What you’re describing is exactly what happens when a country abandons its own strategic architecture.
The National Security Strategy is supposed to be the anchor document for every agency in foreign policy. It’s the Bible. It tells the entire system how to align power, diplomacy, and resources. When that document becomes incoherent, performative and openly self‑destructive, the rest of the system collapses with it.
And we’re watching that collapse in real time. Nearly 30 career diplomats and ambassadors are being recalled from posts around the world. That isn’t a routine rotation. It’s a purge of institutional memory at the exact moment the United States needs more diplomatic presence, not less.
Meanwhile, China has deployed roughly three times as many ambassadors globally, building influence while the U.S. hollows out its own corps. It’s hard to project strength when you’re not even showing up.
This is America unrepresented, America uncoordinated, America strategically absent.
A national security strategy that once guided the entire foreign policy apparatus has been reduced to a self‑destruction note. And the world can see it.
Doesn't it remind you of how, immediately before Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin crippled his country by purging the very people who could have led its defense? Russia survived, but at the cost of some 27 million Russians who did not. A lot of how Trump thinks and acts reminds me of how Stalin thought and acted.
David, thank you for your efforts to highlight how Trump's "course of action" will "gravely damage the US," as will all "Trump’s assaults on the nation he was elected to lead." But much of the fault lies with "the nation" and the way we assume presidents are "elected to lead."
The president isn't elected to lead the nation. Our Constitution (prescribing the president's oath), and the president's own words when he is inaugurated expressly emphasize that he is elected not to lead, but to serve. Article II emphasizes that "Before" the President may even begin "the Execution of his Office, he" must "take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Our Constitution begins by emphasizing that "We the People" did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Article VI emphasized that We the People established "the supreme Law of the Land" and the foremost and constant duty of all our public servants (including all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States") is "to support [our] Constitution."
The constant, overarching duty of the President is to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution." It is not merely to lead us where he wants.
That's not a novel problem, and it's a problem no matter who is in power. Even as James Madison was explaining to people why they should ratify our Constitution he emphasized that ratification was just the first step and our Constitution was only the foundation.
Madison emphasized that we never can merely "trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power." Any "mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments [legislative, executive and judicial], is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." Already by 1787, "experience assures us, that the efficacy of [any paper] provision [restraining power] has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government."
The People always will need to continue to work to secure our own liberty and security. That's why the First Amendment expressly secures our freedom of expression, communication and association (to expose and oppose the misconduct of our purported public servants). That's also why our Constitution requires the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate to stand for election every two years, requires the President to stand for election every 4 years (and limits his total terms to 8 years), and requires the impeachment, conviction and removal of all civil executive or judicial officers who are guilty of any high crime or high misdemeanor.
The words of "Trump’s 'peace' envoy Steve Witkoff" remind me of an old Soviet joke about "peace." As you highlighted Witkoff "declared that Russia" purportedly "remains fully committed to achieving peace in Ukraine” but it "nightly bombs [innocent] Ukrainian [civilians] in relentless terror attacks."
Soviet citizens made fun of such assertions by their own government by cleverly revealing the truth. In Russian, the word "mir" means both "peace" and "the world." Soviet citizens would mock their government by emphasizing its position on "mir." "We want mir, and preferably all of it." They start by slyly implying that they want "peace," but they finish by admitting that they really want "the world."
Thank you David for your clear analysis of what Trump, his administration and evil cronies are doing to undermine the US and the rule of law. I wish more people would take the time and effort to understand what is happening.
David, you're right that "[t]he rule of law is not merely an abstraction" and Trump has "made a mockery of the nation’s legal system by openly selling pardons." Trump's outrageous abuses of the president's pardon power highlight that it's high time that we put the two sentiments you expressed together and say and do much more about what the "rule of law" actually means, specifically, regarding presidential powers.
In a dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, Justice Scalia powerfully emphasized profoundly important principles and he helped shed a lot of light on what "the rule of law" really means. It means, as John Adams emphasized in 1780, "a government of laws and not of men."
More particular, Scalia emphasized by quoting James Madison (rightly lauded as the Father of our Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights) in Federalist No. 51:
“[T]he great security” of the People “against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department [legislative, executive and judicial] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Madison (and Scalia) continued by emphasizing the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest much more power in the Legislative branch than in the Executive and Judicial branches:
“But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power [ ]. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Our Constitution expressly emphasizes the same. The People expressly “vested in a Congress” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. Moreover, the People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Clearly and emphatically, the People expressly vested in Congress the power to make all laws that were necessary and proper to govern “all” the “Powers vested by” our “Constitution” in the President, including any presidential power to appoint or to remove any other officer, the power to grant any pardon, and the power to use our Armed Forces.
Trump's abuses and usurpations of power (in violation of our Constitution and his oath) highlight the need for Congress to finally enact legislation starting to regulate or better regulating the powers Trump is abusing.
This is what happens when a Russian-owned criminal becomes president. Go to fiftyfifty.one and see what you can do to help stop them. The cavalry is not coming. We the People need to stop this.
What you’re describing is exactly what happens when a country abandons its own strategic architecture.
The National Security Strategy is supposed to be the anchor document for every agency in foreign policy. It’s the Bible. It tells the entire system how to align power, diplomacy, and resources. When that document becomes incoherent, performative and openly self‑destructive, the rest of the system collapses with it.
And we’re watching that collapse in real time. Nearly 30 career diplomats and ambassadors are being recalled from posts around the world. That isn’t a routine rotation. It’s a purge of institutional memory at the exact moment the United States needs more diplomatic presence, not less.
Meanwhile, China has deployed roughly three times as many ambassadors globally, building influence while the U.S. hollows out its own corps. It’s hard to project strength when you’re not even showing up.
This is America unrepresented, America uncoordinated, America strategically absent.
A national security strategy that once guided the entire foreign policy apparatus has been reduced to a self‑destruction note. And the world can see it.
—Johan
Doesn't it remind you of how, immediately before Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin crippled his country by purging the very people who could have led its defense? Russia survived, but at the cost of some 27 million Russians who did not. A lot of how Trump thinks and acts reminds me of how Stalin thought and acted.
David, thank you for your efforts to highlight how Trump's "course of action" will "gravely damage the US," as will all "Trump’s assaults on the nation he was elected to lead." But much of the fault lies with "the nation" and the way we assume presidents are "elected to lead."
The president isn't elected to lead the nation. Our Constitution (prescribing the president's oath), and the president's own words when he is inaugurated expressly emphasize that he is elected not to lead, but to serve. Article II emphasizes that "Before" the President may even begin "the Execution of his Office, he" must "take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Our Constitution begins by emphasizing that "We the People" did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Article VI emphasized that We the People established "the supreme Law of the Land" and the foremost and constant duty of all our public servants (including all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States") is "to support [our] Constitution."
The constant, overarching duty of the President is to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution." It is not merely to lead us where he wants.
To Republicans in power, the Constitution is just single-ply toilet paper, except for the Second Amendment, which they view as a shoot to kill order.
That's not a novel problem, and it's a problem no matter who is in power. Even as James Madison was explaining to people why they should ratify our Constitution he emphasized that ratification was just the first step and our Constitution was only the foundation.
Madison emphasized that we never can merely "trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power." Any "mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments [legislative, executive and judicial], is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." Already by 1787, "experience assures us, that the efficacy of [any paper] provision [restraining power] has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government."
The People always will need to continue to work to secure our own liberty and security. That's why the First Amendment expressly secures our freedom of expression, communication and association (to expose and oppose the misconduct of our purported public servants). That's also why our Constitution requires the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate to stand for election every two years, requires the President to stand for election every 4 years (and limits his total terms to 8 years), and requires the impeachment, conviction and removal of all civil executive or judicial officers who are guilty of any high crime or high misdemeanor.
The words of "Trump’s 'peace' envoy Steve Witkoff" remind me of an old Soviet joke about "peace." As you highlighted Witkoff "declared that Russia" purportedly "remains fully committed to achieving peace in Ukraine” but it "nightly bombs [innocent] Ukrainian [civilians] in relentless terror attacks."
Soviet citizens made fun of such assertions by their own government by cleverly revealing the truth. In Russian, the word "mir" means both "peace" and "the world." Soviet citizens would mock their government by emphasizing its position on "mir." "We want mir, and preferably all of it." They start by slyly implying that they want "peace," but they finish by admitting that they really want "the world."
Thank you David for your clear analysis of what Trump, his administration and evil cronies are doing to undermine the US and the rule of law. I wish more people would take the time and effort to understand what is happening.
David, you're right that "[t]he rule of law is not merely an abstraction" and Trump has "made a mockery of the nation’s legal system by openly selling pardons." Trump's outrageous abuses of the president's pardon power highlight that it's high time that we put the two sentiments you expressed together and say and do much more about what the "rule of law" actually means, specifically, regarding presidential powers.
In a dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, Justice Scalia powerfully emphasized profoundly important principles and he helped shed a lot of light on what "the rule of law" really means. It means, as John Adams emphasized in 1780, "a government of laws and not of men."
More particular, Scalia emphasized by quoting James Madison (rightly lauded as the Father of our Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights) in Federalist No. 51:
“[T]he great security” of the People “against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department [legislative, executive and judicial] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Madison (and Scalia) continued by emphasizing the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest much more power in the Legislative branch than in the Executive and Judicial branches:
“But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power [ ]. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Our Constitution expressly emphasizes the same. The People expressly “vested in a Congress” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. Moreover, the People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Clearly and emphatically, the People expressly vested in Congress the power to make all laws that were necessary and proper to govern “all” the “Powers vested by” our “Constitution” in the President, including any presidential power to appoint or to remove any other officer, the power to grant any pardon, and the power to use our Armed Forces.
Trump's abuses and usurpations of power (in violation of our Constitution and his oath) highlight the need for Congress to finally enact legislation starting to regulate or better regulating the powers Trump is abusing.
Thank you for your work.
This is what happens when a Russian-owned criminal becomes president. Go to fiftyfifty.one and see what you can do to help stop them. The cavalry is not coming. We the People need to stop this.