Showing posts with label Vance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vance. Show all posts

November 12, 2025

"If only he would die," one might say after reading Chauncey DeVega today. I'd say back "I'm not sure it would make any difference, Vance would do the same things."

 

Some may read read an article in Salon this morning and mournfully said the words in my title. To this I would respond with the equally sorrowful words about it not making much difference whether Trump or Vance was president.

One of Salon’s senior writers, Chauncey Devega1 spelled out exactly what I think today in this essay:

DeVega does this under this heading:

In “Star Wars” the Empire is: “An oppressive dictatorship with a complicated bureaucracy, the Galactic Empire seeks the rule and social control of every planet and civilization within the galaxy, based on anthropocentrism, nationalisation, state terrorism, power projection, and threat of lethal force.” Wikipedia

If you’re a Star Wars fan you know that in their quest to rule the galaxy they thought nothing about destroying an inhabited planet with the Death Star.

Here are what I found to be the takeways from DeVega which express my fears:

  • (Trump and MAGA) are likely to escalate their attacks on American democracy because they have reasonably concluded that, with the 2026 midterms approaching, the window of maximum opportunity and leverage may be closing. To that end, Trump is amplifying his threats to use the Insurrection Act to invoke de facto martial law and order the military to invade Democratic-led cities. In such a scenario, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that elections could be suspended.

  • Increasingly, it appears that the administration’s ultimate goal is, just like in Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Viktor Orban’s Hungary, to de facto outlaw the Democratic Party and any other opposition movement. Under that scenario, the United States would be ruled by a system of competitive authoritarianism. Elections would take place, but the outcome would be rigged in favor of Trumpists. That could even be the “best” outcome. 

  • Since his return to office in January, Trump’s plans have become so extreme that the veneer of a fake democracy could even be replaced with a full-on authoritarian regime.

DeVega concludes with what I consider very guarded optimism:

… pro-democracy Americans saw hope turn into tangible victory. Trump and MAGA are not forever. The elections proved that American democracy can still fight back. The question is whether it can survive its next battle.

Unless one of the scenarios I described in yesterday’s Substack play out, because the president holds awesome powers, democracy could be replaced with a full-on authoritarian regime.

Countless pundits have noted that Vance has none of the charismatic hold over MAGA as Trump does. This is true. But I don’t think it matters.

What matters is probably whether or not he shares the personality disorder of the president:

click here

Here’s an article which addreses a crucial question: 

DeVega’s full-on authoritarian regime could be call a sadistic revenge fueled authoritarian regime marked by sideshows of self-indulgent expressions of gold plated grandiose narcissism or a Vance wonkish authoritarian one.

I doubt that if Vance became president he’d keep the likes of Stephen Miller, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem on. I also think he’d get rid of Hegseth, Patel, and RFK Jr. once he realized Trump was dead and buried and he could chose anybody he want to as Cabinet members and close advisors. I don’t see him taking calls from Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson or cozying up to the dictator leaders of other counties. Gone would be the late night posts on Truth Social and the mishmash of lies, insults, and misinformation that from Trump’s mouth.

There’s a benefit to having Trump stay alive. It’s that his excesses are more likely to lead to some kind of government overturn than the benign authoritarian regime than we’d have with Vance.

Thanks for reading Hal Brown's Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Share

Share

Share

Leave a comment

Previous Substacks

Share Hal Brown's Substack

My comments in RawStory

RawStory: go-to site for breaking news.

Trump psychology

Oregon

1

Chauncey DeVega is a senior politics writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts two weekly podcasts, The Chauncey DeVega Show and The Truth Report. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook..

November 11, 2025

The Paucity of Hope

 


In 2006 Barack Obama wrote "The Audacity of Hope.” This was both a memoir and a call to action. The book outlined his vision for America. Two years later he beat John McCain for the presidency and four years later won his second term defeating George Romney. He did fulfill his promise to bring hope to the country. People like us had hope.

Then Trump came along. He was bad but he didn’t turn out to be as bad as many of us thought he would be. Next came President Biden and we breathed a collective sigh of relief. 

As of 2025, President Joe Biden ranks approximately 14th among U.S. presidents based on recent surveys of scholars and political scientists. This ranking places him in the upper tier of modern presidents. Obama is ranked as seventh, and Trump is rated as 45th, dead last. (This is from an AI query.)

Yesterday I wrote “The futility of desperately seeking hope.”

Today I want to be less dire as I look at Amercia’s future. I want to share what gives me hope, albeit meager hope, that the country won’t descend into the hell of a brutal dictatorship.

Much of what I think could happen to stop this descent and reverse its course so democracy is restored is unlikely to happen. I still think what I described yesterday is what America will look like in a year or two.

The most likely chance I see of my vision not being realized is that Donald Trump dies and Vance takes over and he decides that without having Trump around he wants to reverse his most draconian and cruel policies.

Assuming Trump lives, I see variations of a few occurrences that could achieve different positive results.

Lots of people are pinning their hope for thwarting Trump’s worse excesses on the Democrats taking over Congress. They assume that Trump will abide by the laws they pass. When it comes to this I am not sanguine. Trump may be so confident in his power that he defies Congress. The same applies to rulings of the Supreme Court which, while much less likely to go against him in a major way like a Democratic Party controlled Congress would, might still try to stop his most egregious violations of both presidential norms and of the Constitution. Trump could simply ignore Supreme Court rulings he doesn’t like.

The actions I describe would undoubtedly lead to the Democratic House impeaching him. His being convicted in the Senate would mean that enough Republican senators decided he had turned the country into something abhorrent even to them so they would risk not being reelected and they would vote him out.

This could happen. It would depend on public sentiment combined with the personal morality of enough Republican senators.

Once voted out of office we have the possible scenario of Trump refusing to leave and trying to use the military to keep him in power. This might suceed but I doubt it. 

This possiblity brings up the other reason I cling to a slim hope. 

In America, like in all countries, there are two forces that decide how a nation is governed. One is the force of law and the other is the force of force, or put another way, the force of the armed forces.

Here are two articles which address what would happen if the military decided that Trump had gone too far:

What Would Happen if the Generals Refused to Follow Orders?

Two Key Takeaways From Quantico

The second article ends with:

More to the point, are the generals and admirals, who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, ready to resist orders that violate that oath?

Resisting orders could just be the beginning of a military coup. At it’s banana republic, extreme, we’d see tanks surrounding the White House and other federal buildings. We might see Trump arrested.

We could see a a triumvirate of generals and admirals assuming the duties of the president. This might be like unofficial coalition of Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus in 60 BC and the “Second Triumvirate,” which was a coalition formed by Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian in 43 BC. We could see this military triumvirate bring in Barack Obama as temporary president.

They hopefully would maintain power only until free and fair elections could be held.

Thus I see two ways the country can get back to being a democracy. One depends on the on the death of Trump or his removal from office, and (a crucial “and”) President Vance restoring the kind of democracy we’ve had under very conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan.

I asked AI what a Vance presidency would look like. Click here or scroll down for the answer> 1

The other way democracy could be restored is through a military coup. An attempted coup by a significant number, but not overwhelming percentage, of the armed forces could result in a violent civil war. Depending on which side won we could have a restored democracy once the smoke settled and the dead were buried, or an even more brutal dictatorship with executions of members of the losing side. If the authoritarians won we could turn into a country which would make North Korea look like Disneyland.

Thanks for reading Hal Brown's Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Share

Share

Leave a comment

Previous Substacks

Share Hal Brown's Substack

My comments in RawStory

RawStory: go-to site for breaking news.

Trump psychology

1

JD Vance’s Potential Presidential Agenda

If JD Vance were to become President, his agenda is likely to align closely with Donald Trump’s policies, given his current role as Vice President and his involvement in the Trump administration. Here’s a breakdown of what Vance’s presidential focus could look like based on his actions and statements so far.


Key Policy Areas

POLICY AREADETAILSImmigrationAdvocate for strict border security measures, including ending catch-and-release policies and enhancing vetting.Economic PoliciesLikely to support tax cuts for middle and working-class Americans while pushing back against regulations seen as burdensome.HealthcarePotentially push to cut funding for the Affordable Care Act and oppose social programs like Medicare and Social Security.Social IssuesStrong opposition to abortion rights, with support for a nationwide ban and minimal exceptions.Energy PoliciesEmphasize U.S. energy dominance, aiming to streamline regulations and boost fossil fuel production.Foreign PolicyWould likely continue a nationalist agenda, with a strong emphasis on America-first diplomacy.EducationAdvocate for educational reforms that align with conservative values and promote school choice.

Immigration and Border Security

Vance is expected to focus heavily on border security, advocating measures like reinstating “Remain in Mexico” policies and ending asylum for undocumented migrants. His administration might pursue the designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations to enhance law enforcement capabilities along the border.


Economic Policies

Vance’s economic agenda will likely include aggressive tax cuts and reducing federal spending on social programs. He has been vocal about viewing the Affordable Care Act and entitlement programs like Social Security as obstacles to fiscal responsibility.


Social Issues

Vance’s stance on social issues, particularly abortion, reflects a hardline conservative view. He supports stringent abortion laws with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest and has articulated views that discourage women from leaving abusive relationships.


National and Foreign Policy

In terms of foreign policy, Vance’s approach is more isolationist, aiming to prioritize American interests without heavy reliance on global agreements or organizations. His administration may focus on reshaping U.S. relationships with traditional allies as well as adversaries, including China.


Summary of Approach

Vance’s role as a “fixer” and enforcer in Trump’s administration suggests he would continue to cha . mpion the America First agenda while likely bringing a more personal, aggressive flair to discourse on both domestic and foreign fronts. His presidency could entail a commitment to reform various aspects of government to streamline processes and enhance support for conservative objectives.


With his potential candidacy for the 2028 presidential election already in discussion, JD Vance is positioning himself as a key figure in the continuation of Trump’s legacy and an enforcer of his policies

July 19, 2025

How some old Trump drawings could lead to Vance becoming the 48th president, by Hal M. Brown

 

“I never wrote a picture in my life,” he said in a rebuttal to the accusations made in The Wall Street Journal as he vehemently denied having anything to do with the Epstein birthday card. I won’t delve into the syntax of this sentence suggesting cognitive decline since this is so obvious.

In fact, Trump does “write” pictures. Some of them have been sold at auction. The signed sketch shown below sold in 2017 for $16,000, according to The New York Times.

One has to assume that those sold at auction had their provenance verified. If this is a basis of Trump’s defense it is weak sauce. If it is all he has, he ain’t got bupkis.

He can’t say he never knew Epstein. He could try to say that it’s impossible to find an unbiased jury since I expect we will see pictures like the one below not just in the UK but all over the place (read article): 

Trump may hope that Rupurt Murdoch settles, folding like others have, trembling at the thought of being taken to court by the Mighty Donald Trump. He very well be underestimating the man that built a media empire and is now worth around $20 billion. Trump is worth about $5 billion. 

I have a feeling Murdoch relishes going up against Trump in court. I think the first order of business for him would be to do everything possible to assure the trial was televised. If he could do this he’d fire any Fox News personalities who tried to take Trump’s side and the trial would have wall to wall coverage on Fox News.

We should remember that Trump got his start with a major leg up from his father. He got $413M from his dad, much from tax dodges (article). Murdoch got his start when he inherited a small newspaper, The News, in 1952 following his father’s death.

Murdoch rightfully can claim that if any one person can claim that they greased the wheels of Trump’s ascendence to the presidency it is Rupurt Murdoch. Nobody can say that without Fox News Trump wouldn’t have been elected twice but their influence can’t be underestimated. If Murdoch cares about how history views him once he’s gone, he may want to be depicted as someone who meant well in supporting Trump, but eventually realized he created a monster and decided to bring him down. He could use this trial to begin the unraveling of Trump’s aura of invincibility.

This could lead to J.D. Vance deciding the time was finally ripe for initiating the 25th Amendment due to Trump’s impossible to plausibly deny dementia.

Vance has every motivation to do this since if successful he would become president. He needs a majority of the Cabinet to turn on Trump and vote to send this to Congress. This is where Vance has leverage. If he became president he could replace any Cabinet member. He could promise to keep enough of them so he’d get the votes he needed. You can bet he will be following national polls carefully.

Then there’s the most difficult part. A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate is required to remove a president under the 25th Amendment. Assuming all the Democrats voted for removal obviously enough Republicans would have to look to their own futures to gauge the sentiment of the voters. 

Here’s where Elon Musk comes in. If he backs the removal of Trump he can pour massive amounts of money into any candidate’s campaign who will run against a Trump supporting member of Congress. 

J.D. Vance could become the 48th President of the United States.

Trump has normalized a president wearing a red baseball cap. If Vance really want to stick it to Trump he could wear a hat like the one below once he became president.

.

Thanks for reading my Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Leave a comment

February 14, 2025

Vance gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference for an audience of one, Donald Trump, By Hal M. Brown

 ..

Vance didn’t give a hoot about what the people in the room thought about his speech at the Munich Security Conference when he went on and on lambasting our allies for things like arresting protesters who violated the no-protest zone at abortion clinics.which he decribed as an affront to free speech. Of course there was no mention of the country which was the home of Alexei Navalny where exercising free speech can get you poisoned and imprisoned. 

Considering that this is a security conference and there’s a war raging in Europe, what did the audience hear about Ukraine? We barely heard crickets.

Fom Vance’s speech.

Now Yeah. I hope that's not the last bit of applause that I get, but we, we gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Now I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard, and I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.

As you see above according to Vance “the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within.”

Here’s another piece of pro-Russian propaganda Trump will like:

Now we're at the point of course that the situation has gotten so bad that this December Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections, but I'd ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it's wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few $100,000 of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn't very strong to begin with. 

Clearly the real audience for his speech was primarily one person, Donald J. Trump, his lord and master. The message to Trump is that he is saying that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to Russia. Secondly, it was the anti-woke and pro-life members of MAGA who bother to tune in to morning television.

Vance is deluded if he thinks Trump actually cares about any of the pro-life falderal. Nobody who thinks rationally would doubt that the notoriously cheap Trump would readily pay for an abortion for a woman he inconveniently impregnated. Mathematicians don’t have a number infinitesimal enough to measure how little Trump cares about aving the life of the unborn.

I listened to Vance for as long as CNN was broadcasting it. That gave methe the idea for this Substack. Then I found the entire text. If I was a real journalist I’d read the entire thing and comments on all the thingsI thought were relevant. Instead I just searched for the words “Ukraine” and “Russia.” 

Addendum on reviewing the entire speech I found this part just plain weird:

And trust me, I say this with all humor. If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg's scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. 


UPDATES: 

From Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme, NY Times

Vice President JD Vance told European leaders on Friday that their biggest security threat was not military aggression from Russia or China, but their own suppression of free speech — including efforts to block hard-right parties from joining governments.

An audience that was largely expecting Mr. Vance to lay out the Trump administration’s priorities for the trans-Atlantic alliance, NATO military spending and negotiations with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine, instead received a lecture on what Mr. Vance described as the continent’s own failures in living up to democratic ideals.

Those failures, Mr. Vance said, included efforts to restrict so-called “misinformation” and other content on social media and laws against abortion protests that he said unfairly silenced Christians.

Perhaps most strikingly, the vice president called on Europeans to drop their opposition to working with anti-immigration parties, calling them a legitimate expression of the will of voters angered by high levels of migration over the last decade. Those parties include the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, parts of which have been classified as extremist by German intelligence.

Excerpt:

None of this was particularly well-received by Europeans at the conference listening to the speech — and according to Politico's White House reporter Dasha Burns, the anger and derision burst out in the overflow room. The audience reportedly groaned as Vance highlighted the "threat from within," and one woman in attendance shouted out, "he's such a puppet!"

"In the end, there was palpable shock and anger," Burns concluded.

Trump and his associates have often not been met with the reactions they were hoping for when speaking on the world stage. In one of the most well-known incidents, diplomats openly laughed at Trump as he gave a speech to the United Nations in 2018 — though after the fact he insisted they were simply "laughing with me."

If you want to see what I am thinking throughout the day follow me on BlueSky here.

For those who want to wade through the entire speech, below. I added paragraph breaks where I thought they made sense from CSPAN is the text of Vance’s speech.

00:00:12

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. It is now my honor and pleasure to welcome the Vice President of the United States, Mr. JD Vance, who was here last year as senator, and we are very happy that he has come back to Munich, and we are very much looking forward to his speech. Please welcome Vice President JD Vance.

Show More 00:00:54

Well, thank you and thanks to all the gathered delegates and luminaries and media professionals and thanks especially to the hosts of the Munich Security Conference for being able to put on such an incredible event. We're of course thrilled to be here. We're happy to be here. And you know, one of the things that I wanted to talk about today. is of course our shared values and you know it's great to be back in Germany as you heard earlier. I was here last year as a United States senator. 

I saw a Foreign Minister, Foreign Secretary David Lammian joked that both of us last year had different jobs than we have now, but now it's time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been Fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective peoples to use it wisely to improve their lives, and I want to say that you know I was fortunate in my time here to spend some time outside the walls of this conference over the last 24 hours, and I've been so impressed by the hospitality of the people even of course as they're reeling from yesterday's horrendous attack. And the first time I was ever in Munich was with, was with my wife actually who's here with me today on a personal trip, and I've always loved the city of Munich and I've always loved its people, and I just want to say that we're very moved and our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and everybody affected by the evil inflicted on this beautiful community. We're thinking about you. We're praying for you, and we will certainly be rooting for you in the days and weeks to come. 

Now Yeah. I hope that's not the last bit of applause that I get, but we, we gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. 

Now I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. 

For years we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard, and I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values, we must live them. 

Now within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. And thank God they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, invent, to build, as it turns out, you can't mandate innovation or creativity just as you can't force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe, and we believe those things are certainly connected. And unfortunately when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. 

I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be hateful content. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of combating misogyny on the internet, a day of action. 

I look to Sweden, where 2 weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friend's murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free expression do not in fact grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief. And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. 

A little over 2 years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for 3 minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply, it was on behalf of the unborn son, he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 m of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. 

Now I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person, but no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones. Warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. 

In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. And in the interests of comedy, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation. Misinformation like for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leak leaked from a laboratory in China. 

Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth. So I come here today not just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that. In Washington there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump's leadership we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer in the public square, agree or disagree. 

Now we're at the point of course that the situation has gotten so bad that this December Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections, but I'd ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it's wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few $100,000 of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn't very strong to begin with. 

Now the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear, and I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still, which of course brings us back to Munich. Where the organizers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing populist parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations. 

Now again, we don't have to agree with everything or anything that people say, but when people represent, when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them. Now to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation who simply don't like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid vote a different way or even worse, win an election. 

Now this is a security conference, and I'm sure you all came here prepared to talk about how exactly you intend to increase defense spending over the next few years in line with some new target. And that's great. Because as President Trump has made abundantly clear, he believes that our European friends must play a bigger role in the future of this continent. 

We don't think you hear this term burden sharing, but we think it's an important part of being in a shared alliance together that the Europeans step up while America focuses on areas of the world that are in great danger. But let me also ask you, How will you even begin to think through the kinds of budgeting questions if we don't know what it is that we are defending in the first place? I've heard a lot already in my conversations, and I've had many, many great conversations with many people gathered here in this room. I've heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that's important, but what has seemed a little bit less clear to me and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe is what exactly it is that you're defending yourselves for. 

What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important. And I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people. Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump. You need democratic mandates to accomplish anything of value in the coming years. 

Have we learned nothing that thin mandates produce unstable results, but there is so much of value that can be accomplished with the kind of democratic mandate that I think will come from being more responsive to the voices of your citizens. If you're going to enjoy competitive economies, if you're going to enjoy affordable energy and secure supply chains. Then you need mandates to govern because you have to make difficult choices to enjoy all of these things, and of course we know that very well in America. 

You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail, whether that's the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news. Nor can you win one by disregarding your basic electorate on questions like who gets to be a part of our shared society. And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. Today, almost 1 in 5 people living in this country moved here from abroad. That is, of course, an all-time high. It's a similar number, by the way, in the United States, also an all-time high. 

The number of immigrants who entered the EU from non-EU countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone, and of course it's gotten much higher since, and we know the situation, it didn't materialize in a vacuum. It's the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent and others across the world over the span of a decade. We saw the horrors wrought by these decisions yesterday in this very city. And of course I can't bring it up again without thinking about the terrible victims who had a beautiful winter day in Munich ruined. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and will remain with them. 

But why did this happen in the first place? It's a terrible story, but it's one we've heard way too many times in Europe and unfortunately too many times in the United States as well. An asylum seeker, often a young man in his mid-20s already known to police, rams a car into a crowd and shatters a community. How many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take our shared civilization in a new direction? 

No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants, but you know what they did vote for. In England, they voted for Brexit, and agree or disagree, they voted for it. And more and more all over Europe, they're voting for political leaders who promised to put an end to out of control migration. 

Now I happen to agree with a lot of these concerns, but you don't have to agree with me. I just think that people care about their homes. They care about their dreams, they care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children, and they're smart. I think this is one of the most important things I've learned in my brief time in politics. Contrary to what you might hear a couple of mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don't generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy, and it's hardly surprising that they don't want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders. 

It is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box. I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy. And speaking up and expressing opinions isn't election interference, even when people express views outside your own country and even when those people are very influential. 

And trust me, I say this with all humor. If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg's scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. But what German democracy, what no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There's no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don't. 

Europeans, the people have a voice. European leaders have a choice. And my strong belief is that we do not need to be afraid of the future. Embrace what your people tell you, even when it's surprising, even when you don't agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty and with confidence knowing that the nation stands behind each of you, and that to me is the great magic of democracy. It's not in these stone buildings or beautiful hotels. It's not even in the great institutions that we built together as a shared society. 

To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice, and if we refuse to listen to that voice, even our most successful fights will secure very little. As Pope John Paul II, in my view, one of the most extraordinary champions of democracy on this continent or any other, once said, Do not be afraid. We shouldn't be afraid of our people even when they express views that disagree with their leadership. 

Thank you all. Good luck to all of you. God bless you. Yeah




Could Trump become president for life? by Hal M. Brown

Trump has made no secret that he’d like to remain president as, well, as long as he’d like to be president. Steve Bannon has suggested that ...