President Trump’s return to the Middle East this week, the first since his first-term 2017 visit, will take place amidst great turmoil. It is a region that bears little resemblance to the Middle East of 2017 and it appears, at least from media reporting this past week, that the Trump Administration has some understanding of this reality.

Syria has been over-run and is now controlled by the same al-Qaeda that the US government supposedly spent 20 years fighting in the “war on terror.” Violence against religious and ethnic minorities has, predictably, exploded under the “rule” of a self-proclaimed Syrian president who until very recently was on the US “most wanted” terrorist list.

After the October 7, 2023, Hamas raid, Gaza has been reduced to rubble and turned into a humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and perhaps another million face starvation. US bombs and financial aid have facilitated the utter destruction of Gaza.

Iran has made peace with Saudi Arabia thanks to Chinese mediation and is deepening its ties with the Kingdom. Thus, the US has little leverage in talks with the two former enemies.

Israel is conducting military operations against several countries in the region simultaneously as the world increasingly condemns its aggression against its neighbors.

After tearing up the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran in his first term, President Trump is pushing for a new deal with Iran while threatening to attack if negotiations do not produce the results he demands.

Massively increased US military action against the Houthis in Yemen starting in March did not result in their capitulation to US demands. Despite attempting to put the best spin on things, it is clear that the US retreated from the region in the face of a series of successful Yemeni actions in defense of their homeland.

Biden and then Trump launched attacks against Yemen on behalf of Israel, but in the end the US president wisely removed US military assets from the area and called off the bombing.

In short, President Trump will be wading into a minefield this week, but it is a peril that the US government has largely brought upon itself. Decades of US interventionism, from at least the 2003 Iraq war, have not produced the peaceful transformation of the region, as promised by the neocons and their mentor, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From the unnecessary Iraq war – based on lies – to the destruction of Libya and Syria and countless other interventions, the Middle East is a basket case. And it turns out none of it actually helped Israel at all!

Having ignited the tinder box of the region with US backing, Israel has now found itself friendless in a region increasingly hostile to its policies and even its very existence. Now there are indications that the Trump Administration is tiring of this entangling alliance as the MAGA base looks more warily on foreign interventionism.

The lesson that President Trump should take with him is that to a large degree it has been US interventionism in the Middle East that has produced these poisoned fruits. His wise military disengagement from the Houthis in Yemen should serve as a US model for the region. Ties forged by trade and friendship produce peace and prosperity and are far preferable to endless neocon war cries.

President Trump has proposed using the revenue from his increased tariffs to lower or even eliminate income taxes — with a priority on removing Americans making less than 200,000 dollars a year from the tax rolls. Exempting more Americans from income taxes — and lowering taxes on other Americans— is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. However, replacing income taxes with tariffs may have negative consequences for the very Americans President Trump wants to help.

Replacing with tariffs what the government raises from income taxes may require raising tariffs even higher than President Trump’s “liberation” tariffs. This would cause more price increases and encourage other governments to retaliate by raising their tariffs, further disrupting supply chains and leading to even higher prices and shortages. The negative impacts of tariffs could dwarf the benefits of lower, or even no, income taxes.

Consumers can try to avoid tariffs on goods. Massive avoidance of tariffs could lead to the imposing of higher tariffs or new taxes. The reason politicians must play the game of “offsetting” tax reductions with tax increases is they refuse to make meaningful reductions in government spending. The politicians’ favorite tax is the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax because it is hidden. It is also regressive, making it the worst type of tax.

The media and big spenders in both parties are screaming about how President Trump’s budget proposal contains large reductions in federal spending. However, even if all of President Trump’s 163 billion dollars of proposed cuts are enacted in law, the federal government will still spend about 1.7 trillion dollars next year in its “discretionary” budget. The cuts would be less than eight percent.

While President Trump is proposing many necessary cuts in federal agencies and programs, including those concerning the use of taxpayer money to promote “wokeness,” his budget increases military spending to around a trillion dollars. It also makes no changes to Social Security or Medicare. This means President Trump’s supposed radical spending plan does not reduce spending on three of the four largest items in the federal budget. The fourth is interest payments on the national debt, which Congress cannot reduce except by cutting spending.

Of course, it is unlikely that all, or even most, of President Trump’s spending cuts will be enacted into law. Prominent Republicans have already announced opposition to some of President Trump’s spending cuts. Some Republican defense hawks, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have criticized President Trump’s budget plan for not spending enough on the military!

The truth is that, if the president and Congress were serious about cutting spending, they would start by slashing the Pentagon’s budget. Very little of the military spending actually goes to defending the American people. Instead, much military spending goes to maintaining a global empire and lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex. Does anyone believe the safety of Americans depends on the US government maintaining over 700 military bases abroad?

The fiscal crisis facing America is rooted in a larger philosophic crisis. Too many Americans have embraced the notion that the US government has the moral right and competence to run the economy, run the world, and even run our lives. This system will not change until a critical mass of people embrace the ideas of liberty. Those of us who know the truth must do all we can to spread the message of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

News this week that Elon Musk will soon be departing his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) is a grim reminder of what happens when you challenge big spending DC. Unfortunately, the lesson once again is that when you challenge the empire, the empire eventually strikes back.

President Trump rode into office with the help of Elon Musk’s ambitious plan to cut two trillion dollars in spending and slash useless and bloated government bureaucracies. Opinion polls demonstrated the huge popularity of the “Department.” Americans were excited when DOGE came to DC.

The exposure of the real harm being done to the country by agencies like USAID and others reinforced the idea that much of the “Federal bureaucracy” was simply not needed. Although Musk became a figure of hate for the entrenched special interests, to the large chunk of America forced to pay for Washington’s excesses he became a hero.

Many in Congress, seeing its popularity, actively embraced DOGE. Suddenly those who helped us rack up 37 trillion in debt were talking about making huge cuts and posing for photos with Musk.

Unfortunately, after the photos were taken and the hoopla had died down, Congress returned to doing what it usually does: nothing. There is no way for a DOGE to succeed without the Legislative Branch enshrining those cuts in legislation. But when the massive “Big Beautiful” spending bill was introduced, the spending cuts were nowhere to be found.

In the end it was the Beltway addiction to the global US military empire that may have hammered the final nail in DOGE’s coffin. The “Big Beautiful” spending bill actually increased military spending even after President Trump hinted that a 50 percent cut was possible. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bragged about presiding over the “first” trillion-dollar defense budget. Starting a war on Yemen – at over a billion dollars a month – and saber rattling over Iran are the most obvious evidence that the empire has struck back. And of course the DC hawks want to “confront” China.

This isn’t the first time a populist, popular movement to tame the Beltway beast was embraced then defeated by that same beast. The “Tea Party” movement was launched in December, 2007, with volunteers supporting my 2008 Presidential campaign holding a record-breaking 24 hour “money bomb” on the anniversary of the 1773 Boston Tea Party.

Americans sick of deficit spending, over-reaching government, and the costly and counterproductive US military empire overseas, joined together to demand change. The “money bomb” success got Washington’s attention – money is the lifeblood of the political class – and before too long politicians of all stripes declared themselves to be part of the “Tea Party.”

They loved the popularity of associating themselves with the “Tea Party.” But actually cutting government? Not so much.

The first thing these newly-minted “Tea Party” members rejected was our demand for an end to the unsustainable, bloated military budget and our aggressive foreign policy. Eventually they backed away from other spending restrictions and within a few years the “brand” was diluted and tossed away.

What is the lesson here? Is it all futile? Hardly. The popularity of DOGE shows that Americans still want a much smaller government. That is great news, and the country owes a debt of gratitude to Elon for reminding us of this. But until Americans elect Representatives who have the courage to follow through beyond photo-ops, we will sadly continue down the path toward bankruptcy and collapse.

Those who hoped the second Trump Administration would reject big spending, war, and restrictions on liberty continue to be disappointed. A new disappointment came when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced her department would in May begin enforcing the REAL ID law.

Passed in 2005, the REAL ID Act created federal standards for driver’s licenses. The law requires everyone applying for a driver’s license to provide the DMV with his social security number, proof of legal residence, and two proofs of his home address. The REAL ID Act allows the Homeland Security Department to mandate, as it sees fit, the including of addition items in the related government database, including “biometric” identifiers. Biometric identifiers include personal data such as retina scans, fingerprints, and DNA.

People who doubt that this database will be used to violate the rights of US citizens should ask what a present-day J. Edgar Hoover — a former FBI director who was notorious for collecting private information on politicians and other prominent individuals — would do with a database containing personal and even biometric information on American citizens. They should also consider the IRS’s history of targeting presidents’ political opponents. Americans also have the threat of violations of their rights by hackers. The government has a poor track record of protecting data of US citizens.

REAL ID’s supporters deny the law turns state driver’s licenses into national ID cards because states have no mandate to implement REAL ID. However, citizens of any state that refuses to adopt REAL ID will be unable to use their state-issued IDs for boarding an airplane or riding on a train.

Once the initial uses of REAL ID are established, the government will then require REAL ID for other activities. For instance, local transportation authorities may be offered federal funds to implement REAL ID requirements for public transportation. Several pro-Second Amendment organizations oppose REAL ID because it could be used to monitor gun owners. There is nothing in the law prohibiting a future progressive Homeland Security secretary from requiring REAL ID for a firearms purchase. Imposing a REAL ID mandate on gun ownership would further the authoritarian objective of having a database containing the name and address of, and how many and what type of firearms are owned by, every law-abiding gun owner in the country.

REAL ID also menaces health freedom. One of the few victories for liberty during the covid hysteria was the failure of “vaccine passport” schemes to be more widely imposed. These schemes attempted to forbid people from returning to their normal lives unless they proved they were “fully vaccinated” against covid.

REAL ID was marketed as a weapon in the “war on terror.” However, Thomas Massie, the most consistent and courageous defender of liberty in the House of Representatives, pointed out that 9-11 hijackers used passports from their own countries. Rep. Massie wrote, “As long as the pilot’s door is locked and no one has weapons, why do you care that someone who flies has government permission?”

Like most post-9-11 security bills, REAL ID does nothing to protect the American people’s safety. It does, though, do much to endanger their liberty. REAL ID could even be the final piece of the transformation of America into a total surveillance society where government monitors, and thus controls, our actions. Americans who understand the danger must work to get the Trump administration to reverse its position.

Millions of people around the world were at the edge of their seats over the weekend, waiting to hear whether Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff’s indirect talks with the Iranian foreign minister would ratchet down tensions or would break down and bring on a major Middle East war.

If it seems bizarre that the outcome of a meeting between a US president’s designated negotiator and a foreign government minister could determine whether we plunge into possibly our biggest war since World War II, that’s because it is bizarre. In fact, this is an excellent example of why our Founders were so determined to keep warmaking authority out of the Executive Branch of government. No one person – much less his aide – should have the power to take this country to war.

That is why the Constitution places the authority to go to war firmly and exclusively in the hands of the representatives of the people: the US Congress. After all, it is the US people who will be expected to fight the wars and to pay for the wars and to bear the burden of the outcome of the wars. When that incredible power is placed in the hands of one individual – even if that individual is elected – the temptation to use it is far too great. Our Founders recognized this weakness in the system they were rebelling against – the British monarchy – so they wisely corrected it when they drafted our Constitution.

Unless the US is under direct attack or is facing imminent direct attack, the Constitution requires Congress to deliberate, discuss, and decide whether a conflict or potential conflict is worth bringing the weight of the US military to bear. They wanted it harder, not easier, to take us to war.

When wars can be started by presidents with no authority granted by Congress, the results can be the kinds of endless military engagements with ever-shifting, unachievable objectives such as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are currently seeing another such endless conflict brewing with President Trump’s decision to start bombing Yemen last month. The stated objectives– to end Houthi interference with Israeli Red Sea shipping – are not being achieved so, as usually happens, the bombing expands and creates more death and destruction for the civilian population. In the last week or so, US bombs have struck the water supply facilities for 50,000 civilians and have apparently blown up a civilian tribal gathering.

Starting a war with Iran was the furthest thing from the minds of American voters last November, and certainly those who voted for Donald Trump were at least partly motivated by his promise to end current wars and start no new wars. However, there is a strange logic that to fulfill the promise of no new wars, the US must saber rattle around the world to intimidate others from crossing the White House. This is what the recycled phrase “peace through strength” seems to have come to mean. But the real strength that it takes to make and keep peace is the strength to just walk away. It is the strength to stop meddling in conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States.

That is where Congress comes in. Except they are not coming in. They are nowhere to be found. And that is not a good thing.