity ensures that everyone has the tools that will allow them to achieve the same outcomes. Fair compensation falls into this category. Accommodating disabled individuals — screen readers for blind office workers for example, or desks that can be utilized by wheelchair users — fall under equity. Inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where all employees feel their voices will be heard and a sense of belonging and integration. How can you argue with that?

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is not reverse discrimination. It is not hiring unqualified women or minorities and passing over qualified white men. 

When I worked for The Omaha World-Herald in the 80's and 90's, one of the top managers in my department was a former athlete. Most of his hires and promotions were people just like him: men with sports backgrounds who had the mindset of a football coach. Undoubtedly he did not consider himself racist or sexist, but left to themselves most people will look for people like themselves, or who have the same values and skills, to fill positions. When a hiring manager has this mindset, naturally all their hires will look and act virtually identically. People, even those who mean well, usually need to be encouraged, if not actually forced, to think outside the box. That's what a focus on diversity does. 

Equity and inclusion mostly apply once someone is already inside an organization. Are their voices being heard? Or are the bosses only listening to their favorites, or people from their ethic group or church? Are reasonable accommodations being made for disabilities or neurodivergent personalities? Of course the work still needs to be done, but is the organization too focussed on inconsequentials and not on the outcome? Like with diversity, sometimes organizations need to be pushed to make their workplaces equitable and inclusive. 

The right wing, including the Trump regime, has redefined Diversity, Equity and Inclusion effectively as reverse discrimination and as a program to shoehorn in unqualified people ahead of qualified white males. They have coined the term "DEI Hire" to refer to people that they assume have received their position due to their gender, race, ethnicity or religion. It's become an insult thrown at Black professionals, women executives, and anyone who is a non-white, non-cis-male. Sadly, many progressives have taken to throwing this slur at unqualified Trump appointees. 

A related redefining of a progressive term is "woke". Originating among American Blacks, it was an encouragement to "stay woke", i.e. stay awake, stay aware, of the racial prejudice, racism and discrimination that surrounds us. It gained popularity during the Black Lives Matter protests and was picked up by white progressives to include awareness of LGBTQ issues and widely to signal support of progressive causes. Rightists began using it as a catch-all insult for all things liberal without having to be specific. Our own governor refers to anything he doesn't agree with as "woke garbage". 

Once they got into power with Trump, the Project 2025 wizards set to purging any trace of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from government. But it got worse. 

In their quest to eliminate all traces of "DEI" from government, they used blunt force search programs to hunt down any mention of anything that even looked like Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Health and Human Services studies that focussed on pregnant women were eliminated, any race-based tracking went away, medical studies that looked at varying outcomes among different demographics were scrubbed. But it got worse.

 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was now viewed as illegal discrimination and the Justice Department began threatening private companies and universities that they would be prosecuted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they retained these programs!  

This redefining of terms has allowed the regime, and right wingers in general, to oppose the straw man versions of things that progressives stand for, appealing to the lowest common denominator without having to actually make their case. And the poorly educated and willfully ignorant fall for it.

Trump's Record

Donald Trump has been president for almost a year and a half. His supporters will describe the time as a paradise, a return to American values, of economic growth and prosperity "like has never been seen before". His detractors paint a picture of a corrupt, dictatorial regime that has squandered the economic recovery that was underway and isolated us from our allies. Here's what I think.  I'm mainly going to look at his actions, not his personality. 

Immigration/Border Security

One of Trump's campaign promises was that he would "close the border" and end the unrestricted flow of illegal immigration. He says he accomplished that, and by some measures he has achieved his goal. By some measures. You can see by the chart that border apprehensions have dropped precipitously since Trump's re-election. But this isn't the whole story. For starters, although these figures provide a way to make apples-to-apples comparisons, they don't (and can't) include those who evade apprehension. They don't take into account the virtual elimination of asylum claims. Under Biden, asylum seekers could present themselves to any border patrol agent and request asylum. The applicants were then given a court date and "paroled", i.e. allowed to stay in the country while awaiting their court date. Asylum seekers who did not enter at a port of entry are included in "apprehensions". So not only do we have no idea how many people have successfully avoided being caught by the border patrol, but we can assume that anyone who would have applied for asylum outside a port of entry under Biden will take their chances under the Trump regime. Biden's policy undoubtedly added to the backlog in immigration courts, but Trump's likely provided motivation to enter illegally. The numbers support Trump's claim that he solved the border problem, but I don't trust his numbers or his interpretation of them. 

Trump's whole immigration policy boils down to "immigrants bad" (at least the non-white ones). In addition to promising to stop illegal immigration, he has made it more difficult for people to immigrate legally. He has reneged on agreements that many immigrants had with the United States government. The Department of Homeland Security has been detaining and deporting people who are legal residents (Green Card holders) and those who had completed all the requirements for citizenship. They have revoked temporary protected status for several groups. They have dismissed court cases for people who had pending asylum cases. People who were here legally. 

He campaigned on getting rid of the violent criminals, the worst of the worst. Instead, very few actual criminals or gang members have been deported — that would be too much work and dangerous as well. The simple fact of illegal entry has been defined as "dangerous crime" so that people can be swept up going to work or picking up their children from school. 

Unless you agree with Trump that immigrants = bad, his immigration policy is not a success overall, and the claims that the border is "closed" is unverifiable. 

Shrinking The Size Of Government

Remember DOGE? (the so-called Department of Government Efficiency) As it was originally promoted, DOGE was supposed to root out corruption, fraud, waste and inefficiency in the federal government. You don't hear too much about it anymore. Elon Musk, the billionaire who practices the "move fast and break things" mode of leadership, was put in charge of DOGE. (he came up with the name) In theory, rooting out corruption, fraud, waste and inefficiency in the federal government is a worthy goal. Process improvement, in theory, is a good thing. I've been involved in some process improvement initiatives in my career. If you can eliminate unnecessary steps in any process without sacrificing the end goal, you have added to a process' efficiency. Efficiency, as most people understand it, is causing what you are doing to be done faster, smoother, maybe even more economically. DOGE set a goal of eliminating $2 trillion from the federal budget as a result of its efforts. 

It became clear from the beginning that whatever we all thought DOGE was doing, it wasn't eliminating inefficiency. It certainly wasn't identifying waste, fraud or corruption. In order to accurately identify any of the issues that DOGE claimed to be targeting, it would take a team with at least a passing familiarity with what the various government departments were supposed to be doing, i.e. what they had been, by law, tasked by Congress with doing. Accountants to audit the finances should have been part of the team as well. Maybe experts in organizational theory — at least people who had some experience in this kind of project. What he got was a bunch of inexperienced computer hackers who took joy in breaking things and exerting their authority over veteran government employees. 

What DOGE actually did was eliminate any government programs that could be construed as being "liberal". The greatest damage was done to any of the many Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and programs. Right wingers view Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as reverse discrimination. They're very hot on eliminating what they believe is discrimination against White people. Also targeted were any foreign aid programs and anything that the right wingers categorized as welfare. There was no involvement by Congress. There was no review by senior department officials. The DOGE team was unilaterally firing people, padlocking office building doors, and sending out emails demanding to know what employees had accomplished in the previous week. Whole agencies disappeared overnight. 

This was illegal for multiple reasons. 

The various departments, bureaus and agencies were created by Congress. The budgets for each of them were allocated by Congress. Despite them being part of the executive branch, the president had no authority to unilaterally eliminate these agencies, nor refuse to spend the funds allocated. Even less so did people who were not government employees and had no security clearance, led by someone who had not been confirmed by the Senate. Many of the fired employees had union protection, yet were fired anyway. In addition to initiatives that could conceivably be classified as "liberal", many science-based tracking and research programs were axed as well. 

Despite the chaos, DOGE never came close to achieving it's nebulous mission. The $2 trillion goal was revised down to $1 trillion (the entire budget is less than $7 trillion) DOGE's website initially claimed $214 billion in savings, or 10.7% of the original goal. By August of 2025 they were claiming $54 billion, 2.7% of the original goal. Even that number appears inflated. Politico puts the actual savings at around 1% of their claims, ($540 billion) due to fuzzy, or even dishonest, math. 

Despite all the chaos, all the illegality, despite arguably critical programs being eliminated, DOGE achieved 0.027% of it's savings goal. Did it find even one corrupt official? One example of fraud? Not a one. You know if they had, the Trump regime would have made sure we knew about it. They only achieved what puny numbers they did by redefining waste and inefficiency as "liberal programs and DEI. 

Failure.

The Economy

Presidents are usually blamed for a bad economy. Biden certainly was blamed for the high inflation in the middle of his term. It's part of why Trump was re-elected. But by any measure, the economy was bouncing back by the time the 2024 election rolled around. Trump could have done nothing and taken credit for the economic recovery that was almost guaranteed to take place — that he was taking credit for, even before he was inaugurated. He could have suggested modest, realistic plans to get things back on track and benefitted from doing nothing. Instead he made wild, hyperbolic promises to eliminate inflation, roll back prices, and cut energy prices — most of it by "Day One". Those of us not mesmerized by Trump knew that very little a president did would affect prices. Biden didn't cause inflation and Trump had no ability to reverse it. It didn't take long after Inauguration Day for Trump to backpedal and admit there wasn't much he could do to roll back prices. Even after inflation started to creep up due to his insane tariff policy and gas process skyrocketed as a result of his unnecessary Iran War, he and his supporters pivoted to blaming Biden. The narrative changed from miracle working Trump to "Biden wrecked the economy" and it took time to fix it. 

One thing that a president can do, is impose tariffs. 

I wrote about tariffs last year. Tariffs are sometimes good policy. Another nation subsidizing a product to such an extent that it's impossible to compete, or to protect a new, growing industry. In general, tariffs are a bad idea. This article make the case that tariffs are, except for rare cases, never optimal. One of the main reasons is retaliation, which negates whatever theoretical advantage may have accrued. Trump's tariff actions, which I hesitate to call something as rational as a policy, seems to be based on his belief that other countries (every country?) are "treating us unfairly". This springs from his lack of understanding of what a trade deficit is. All that the existence of a trade deficit means is that we as a nation are buying more from foreign companies than we are selling. Trump believes that it means that we are losing money to foreign companies and governments. His across the board tariffs, rather than targeting specific industries, made everything more expensive. In many cases there weren't domestic alternatives. If there were domestic alternatives, the increased demand would cause their prices to rise as well. Inflation remains high, if not as high as the midpoint of Biden's term. 

There's no question that tariffs are being paid by consumers. As of January the government has collected around $3 billion in tariff revenue, around three times the usual amount. How about the reason for these tariffs? Here's a few reasons that Trump has given:

1. To stop the flow of fentanyl into the country from Canada
2. France recognized a Palestinian state
3. Brazil is prosecuting a former president for various crimes
4. To stop illegal immigration
5. To balance the budget
6. It's fair
7. National security
8. To make child care more affordable (really)
9. He doesn't like China

Gas prices are a separate issue. They were around $3.00/gallon when Trump took office and stayed there until September 2025 when they started trending downward. (Trump regularly lied about gas prices being below $2/gallon) and hot a low of $2.67/gallon in January 2026. One of Trump campaign promises was he would cut energy prices (including presumably, gas prices) in half. Gas prices are one of those things that appear to have a logic of its own, separate from inflation in the rest of the economy. But like the rest of the economy there is little that a president can do to affect the price at the pump. Trump believed that he could open up protected wilderness areas to drilling and lower prices that way. But when prices get too low, oil companies cut back on drilling — there's only so low they can go before additional drilling becomes a money-losing proposition. Nonetheless, gas prices were steadily dropping and he would be able to claim credit for it, whether he really had anything to do with it or not.

Until he started a war with Iran. (I'll get to the war, but first, let's look at taxes)

2025 Tax Breaks

Earlier this month I wrote the 2025 tax breaks. These are real benefits to certain taxpayers, although they are set to expire in 2028. I'm mystified as to why tips and overtime should be partially tax exempt, but I can't get too worked up about it, since so many sources of income for the wealthy are sheltered from income tax. The bonus standard deduction for seniors came about as a result of the campaign promise to eliminate tax on Social Security income. Social Security was only taxable if combined income from wages and half of Social Security exceeded a certain threshold. If so, 50-85% of Social Security income was subject to income tax. The $6,000 extra deduction ($12,000 married filing jointly) more than made up for any tax of Social Security, and applied to anyone over 65 whether or not they collected Social Security. 

Foreign Intervention

One of Trump's campaign promises that I agreed with was his pledge to not get us involved in "forever wars". During his first term he failed to extricate us from Afghanistan, and there were targeted use of the military, but he didn't start any new wars. It looked like he would keep that promise in his second term as well. He was obsessed with a Nobel Peace Prize, possibly because President Obama had been awarded one. He inserted himself into regional conflicts around the world, fancying himself as a deal maker in peace negotiations. He began to brag that he "ended eight wars", although most of them weren't wars, some of them didn't even involve fighting, and several of them went back to fighting since his intervention. I put together a "peace maker" scorecard to tally it all up. Not very impressive. 

Not long into Trump's term he began speculating about taking over other countries. He mused about Canada becoming the 51^st state; he threatened to "take back" the Panama Canal, and made noises about annexing Greenland that Denmark and Greenland believed were serious enough that they made contingency plans in the event of a U.S. invasion. He kidnapped the president of Venezuela and is selling their oil — who knows where that money is going? Coming up soon: the abduction of Raul Castro, the 94 year old former president of Cuba while we have been conducting a blockade of the island nation that is starving its population. 

And of course, an actual war. We attacked Iran. Last June we supported an Israeli attack in order to "obliterate" their nuclear capacity, which must not have taken, since we were back in February in order to prevent them from building a nuclear bomb — an ability that we had already "obliterated". We did a lot of bombing, we killed some of their leaders, and then, to no one's surprise except the president and his idiot advisors, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, causing a significant portion of the world's oil to stay right where it was and not get delivered. And causing oil and gasoline prices to spike. As of this writing we are at a stalemate. We haven't achieved regime change, one of our stated goals, although at one point Trump was claiming that new ayatollahs in power equaled regime change. We haven't stopped Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon, or gotten them to agree to forgo that option. Iran certainly hasn't unconditionally surrendered. Now we're busily negotiating (okay, "negotiating" isn't necessarily what's happening with no diplomats involved, but a couple of real estate guys and JD [or whatever his name is] Vance instead) to open the Strait of Hormuz that was already open before we started this war!

Trump managed to find the other thing, other than scatter shot tariffs, that will raise prices: a war in the Middle East

Other Stuff

• I've written extensively on his authoritarian/dictatorial mode of governing — use the search function to find articles where I discuss this
• Corruption: I haven't written too much about this administration's corruption, but the recent "settlement" where the Trump family has been given implicit permission to cheat on their taxes and his supporters who had contact with the judicial system can benefit financially is only the most recent example. I'll be covering it in a separate article soon. 
• White Christian Nationalism is taking over the military's leadership
• Spurred by Trump, Republicans are engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in an attempt to gerrymander their way to a House majority in this November's elections.  
• Trump himself appears to be well along the dementia timeline, not to mention falling asleep in meetings — with cameras running!

No matter what metric you use, Trump and his regime are bad for the country.

Gerrymandering On Steroids

Gerrymandering is not illegal. There is no federal law that sets standards for how election district boundaries are to be drawn. However the Supreme Court had ruled that gerrymandering with the purpose of disenfranchising racial groups is illegal, based on the Voting Rights act of 1965, but that it's outside of its authority to rule on partisan gerrymandering, which is not illegal. . However, recently the court has ruled that you have to be able to prove that the intent of gerrymandering is racial disenfranchisement (which is virtually impossible), opening the door for a large number of Southern states to immediately redraw their congressional districts in order to water down the ability of Black citizens to elect representatives of their choice, which "coincidently" happen to largely vote for Democrats. 

Gerrymandering is not new. Its name comes from Elbridge Gerry, one of the Founding Fathers who was famous for his odd-shaped congressional districts, and it's been a feature of partisan politics since his time. What does gerrymandering do? What gerrymandering doesn't do is have an effect on presidential elections. The undemocratic features of the Electoral College are a whole 'nother issue, but other than in Nebraska and Maine, how Congressional districts boundaries are drawn has no effect on how electoral votes are allocated. 

What gerrymandering of congressional districts does do is affect the party balance of the House of Representatives. Since the Republican-Democratic split has been so tight recently, the Republicans are looking for any advantage in order to retain their majority. But the effects of gerrymandering don't start with Congressional maps, but with how state legislative maps are drawn. The process always begins with one party gaining a majority, however slight, in a state legislature. Once they have that majority, if it's a state where the legislature draws the district maps, then they are free to gerrymander so that a slight majority turns into a large majority or even a super-majority, which is effectively veto-proof. A veto-proof majority is important because in some of these states the governor and other statewide elected officers are of the other party. 

Usually redistricting takes place once every ten years, after the results of the decennial census are finalized. This determines the population of each state, which in turn determines how many representatives in Congress each state is entitled to. It also tracks any population shifts within a state. For example, after the 2020 census, the number of Nebraska's congressional representatives was unchanged (3), but the population shifted somewhat from rural to urban. In order to keep each district's population the same (or close to it) district borders needed to be adjusted. Nebraska Republicans attempted to gerrymander District 2, which sometimes elects Democrats, by dividing the majority Democratic City of Omaha between Districts 1 and 2, effectively eliminating the potential for one electoral vote going to a Democrat. (More recently they tried to revert to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, which would have accomplished the same thing). 

A side note: a one-party House of Representatives delegation is not proof by itself that partisan gerrymandering took place. This blog article analyzes the situation in New England, where none of the states in that region send Republicans to Congress. 

In addition to New England, the following states have no Republican representatives:

• Delaware (1 district, 41% Republican)
• Hawaii (2 districts, 37% Republican)
• New Mexico (3 districts, 45% Republican)

There are also a number of states with no Democratic representatives: 

• Alaska (1 district, 41% Democratic)
• Arkansas (4 districts, 34% Democratic)
• Idaho (2 districts, 30% Democratic)
• Iowa (4 districts, 42% Democratic)
• Montana (2 districts, 38% Democratic)
• Nebraska (3 districts, 39% Democratic)
• North Dakota (1 district 30% Democratic)
• Oklahoma (5 districts, 32% Democratic)
• South Dakota (1 district, 34% Democratic)
• Utah (4 districts, 38% Democratic)
• West Virginia (2 districts, 28% Democratic)
• Wyoming (1 district, 26% Democratic) 

Obviously, in states with only one congressional district gerrymandering is impossible. There are six of these nationwide. Two-district states theoretically can be gerrymandered, but it's more difficult. There are seven of these and all of them are represented by one party. Most of these states' minority party voters make up 30-40% of the total voters. In these states it's impossible to to achieve proportionate representation unless the parties are roughly equal. The only choices are 0% or 50% — in the latter the minority is over-represented in the former (which is usually the case) under-represented. There's no completely fair option. Gerrymandering becomes more feasible as the population, and therefore the size of the House of Representatives delegation, increases. 

 States with independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions typically look for the following when drawing district lines:

1. Equal population distribution
2. Contiguity
3. Compactness
4. Respect for existing boundaries
5. Minority representation
6. Preservation of communities of interest

While partisan maps will attempt to draw district lines so each district contains roughly the same amount of people (constitutionally required), and I'm not aware of any non-contiguous districts, but #'s 3-6 are usually thrown out the window in order to maximize representation by the majority party. 

The gerrymandering that takes place during decennial redistricting is bad enough. Though some states have independent redistricting commissions, other states' redistricting is controlled by the legislature, which is often itself gerrymandered to favor one party. 2025 has been a free-for-all of mid-decade redistricting, starting with Trump's request that Texas redraw their map in order to maximize the likelihood that an additional four or five Republican are elected to the House of Representatives this year. California, which had an independent redistricting commission, held a referendum to suspend it, and did their own redistricting, canceling Texas' projected pickup of five Republican seats. Since then, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee have changed their maps to favor Republicans; in addition to California, Utah has potentially added one Democratic majority district. Currently, this gives Republicans a potential eight seat  advantage. 

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision virtually eliminating the possibility of creating majority-minority districts, some southern states, in particularly Alabama, South Carolina and Louisiana, are racing to eliminate their remaining Democratic districts that were created for this purpose. Tennessee has already done so, splitting up Black majority Nashville — allocating it's inhabitants to three surrounding districts. The Tennessee legislature had previously done the same thing to the Black and Democratic city of Memphis. Several other states, both majority Republican and majority Democratic are considering their own redistricting. The biggest blow to Democratic redistricting was the Virginia case. 

Virginia law stated that, in order to change the redistricting guidelines the following had to happen:

• The House of Delegates had to pass a resolution for a referendum to amend the state constitution to allow redistricting 
• An election had to have occurred
• The House of Delegates had to pass the resolution for the referendum a second time after an election (in other words, there had to be an election between the two House of Delegates actions)
• The State Senate had to vote to approve the resolution
• The Governor had to sign off
• The referendum needed to be put up for a vote of the people
• The referendum had to receive a majority of the votes
• The district maps could then be redrawn by the legislature

The Virginia legislature did all of these things, however, Republicans mounted several legal challenges resulting in rulings to remove the amendment from the ballot twice, which were overruled by the Virginia Supreme Court twice. Finally, after the referendum had taken place, a judge ruled that the requirement that there be an election between the two resolutions was not followed. The reasoning was that early voting had already started when the first resolution was voted on. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed. Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court which declined to hear the appeal. 

Much of what the Republicans are doing isn't technically illegal. They are relying on two things: the willingness of the Supreme Court to interpret the law in novel ways, ignoring precedent, usually in ways that benefit Trump and the Republicans; and capitalizing on the fact that many of the norms and customs that we observe are not in fact written down anywhere. They are also counting on the sad truth that the Democratic Party leadership for the most part thinks that they can play fair without being permanently shut out of any meaningful role in government. 

Trump, starting back during his 2016 campaign, planted the seeds for his cult to be convinced that a loss for him meant that the election was rigged or stolen. He still complains about 2020 being stolen from him. His appointees refuse to give a straight answer when asked who won the 2020 election. Their ravings, without ever being based on facts, involve vast conspiracies that include poll workers all over the country, voting machines that mysteriously change votes, and phantom ballots. But what is going on now doesn't require any of that. Republican are changing the very systems that facilitate our ability to vote. Voter I.D. requirements are put in place while simultaneously making it more difficult to secure identification...in Democratic majority areas. Early and mail voting faces new restrictions. Voter rolls are purged, disenfranchising legitimate voters. Polling places are moved to inconvenient locations...in Democratic majority areas.. Ballot drop off locations are eliminated...in Democratic majority areas. The Voting Rights Act, which has stood for over 60 years, according to the Supreme Court majority, has been misinterpreted for those six decades. Now, ignoring 200 years of precedent, they're not even hiding the fact that they're nullifying the votes of Democrats, and not incidentally, Black voters with the hyper-gerrymandering. Why now?

The electorate is pretty evenly split. Trump's share of the vote was only 1.5% greater than Harris', a statistical dead heat. In the House of Representatives if just three Republican districts had flipped to Democrats, then the Democrats would have had the majority. The Republican Senate is only three seats, despite the huge advantage given to rural, Republican leaning states. Elections are won and lost not on who has more registered voters, but on the tiny minority of unaffiliated or undecided voters. Republicans razor-thin margins are endangered due to an unpopular president. Sure the cultish core of Trump voters would still vote for him if he dropped a nuclear bomb on Florida, but it's not the cult base who'll decide an election. Trump got elected mainly because voters on the fence believed that he would be better than Biden on immigration, the economy and keeping us out of war. He's arguably got immigration under control (by authoritarian and fascistic means) but we're in a war and his promises to cut energy prices in half, reduce inflation, and roll back prices not only haven't happened, but have gotten worse. Unless he dies (he's not going to be removed via the 25th Amendment) he'll be president for 979 more days. The only way to address his malign influence is to remove his allies from Congress. 

He and his Republican allies know this. They've been working assiduously to make it harder for Democratic-leaning people to vote. Now, through this unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering on steroids, they are attempting to erase Democratic votes. The one hope the Democrats have at this point is that the anger at Trump is so great that there will be a record turnout of voters choosing Democrats — that some of these new "Republican" districts will surprise them due to all the Democratic voters that have been moved into them. There's also the Senate, which isn't affected by gerrymandering. 

November is a long way away. 

Are The New England States Gerrymandered In Favor Of The Democrats?

I'm in the process of writing a blog article about gerrymandering, but I want to divert from that project to address one of the recurring Republican talking point excuses for what's going on in many southern states: the New England states House delegations. 

A map of New England, supposedly showing congressional district boundaries, has been making its way around social media. The map shows that every district is represented by a Democrat, even though around 40% of the population votes Republican. Let's look at it more closely. We'll compare the representation by party with how the whole state voted in the most recent presidential election. 

 Maine

Maine has two congressional districts. Both are represented by Democrats. Trump, the Republican candidate received 45% of the vote in 2024. The odd thing about Maine is that, like Nebraska, electoral votes are allocated by district. A majority of one of Maine's two districts voted for Trump, so he received one of Maine's four electoral votes. Nonetheless, they still voted for a Democrat for Congress.

No gerrymandering detected.

Vermont

32% of the state voted for Trump. The state has only one congressional district. 

No gerrymandering is possible. 

New Hampshire

There are two districts, both represented by Democrats. Trump received 47% of the votes. Looking at the vote distribution, it's possible that some gerrymandering took place. The latest map was drawn up by a Democratic legislature, but was vetoed by a Republican governor. The State Supreme Court stepped in and appointed a Special Master. 

Possible gerrymandering.

Rhode Island

Another two district state. Both are represented by Democrats. Trump received 41% of the vote in 2024.  Rhode Island's district maps are drawn by a bi-partisan commission. 

The redistricting commission follows specific criteria in drawing district lines, including equal population, compactness, contiguity (lines connecting areas of the same district must be continuous), preservation of existing political subdivisions (such as cities and counties), and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The commission’s decisions are also subject to judicial review.

As for gerrymandering, Rhode Island law prohibits any redistricting plan that disproportionately favors or discriminates against a political party or racial or language minority group.

Gerrymandering unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible. 

Connecticut

There are five congressional districts, all represented by Democrats. Trump received 41% of the votes in 2024. A glance at a map of precinct results from the 2024 presidential election suggests that it may have been possible to draw a map that gave Republicans an advantage in one, or even two districts, however, Connecticut has a bipartisan redistricting committee. 

In Connecticut, the responsibility for drawing redistricting maps lies primarily with the bipartisan redistricting committee. This committee is composed of six members, with equal representation from both major political parties in the state. Additionally, the Secretary of the State serves as a non-voting, ex-officio member of the committee. 

When drawing redistricting maps in Connecticut, several criteria are typically considered:
1. Equal population distribution
2. Contiguity
3. Compactness
4. Respect for existing boundaries
5. Minority representation
6. Preservation of communities of interest

Gerrymandering unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible. 

Massachusetts

There are nine districts, all represented by Democrats. Trump won 36% of the votes in 2024. Massachusetts has had Republican governors and Senators in recent memory, but it's been a while since any Republican was sent to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts. The short answer is that while there are plenty of people who vote for Republicans, they are spread out fairly uniformly throughout the state. A precinct map from the 2024 presidential election suggests that it may have been possible to draw a map that gave Republicans an advantage in one, or even two districts. 

This article does a good job explaining the situation and includes a mathematical analysis backing up that hypothesis. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/elj.2018.0537?cf-mal-redirected=true&

Gerrymandering is possible, but not likely. 

Conclusion

While I don't deny that there is Democratic gerrymandering going on (I'm looking at you, Illinois) the New England states aren't a good example of it. Congressional representation that is not proportional to party affiliation, or to how people vote in a presidential election does not necessarily indicate gerrymandering. It's impossible in one-district states, and extremely difficult in two-district states. In some states, like Massachusetts, one party's voters are so spread out that grouping them in their own district is difficult, if not impossible. (Wisconsin is an example on the Republican side, with two of nine districts represented by Republican, even though the state is virtually evenly split between voters of the two major parties)

The Idiot's War

The United States has intervened in other nations' conflicts with impunity for as long as we realized that we could. Most of the time there was at least some fig leaf of a national security or national interest reason for doing so. Not always, but usually. Sometimes we we deposed the dictator de jour and extricated ourselves, or bombed whatever group that was giving us trouble and went home. Sometimes we respond to attacks against us or our allies. 

But there are times when we think we have a good reason to start a war but find ourselves bogged down long past the time our initial goals were achieved and have even seen the mission morph to the point that we have no idea what winning looks like. Afghanistan is a fresh example. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban who had given sanctuary to Al Qaeda and allowed their country to be a haven for worldwide terrorism. We did that pretty quickly but ended up staying for twenty years, propping up corrupt leaders, fighting regional warlords whose loyalty shifted on a weekly basis. We paid the salaries of thousands of Afghan soldiers who didn't actually exist. We pulled out amid chaos and the result was that the Taliban were back in charge. 

Trump campaigned on the promise of ending "forever wars". That was one of the few things where I agreed with him. But once he got back in the White House he started acting much more belligerent toward enemies (and allies). An argument can be made that not every use of the military is a war. I thought that he was justified in bombing the Houthis in Yemen when they were attacking shipping. I was less sanguine about his attacks on supposed terrorists in Syria, Nigeria, and Somalia. None of these were "war" in my opinion. He crossed a line with his abduction of a foreign head of state, Venezuelan President Maduro. He crossed a line with the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. But there's no question that what's happening in Iran is a war. 

There's no question regarding whether or not Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. They have funded militias in Yemen, Israel, Iraq, and Lebanon. They have brutally suppressed their own people. They are emphatically not the good guys. Degrading Iran's ability to support regional terrorism is a legitimate goal for our allies. Preventing them from developing a nuclear weapon is a valid objective as well. The problem with trying to achieve this with military might is that military might is insufficient. Military leaders and intelligence analysts have long known this. The Iranians don't fold that easily. Our aims needed to be reached with diplomacy, not bombs. Great idea! We should do that!

We did. 

In cooperation with Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union an agreement was reached that limited Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons and reduced or eliminated economic sanctions. It wasn't perfect, but it was working. Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and imposed maximum economic sanctions, complaining that the agreement was "weak". Iran immediately resumed its nuclear research and development and ramped up it's support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others, especially after Israel's response to the October Seventh attacks resulted in devastation of the Gaza enclave. Trump created the problem that he was now vowing to solve. 

One of the pillars of Trumpism is "America First". It's not something you can really argue with, despite it being a motto of the early Ku Klux Klan and mid 1900's Nazi sympathizers. Our leaders should put America first. Part of that would logically include strong relationships with our allies, both military and economic. Trump has made it clear that if we aren't making a buck from our alliances, then they are worthless. From imposing insane tariffs and insulting foreign leaders, he's made it clear that he doesn't value our alliances. Israel and the Gulf states are exceptions. The antisemites among us would propose some variation on "The Jews Run The World" to explain our alliance with Israel, throwing in a dollop of Epstein, George Soros, and whichever Rothchild is hanging around, to flesh out their conspiracy theory. Attempting to win the votes of American Jews, as well as the Evangelical Christians who believe that Armageddon is nigh, in addition to large checks from Israel-affiliated political action committees, is more likely. Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and other rich Gulf States are also big contributors, not only to the Republican Party, but directly to the Trump family. Unlike Israel, they prefer that the United States do all their fighting. I'm not convinced that Trump is mesmerized by Netanyahu, or the World Jewish Cabal, but has acted on his invented competition with Obama. 

Trump, who is proudly ignorant of how anything works, and won't listen to the people who do know how things work was convinced that we would bomb Iran, kill some of their top leaders, and they would meekly agree to all his demands. Iran hasn't surrendered yet, unconditionally or otherwise. Their military has been severally reduced but they're still attacking (until the recent ceasefire anyway) with drones and missiles. They still have all the means for constructing a nuclear weapon that they had two months ago. Their top tier of leaders have been killed, but new ones have replaced them. The Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war, is open sporadically, with Iran charging tolls and the United States blockading it. What have we accomplished so far? Not much. 

Trump doesn't understand the existence of true believers, of fanatics, and how they will stick to their beliefs no matter what. He has been dealing with politicians and businessmen in the United States who are transactional — they will alter their ideology when it benefits them financially or politically. His followers among the electorate will change their priorities whenever he changes his — look at how the Trump voters who were up in arms about inflation and gas prices in 2024 and were against foreign wars are now cheerleaders for the Iran War and think high prices are worth it. The Iranian ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard generals are true believers. They are religious zealots and Iranian patriots who will not give in to American demands. They would rather rule from the rubble than bow down to America. They will, however, negotiate. They have done so in the past, but they will not be bullied.

Trump has never understood diplomacy. In his world view, a negotiation is a discussion wherein the other party simply accedes to his demands. The concept of win-win, or anything other than a zero sum scenario is foreign to him. Consensus and compromise is for losers in Trump's world. His so-called negotiations prior to the attack on Iran were his usual clumsy ultimatums. Iran's refusal to acquiesce was his casus belli. Diplomatic negotiations should be conducted by diplomats, people who are trained as negotiators, who know what they're doing, and realize that compromise is often the best you're going to get. Trump, on the other hand has sent in a real estate guy, his son-in-law, and JD Vance (or whatever his name is). None of these guys knows what they're doing other than repeating Trump's ultimatums. 

But what is he trying to do? Is it regime change? Is it obliteration of their nuclear facilities? (re-obliteration?) Is it degradation of their military? Is it opening the Strait of Hormuz, which already was open before the war? Who knows? Trump apparently doesn't, since his rationale has changed more often than I change my socks. His kaleidoscopic objective shifting isn't helped by his minions, who give conflicting information, all the while bellowing Holy War rhetoric, including pseudo-Biblical quotes from Pulp Fiction. Oh yeah, and the Pope is weak on crime. 

The Constitutional requirement that it be Congress who declares war has been weakening for generations. Presidents before Trump have made use of the military without a declaration of war. But now, even the War Powers Act, which allows the president to conduct military operations for up to 60 days before getting permission from Congress has been sidestepped. They were calling it anything other than a war, unless Trump slipped up and called it a war. It was a war, but now it's over and the blockading of the Strait of Hormuz is a new operation. The ceasefire "paused the clock". And is it a ceasefire if we and the Iranians are still shooting at each other? 

Meanwhile, the president who promised to stop inflation and lower prices on "Day One", who vowed to cut energy costs in half (also on Day One) has made matters worse, while mocking "affordability" as "bullshit".