"What's Past is Prologue": The Implications Of A Second Trump Term

Introduction

In Shakespeare’s “The Tempest,” the phrase “What’s past is prologue” serves as a reminder that our history often sets the stage for what is to come. As we reflect upon the potential implications of a second Trump presidency, it is essential to examine the documented facts and events of his first term. These critical accounts raise considerable concerns about the future of the United States under another Trump administration.

In 2020, the Trump administration reportedly considered the use of a ‘heat ray’ against peaceful protestors in Washington, D.C., a chilling tactic more suited to a battlefield than the streets of the nation’s capital, as reported by Military Times. Simultaneously, The Washington Post highlighted claims that the former president not only overlooked human rights abuses internationally, but allegedly encouraged China’s concentration camps.

The Trump administration’s domestic agenda also came under scrutiny. For example, NBC News reported on deliberate efforts by the Trump White House to undermine the Covid response. Furthermore, a deep dive by The Atlantic discussed General Mark Milley’s actions to protect the Constitution from perceived threats posed by Trump, suggesting a precarious balance of power and hinting at potential constitutional crises.

Amid widespread protests, troubling accounts emerged. The Verge covered the Portland van abductions, while The New York Times detailed the questionable killing of an Antifa activist by a U.S. task force. The same publication revealed Trump’s controversial ideas for the border, including shooting migrants in the legs and constructing a moat filled with alligators. Such reports raise concerns about the lengths to which the administration was willing to go in its policy and enforcement approaches.

Trump’s approach to the pandemic also drew criticism. According to The Guardian, the U.S. could have potentially averted 40% of Covid deaths had the administration adopted different policies. Another disconcerting revelation from Politico highlighted the demand for a ‘herd immunity’ strategy, which could have resulted in a significantly higher death toll.

Concerns extended beyond policies to the realm of ethics and governance. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington documented over 3,700 conflicts of interest during Trump’s tenure, painting a picture of a presidency riddled with potential ethical dilemmas. Notably, The New York Times reported on Trump’s impeachment for inciting insurrection, underscoring one of the most divisive moments in recent American history.

Economic concerns also took center stage. As per The Washington Post, Trump left behind the worst jobs record in modern U.S. history, a statistic that wasn’t solely a result of the pandemic.

Lastly, Trump’s relationship with international leaders, particularly with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, raised eyebrows. Politico highlighted instances where Trump seemingly revelled in praise from Putin, a dynamic many found unsettling given the complex U.S.-Russia relations.

In summary, the myriad of reports and investigations from reputable sources such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, and others, present a comprehensive view of the challenges and controversies of Trump’s first presidency. As we look to the future, “What’s past is prologue” serves as a warning and a call to be informed and vigilant.

Legal and Civil Controversies

Donald J. Trump’s engagement with the legal system extended beyond his tenure as the 45th President of the United States. The myriad of indictments and legal challenges that Trump faced, particularly those associated with his business dealings and personal conduct, became a significant part of his legacy and raised concerns about the implications for a potential second term in the White House.

One notable case stemmed from allegations of financial improprieties related to the Trump Organization. Scrutiny was specifically on Trump’s real estate dealings in New York City. Prosecutors in this case argued that Trump and his organization manipulated property valuations to either receive larger tax breaks or advantageous loan terms. This set off a significant investigation into the organization’s accounting and tax practices.

Furthermore, AP News reported on a significant lawsuit where a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, awarding the accuser $5 million. Such allegations were not isolated. Business Insider cataloged as many as 26 women who had accused Trump of varying degrees of sexual misconduct over the years. It’s vital to understand the gravity and consistency of these allegations as they paint a concerning portrait of the former president’s behavior towards women. Though Trump has vehemently denied these allegations, their sheer volume and the corroborative details provided by different accusers have kept these issues at the forefront of public discourse.

Another indictment came from the misuse of funds from the Trump Foundation. As the Office of the New York State Attorney General reported, Trump paid a court-ordered $2 million for illegally using Trump Foundation funds. The funds, which were meant for charitable purposes, were allegedly used for political gain during his 2016 presidential campaign. The misuse of charitable funds raised questions about Trump’s ethical compass and his regard for the legal boundaries surrounding political campaigning.

NBC News documented the legal challenges from Trump University, which was accused of defrauding its students. The case culminated in a $25 million settlement, with the federal court noting the misleading nature of the enterprise. Trump University was advertised as a means to achieve success in real estate, mirroring Trump’s career. However, many students argued that the courses were not only exorbitantly priced but also lacked substantial educational value.

Beyond these highlighted cases, Trump faced other legal challenges related to allegations of tax evasion, business malpractices, and potential conflicts of interest arising from his dual role as a business tycoon and the President of the United States. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington discussed the vast conflicts of interest, totaling to an astounding 3,700 instances during his four-year tenure. The intertwined nature of his business empire with his presidential duties often led to blurred lines, raising ethical concerns about potential profiteering at the expense of the country’s best interests.

Considering this extensive list of legal challenges, indictments, and ethical dilemmas, it’s clear that the dangers posed by a second Trump presidency are multifaceted. Beyond the political and policy-related implications, these legal troubles highlight a consistent pattern of behavior that raises alarms about governance, ethics, and the rule of law. The backdrop of these allegations and indictments underscores the need for rigorous scrutiny and awareness as the nation ponders its future leadership. The very essence of the nation’s democratic values, based on the principles of accountability and justice, could be at stake.

Criminal Indictments

As of August 2023, Donald Trump has been indicted on 91 criminal charges across four jurisdictions: Georgia, Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia, with three trial dates set for 2024.

Federal 2020 Election Case (District of Columbia):

Significance: This indictment addresses Trump’s efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The stakes are enormous for future American elections and the sanctity of the democratic process. The verdict could influence politicians’ behaviors in future election disputes.
Charges: Four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiring against voting rights.
Potential Jail Time: Ranges from 5 years to 20 years per count, although maximum sentences are rarely given.

Georgia Election Indictment:

Significance: Fulton County’s indictment accuses Trump and 18 associates of racketeering conspiracy related to overturning Biden’s win in Georgia. This state prosecution is insulated from any presidential interference.
Charges: 13 felony counts, including violations of the Georgia RICO Act, solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, and several counts related to forgery, false statements, and false document filings.
Potential Jail Time: Ranges from 2.5 years to 20 years per count.

Federal Documents Case (Florida):

Significance: This case revolves around Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office, which carries implications for national security.
Charges: 40 felony counts, majorly about willful retention of national defense information and obstructing justice.
Potential Jail Time: Most counts carry up to 20 years, with a few like “willful retention” and “making false statements” having lesser time.

New York State Case (Hush Money Payments):

Significance: While arguably of lesser importance compared to the other indictments, this case deals with Trump’s alleged concealment of hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
Charges: 34 felony counts centered on falsifying business records.
Potential Jail Time: Each count has a maximum of 4 years.

Regarding Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, these indictments have so far paradoxically galvanized his base. The timeline of trials could potentially see Trump securing the Republican nomination even before any trial conclusions. Interestingly, a conviction wouldn’t disqualify him from office; only voters can ultimately determine that.

If convicted on all counts, Trump could technically face a cumulative sentence spanning several lifetimes. However, such a scenario is improbable. The nature of his sentencing would largely depend on the judge overseeing each case and the judicial interpretation of some novel legal arguments, particularly in the election-related cases. Higher court judges could potentially overrule any convictions on appeal. A possible return to the presidency for Trump complicates matters further; he could potentially end federal prosecutions or even attempt a self-pardon, though state prosecutions would remain unaffected.

In sum, Trump’s legal predicaments are unparalleled in U.S. political history, casting uncertainty on his political future and potential ramifications for the country’s democratic foundations.

Trump University:

In 2005, with the allure of success attached to the Trump brand, Trump University was launched. Touted as a premier institution that would provide its students the secrets to real estate success, its marketing campaigns drew in thousands. But beneath the glossy brochures and the promise of learning from Donald Trump’s handpicked instructors lay a reality far removed from its lofty claims.

The curriculum, contrary to its promises, did not reveal the supposed secrets to Trump’s success. Many students, some of whom had invested their life savings hoping for a better future, found themselves facing an array of upsells and high-pressure sales tactics instead of a genuine education. As courses progressed, rather than finding pathways to wealth, many found themselves being pressured to purchase additional classes, each more expensive than the last, with costs for some programs reaching up to $35,000.

Stories began to emerge from former students who felt they had been deceived. They described empty promises, a lack of support, and courses that offered widely available information at exorbitant prices. The supposed mentors, who were purportedly successful real estate moguls, were often found lacking in credentials, with some having filed for bankruptcy.

The issue came into national focus when reports from CNN and other outlets highlighted student testimonies and the growing discontent. Allegations suggested that students were sometimes targeted based on their credit limits, not their suitability or capability for the programs. Some students even recounted being encouraged to max out their credit cards to purchase Trump University courses, leaving them deeply in debt.

As the voices of discontent grew louder, the legal implications for Trump University became more evident. By its end, multiple lawsuits were filed, accusing the institution of fraud and misrepresentation. These weren’t just isolated cases but represented a significant portion of the students who felt they had been robbed of their investments, dreams, and futures.

It was in this backdrop in 2016 that a settlement of $25 million was reached. And while the settlement might appear to be a significant sum, it is crucial to understand its context. The amount was not an admission of guilt, but rather a strategy to mitigate ongoing negative press and legal proceedings. This strategy left many wondering: if this was the approach taken with an educational institution, what might be the approach when handling affairs of a nation?

The Trump University saga, when seen in the broader perspective, offers a cautionary tale. It serves as an emblematic episode demonstrating a pattern of grand promises followed by disillusionment and feelings of betrayal. The numerous students who were left with empty pockets and broken dreams are a stark reminder of the potential risks posed by placing trust in promises without substantive backing.

For those evaluating the implications of a second Trump presidency, the Trump University episode offers essential insights. The patterns of behavior, the handling of criticisms, and the final decision to settle rather than admit guilt might be indicative of future approaches to governance and crisis management. The potential danger lies not just in past actions, but in the precedent they set and the character they reveal.

In “What’s Past is Prologue”, the Trump University case stands out as a glaring example of past actions possibly predicting future behavior. It underscores the need for voters to thoroughly examine track records, seeking patterns and consistencies, and to question the implications of those patterns on future governance.

Trump Charities in New York:

Another controversial chapter in Trump’s history is his charitable foundation. Covered extensively by Forbes, the Trump Foundation came under scrutiny for its alleged misuse of funds. It wasn’t just about financial discrepancies, but about the alleged use of charity money for personal and political purposes. The gravity of these allegations can be understood from the actions taken by the state of New York. The authorities didn’t merely fine the foundation but ordered its complete dissolution. The Office of the New York State Attorney General in 2019 further reported that Trump had to pay a court-ordered sum of $2 million for illegally using Trump Foundation funds. This instance alone underscores the significant ethical concerns that have surrounded his charitable endeavors.

The Controversy and Concern Surrounding Schedule F in 2025

Schedule F, a relatively lesser-known element within federal employment classifications, has recently been thrust into the limelight as Trump’s vision for 2025 was unveiled. Designed to streamline certain portions of the federal workforce, Schedule F aims to provide greater flexibility in the hiring and firing processes for policy-making positions. However, with its resurgence as a policy tool in the Trump administration’s proposed second term, many are scrutinizing its potential implications.

According to Axios, Trump’s 2025 vision emphasizes a profound reshaping of federal bureaucracy, with Schedule F being a critical instrument in that transformation. On one hand, supporters argue that it promotes efficiency and responsiveness within government ranks. Detractors, on the other hand, highlight its potential to undermine the stability and impartiality of the U.S. civil service.

The premise of Schedule F centers around the designation of “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” roles. These roles would be separated from the competitive service, effectively enabling quicker hiring and, notably, easier removal of employees. At face value, it appears to be a move towards greater administrative agility. But delving deeper, several critical concerns emerge.

Erosion of Merit-Based Systems:

The U.S. federal bureaucracy’s foundation has been its merit-based hiring and firing processes. By permitting political appointees to easily designate roles under Schedule F, the initiative risks prioritizing allegiance over competence and expertise.

Political Retaliation:

NBC News emphasized concerns over Trump’s potential use of Schedule F. Given past interactions with government officials, where loyalty often took precedence, there’s apprehension that this tool could be wielded to sideline or dismiss those seen as oppositional or dissenting.

Institutional Instability:

Heightened turnover, especially if driven by politically motivated decisions, could erode institutional memory and experience. This not only disrupts operations but might undermine the efficacy of government agencies.

Ethical Implications:

Schedule F’s structure might discourage whistleblowers and public servants from reporting wrongdoings, fearing retaliatory dismissals. A system lacking such checks and balances could hinder governmental transparency and accountability.

Public Trust:

The relationship between the government and its citizens is paramount. If the federal bureaucracy is perceived as being marred by political biases or motivated by loyalty rather than public welfare, the resulting erosion in public trust could have longstanding repercussions.

Vanity Fair and Slate have pointed out these potential pitfalls, emphasizing the danger of turning civil service into a platform for political maneuvering. This isn’t just an administrative shift; it’s a pivot that touches on the fundamental principles upholding the U.S. federal bureaucracy: neutrality, proficiency, and an unwavering commitment to serving public interests.

Impeachment and Power Abuses

Overview of Trump’s Impeachments:

Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, faced impeachment by the House of Representatives twice during his tenure, an unprecedented event in American history.

The first impeachment took center stage in December 2019. At its heart was a phone call on July 25th of the same year between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky. The crux of the matter, as reported by The New York Times, was Trump’s alleged attempt to leverage nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden, then a Democratic presidential contender, and his son, Hunter Biden. This move was viewed by many in Congress as an abuse of power, using presidential authority for personal political gain. In the impeachment articles, Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, given his refusal to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry and attempts to block key witnesses from testifying. On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him on both charges. However, by early February 2020, the Senate, with its Republican majority, acquitted him, ensuring his continuation in office.

Yet, the turbulence of Trump’s presidency did not end there. Fast forward to January 2021, and the nation witnessed a harrowing event that would once again put impeachment into motion. NBC provided extensive coverage of January 6, 2021, detailing how supporters of Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent bid to overturn the 2020 election results. Prior to this insurrection, Trump had addressed a rally, where he reiterated his claims of a stolen election and urged his followers to “fight like hell.” These words, coupled with the subsequent chaos, led the House to charge Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”

On January 13, 2021, just seven days before he was set to leave office, the House voted to impeach Trump for the second time, making him the only U.S. president to be impeached twice. The New York Times elucidated the rapidity of the proceedings, noting the urgency felt by many in Congress after the Capitol riot. Yet, history seemed to repeat itself when the Senate trial took place in February 2021. The Senate, while mustering more bipartisan support for conviction than in the first trial, failed to achieve the two-thirds majority required to convict Trump.

Analyzing these impeachments in the context of the article’s theme, “What’s Past is Prologue”, provides a cautionary tale. Both impeachments, while not leading to a conviction, showcased the divisive nature of Trump’s presidency and the challenges posed by his unconventional approach to governance. His first impeachment highlighted the potential dangers of intertwining foreign policy with personal political gains. The second underscored the ramifications of unfounded claims on the democratic process and the fragility of the very institutions that uphold American democracy.

In conclusion, while Trump’s impeachments did not result in removal from office, they serve as a stark reminder. As the nation looks forward, it must grapple with the lessons from these historical proceedings, ensuring that the challenges of the past inform decisions about the future. The impeachments stand as a testament to the trials faced by the U.S. democracy and underline the importance of diligent oversight, accountability, and the preservation of the nation’s foundational principles in the face of adversity.

Trump’s Affinity for the Insurrection Act:

During his presidency, Donald Trump frequently toyed with the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act. This Act, a 213-year-old law, allows the president to deploy military troops within the U.S. to quell insurrections, rebellions, or even general lawlessness if requested by a state or if the president deems it necessary.

The year 2020 was especially tumultuous, characterized by nationwide protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. In this period of civil unrest, USA Today emphasized various moments when the then-president considered the use of this Act to restore order. This tendency to consider military intervention in domestic affairs sparked widespread discussion, with advocates suggesting that it might restore order while detractors warned of potential overreach and the dangerous implications for civil liberties.

One incident that brought Trump’s potential use of the Act into stark relief was the forceful clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, in proximity to the White House. The actions of law enforcement that day prompted The Washington Post to draw parallels between this event and international episodes of government force, notably the Tiananmen Square massacre in China. The publication emphasized how these historical reminders might illustrate the dangerous trajectory of relying too heavily on military force in response to civil dissent.

Deeper into Trump’s tenure, the Rolling Stone published an article discussing how the former president and his allies had plans to utilize the Insurrection Act in response to the 2020 election outcomes. Such a strategy would weaponize the act to challenge democratic processes.

Amidst the George Floyd protests, as mentioned in Business Insider, the then-president expressed a desire to deploy soldiers equipped with “rifles and bayonets” into U.S. cities. This suggested approach met resistance within his administration, with key officials advocating against such extreme measures.

Another report in Politico detailed the anonymous author’s claims that Trump had almost used troops to “forcibly expel” migrants. While this wasn’t directly related to the Insurrection Act, it again highlighted Trump’s apparent inclination towards militaristic solutions for domestic issues.

Defense One also presented a concerning narrative, suggesting that Trump wanted even greater presidential control over domestic troops and was even considering the establishment of “concentration camps.”

Trump’s evident affinity for invoking the Insurrection Act, combined with his seemingly aggressive stance towards domestic disturbances and civil unrest, raises questions about the potential risks of a second Trump presidency. Would there be an increased tendency to deploy the military domestically? What might the implications be for civil liberties and the right to peaceful protest?

Drawing from this historical backdrop, one might argue that a second Trump presidency could signal a move towards heightened militarization of domestic disputes and civil unrest. This possibility is especially concerning given the broader context of Trump’s approach to governance, with potential implications for democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

The Failed Coup Attempt:

The day of January 6, 2021, is etched in the annals of American history as an alarming testament to the extent to which misinformation, inflamed rhetoric, and populist appeal can mobilize a mass of citizens to engage in violent acts. As documented by The Guardian, thousands of Trump supporters, fueled by persistent and unfounded claims of a stolen election, gathered in a bid to overturn the results. Their actions culminated in a violent altercation at the U.S. Capitol, resulting in fatalities and significant damage.

The landscape that facilitated such a scenario was seeded much earlier. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported a marked increase in extremist groups and their rhetoric throughout Trump’s time in office. This rise was no doubt stoked by the incessant propagation of misinformation. The Washington Post documented that over Trump’s term, he made upwards of 30,000 false or misleading statements. Within such an atmosphere, bolstered by direct incitements from Trump himself, the groundwork for January 6th was laid.

Given this backdrop, the events of January 6th should not be viewed in isolation. It is a culmination, an explosive consequence of a systematic erosion of trust, sustained disinformation campaigns, and the empowerment of extremist views. It stands as a stark reminder and a grim warning of the potential dangers of a second Trump presidency.

This analysis, while focused on a narrow timeline and set of events, underscores a broader theme: the pivotal role of leadership in either upholding or undermining democratic values. As the saying goes, “What’s Past is Prologue.” The actions and decisions of the Trump presidency, particularly around January 6th, provide an ominous foreshadowing of what the future might hold, emphasizing the need for vigilance and the defense of democratic values.

Human Rights Allegations and Violations

Sexual Assault Allegations:

Over the years, multiple allegations of sexual misconduct have surfaced against former President Donald Trump. Renowned publications, such as The New Yorker, have delved into these accusations, providing women with a platform to voice their experiences. In a notable instance from 2023, AP News highlighted a jury’s decision to hold Trump accountable for sexual abuse, resulting in a $5M damages award for the plaintiff.

The numerous accusations against Trump are crucial when evaluating the potential hazards of a second Trump presidency. Understanding the depth and severity of these allegations can provide insight into his character and behavioral patterns, which are essential when considering him for the highest office in the land.

To date, Business Insider has documented 26 women who have accused Trump of varying degrees of sexual misconduct. Their accounts range from non-consensual touching to more severe allegations. One of the most high-profile accusations was from advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In May 2023, in what can be seen as a significant development in understanding the gravity of the accusations, AP News reported that a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse in relation to Carroll’s case. The court subsequently awarded her $5 million in damages.

This landmark case wasn’t an isolated incident. The Business Insider report from May 2023 detailed accounts from 26 women, all with different stories and circumstances, united by their claims of inappropriate behavior by Trump. The pattern that emerges from these accounts points towards a behavioral trend that voters and policymakers must consider seriously, especially when pondering the repercussions of a potential second Trump presidency.

While these accusations are deeply troubling in their own right, they become even more significant when viewed through the lens of political power. The office of the presidency is one of immense influence, with the potential to impact lives both domestically and internationally. Having a leader with a track record of alleged sexual misconduct could deeply undermine the country’s moral standing on the global stage.

Furthermore, such allegations could compromise the President’s decision-making abilities, especially in areas that directly affect women’s rights and issues. There’s an inherent danger in placing an individual with a history of alleged abuse towards women in a position where they have the authority to shape policies and directives that directly affect these same women.

It’s also essential to understand the broader implications of these accusations. The President of the United States serves not just as a political leader but also as a moral compass for many Americans. When the leader of the free world faces severe allegations of misconduct, it raises serious concerns about the societal standards and values the nation upholds.

In the context of a potential second Trump presidency, these allegations serve as a dire warning. The phrase “What’s Past is Prologue” aptly summarizes the situation. The past, filled with allegations and legal battles, provides a clear indication of what the future might hold. It’s crucial for the electorate and decision-makers to take into account the entirety of Trump’s past actions and the inherent risks they might pose for the future.

In conclusion, the allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump are not just individual instances to be brushed under the carpet. They form a disturbing pattern that warrants serious consideration, especially in the context of a potential second term in office. As the nation looks ahead, it must decide whether it’s willing to risk its moral integrity and the well-being of its citizens by potentially enabling someone with such a checkered past to lead once again.

Encouragement of China’s Concentration Camps:

The global narrative concerning human rights abuses has witnessed a critical juncture in the past few years, with particular emphasis on the happenings in China’s Xinjiang province. Amidst this international outcry, former President Trump’s approach, as portrayed by The Washington Post, appeared notably divergent from the prevailing sentiment. Not only did Trump allegedly overlook the grievances of the Uighurs, but certain reports even insinuated that he promoted China’s concentration camps.

A specific piece by The Washington Post in June 2020 indicates that Trump’s approach was not merely one of passive neglect. The report, delving into the details, asserted that Trump encouraged Beijing’s initiative to establish these camps, which has long been a contentious issue in global human rights circles. Such behavior can be perceived as reinforcing Beijing’s efforts and implicitly conveying the notion that human rights considerations might be subordinate to overarching political and economic agendas.

Diving deeper into the consequences of this reported encouragement, it is essential to recognize the potential ramifications on international relations and diplomacy. Such support from a leading global power can embolden nations to prioritize their domestic strategies over universally accepted human rights principles. It also, unfortunately, stands as a grim testament to the realpolitik considerations that sometimes overshadow moral imperatives in international politics.

Looking back, one of the gravest concerns is how Trump’s reported encouragement may have indirectly contributed to the escalation and continuation of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. By not outright condemning or taking a definitive stance against such actions, the U.S. may have indirectly provided China a buffer against widespread international criticism.

Furthermore, this context raises several pertinent questions regarding the foreign policy objectives and priorities of the Trump administration. Why would the president of a nation, historically seen as a beacon for human rights and democracy, allegedly encourage or, at the very least, not condemn such significant human rights violations? Was it a strategic move to forge better trade deals, or was it an oversight stemming from other pressing geopolitical concerns?

This reported stance on the concentration camps was not an isolated incident in Trump’s foreign policy decisions. Drawing parallels with his perceived encouragement of China’s concentration camps, one can infer that Trump’s approach towards such severe matters might be indicative of a broader trend, wherein international human rights issues took a backseat to other concerns.

The prospect of a second Trump presidency, in light of these revelations, suggests potential risks. If such allegations held substance during his first tenure, what could the international community expect in a subsequent term? Would international human rights once again be sidelined for other strategic or political gains? Or would the feedback from his first term lead to a reformed approach towards global human rights issues?

In the larger context of “What’s Past is Prologue,” one must consider how previous actions and decisions can serve as harbingers for future outcomes. If the past trajectory is any indicator, the potential of sidelining human rights, whether intentionally or not, might emerge once again.

Drawing this analysis to a close, the former President Trump’s reported stance on the concentration camps in Xinjiang represents not just a singular event, but rather an emblematic indication of a broader foreign policy trend. As the world anticipates future political developments, it’s crucial to remember and learn from the past, ensuring that human rights remain at the forefront of international diplomacy and decision-making.

Suggested Concentration Camps for the Homeless:

The prospect of a second Trump presidency was met with trepidation by many who had followed his initial tenure with great scrutiny. Given the various decisions, actions, and pronouncements made during his first term, a cloud of concern seemed justified. Among the most controversial topics of his administration was the discourse surrounding the homeless situation in the United States, more specifically, the proposal of concentrated camps as a solution.

In 2022, Defense One published an alarming article that drew attention to internal discussions within the Trump administration, outlining aggressive strategies towards the nation’s homeless. The rhetoric wasn’t simply about addressing homelessness through rehabilitation or housing but rather using concentrated camps as a means to segregate them. Human rights advocates raised the alarm, arguing that such an approach blatantly violated the very principles of human dignity and rights upon which the nation was founded.

Human rights and individual freedoms had been central to various concerns expressed about Trump’s governance style. For instance, The Washington Post reported in 2020 that not only had the Trump administration turned a blind eye to human rights violations in certain countries, but there were instances of encouragement. China’s concentration camps serve as a harrowing example.

Such proposals and actions fed into the anxieties of those who were vigilant of the nation’s foundational commitment to safeguarding its most vulnerable. When The Verge reported on the Portland Van Abductions in 2022, it showcased another dimension of how civil liberties were at times sidelined in favor of a more aggressive, and to some, a draconian stance.

While the concentrated camp discussions might have been more symbolic than actionable, they showcased a trend. Vulnerable communities, whether based on race, economic status, or political beliefs, had felt the brunt of policies and decisions made during Trump’s first term. The New York Times detailed how an antifa activist was killed, and The Guardian revealed how family separation policies at the border could be equated with torture in 2020.

These scenarios, whether directly related to the homeless situation or not, create a pattern that makes the prospect of concentrated camps for the homeless not as far-fetched as it would seem in a nation that prides itself on upholding civil rights.

Trump Wanted To Use U.S. Troops Against Civilians:

The George Floyd Protests: The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, sparked nationwide protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The protests were largely peaceful but some cities experienced instances of looting and violence. The Trump administration’s response was marked by a desire to assert control and establish ‘law and order’.
The Insurrection Act: Trump, on multiple occasions, expressed his desire to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows a U.S. president to deploy active-duty military personnel within the country to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. This act had been invoked in the past, notably during the Los Angeles riots in 1992, but using it in the context of the George Floyd protests would have been highly controversial.
June 1, 2020, Lafayette Square Incident: One of the most publicized events during this period was the clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square, near the White House, to facilitate Trump’s photo-op in front of St. John’s Church. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and aggressive tactics were used against the protesters. Though not a deployment of the military, the incident provided a preview of the administration’s willingness to use force against civilians expressing their First Amendment rights.
Trump’s Desire for Military Deployment: As reported by various media outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, in private meetings, Trump asked about deploying the military to quell the protests. He reportedly wanted soldiers with bayonets in the streets, which alarmed senior military officials and Pentagon leadership. Trump’s Defense Secretary at the time, Mark Esper, publicly broke with the president on this issue, stating that invoking the Insurrection Act should be a “last resort”.
Internal Pushback: The potential deployment of troops to control or suppress the George Floyd protests was not universally accepted even within Trump’s administration or the military. As mentioned, Defense Secretary Esper disagreed with using active-duty troops in this context. Additionally, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later expressed regret for his role in the Lafayette Square incident, emphasizing the need for the military to remain apolitical.
Consequences and Implications: The very suggestion of deploying U.S. military forces against American civilians protesting racial injustice became a contentious point. Such a move was seen by many as a potential infringement upon the constitutional rights of Americans and a drastic escalation in the government’s response. The potential misuse of the military in this way risked undermining public trust in the institution, which has traditionally been seen as standing apart from domestic political disputes.

President Trump’s inclination to use the military to address the George Floyd protests by potentially invoking the Insurrection Act became a significant point of contention. While he did not ultimately take this step, the expressed desire to do so raised profound questions about the appropriate role of the military in domestic affairs and the potential erosion of civil liberties. The discussions and debates surrounding this issue underscored the delicate balance between ensuring security and upholding democratic principles.

Separation of Families:

Shakespeare’s line, “What’s Past is Prologue,” alludes to history setting the stage for the present. It is a chilling reminder as we consider the family separation policy under the Trump administration and its implications for a potential second Trump presidency.

The family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border remains one of the darkest chapters of the Trump era. Under the banner of “zero tolerance,” thousands of children, some mere infants, were wrenched from their parents’ arms. This policy was more than an administrative directive; it was a calculated, chilling message to would-be migrants.

The Guardian compared the effects of this separation to torture. The rationale for such a stark assertion becomes evident upon examining the policy’s details. Many of these children were thrust into cage-like enclosures, cold, often overcrowded, and lacking basic amenities. Such inhumane conditions are not mere inconveniences; they inflict deep psychological scars. The Guardian and numerous health professionals have underscored the trauma, anxiety, and long-term damage suffered by these children.

While official figures acknowledge at least 2,737 children separated from families, as reported by The New York Times, some suggest the real toll may be much higher. This discrepancy, stemming from poor record-keeping, further emphasizes the chaotic and thoughtless execution of the policy.

Critics might argue that such drastic measures were aimed at deterring illegal immigration. Yet, many of these families were fleeing circumstances so dire that even the threat of separation could not deter them. Their hope for safety and prosperity in the U.S. eclipsed the looming shadows of the “zero tolerance” policy.

Reunification, which should have been a top priority, was marred by confusion and inefficiency. Many parents were deported, leaving their children stranded in the U.S. The haphazard nature of this process added another layer of trauma to an already grave situation. The Washington Post documented these agonizing tales, emphasizing the profound moral and ethical conundrums posed by the policy.

As the title “What’s Past is Prologue” suggests, history not only informs but also foreshadows. The family separation policy was not an isolated incident but a manifestation of a broader approach to governance—one that favored hardline tactics over human rights and ethical considerations. As the U.S. stands on the cusp of possible renewed leadership under Trump, this history offers a forewarning. It compels us to ask: if such policies were enacted once, what’s to prevent their return?

The indelible scars of separated families should serve as a cautionary tale. As Shakespeare’s line implies, our past sets the stage for what’s to come. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that history’s darker chapters, like the family separation saga, remain in the annals of the past and do not dictate our future.

Migrant Policies:

Throughout the tenure of President Donald Trump, his administration’s approach to migrant policies consistently garnered significant attention, criticism, and debate. This in-depth examination seeks to delineate the nuances, the broader context, and the implications of these policies, while situating them within the overarching theme of “What’s Past is Prologue”: The Warning of a Second Trump Presidency.

In an October 2019 article from The New York Times, some of Trump’s suggestions for border security measures were depicted as both radical and concerning. The report highlighted potential ideas such as the use of moats filled with alligators and suggestions of shooting migrants as a deterrent. Such ideas not only shocked many but were emblematic of an administration willing to resort to severe methods in its efforts to regulate immigration.

Such extreme measures give rise to the argument that these policy directions, or even the mere contemplation of them, indicate a stance that might be characterized as not merely stringent but potentially inhumane. For instance, a February 2020 article from The Guardian articulated that the Trump administration’s family separation policies were tantamount to torture. This claim was backed by medical professionals who found the psychological trauma inflicted upon separated children bore all the hallmarks of torture conditions.

However, this wasn’t the only alarming suggestion that emanated from the administration regarding migrants. According to Politico in July 2023, Trump had contemplated using military troops to “forcibly expel” migrants from the country. While this idea was never fully realized, it adds to the growing body of evidence illustrating a consistent inclination towards extreme measures in dealing with immigration-related challenges.

The implications of such approaches are multifaceted. On one hand, they fundamentally alter the narrative surrounding the United States as a nation of immigrants. For centuries, the U.S. has been perceived globally as a refuge for those seeking a better life. The policies and suggestions under the Trump administration challenged this long-held view, raising questions about the nation’s commitment to its foundational values.

On the other hand, the possibility of a second Trump presidency underscores the potential for these policies to not only continue but also to escalate. If the previous administration’s strategies serve as an indication, future policies might move even further towards extremes.

The treatment of migrants under the Trump administration was not merely a set of isolated incidents but indicative of a broader pattern. Given that these policies were developed and executed within a single presidential term, the potential implications of a second term are alarming. The adage “What’s Past is Prologue” seems particularly apt in this context. If past actions and statements serve as an indicator, a second Trump term might have seen an even more stringent and potentially confrontational approach to migrant policies.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s approach to migrant policies, as reported by various publications like The New York Times and The Guardian, has not only brought about substantive implications for those immediately affected but has also shifted the discourse on immigration in the U.S. If these past actions are truly a prologue to what could be anticipated in the future, the nation would do well to deeply reflect on its core values, its global image, and the humane treatment of those seeking refuge within its borders.

Protesters and Domestic Unrest

Use of Heat Ray Devices: The Alarm Bells of a Second Trump Administration

In September 2020, Military Times unveiled a jarring revelation regarding the consideration by federal officials of deploying “heat ray” devices on demonstrators near the White House. These devices, technically termed as Active Denial Systems (ADS), are non-lethal directed-energy weapons designed to impede or disperse potential threats. They function by emitting a high-frequency millimeter wave that interacts with the water molecules on the skin, resulting in an intense burning sensation.

The discussion surrounding the possible employment of the heat ray device came amidst the backdrop of a wave of protests in response to the killing of George Floyd. These demonstrations, by and large peaceful, were representative of a nationwide call for racial justice and an end to police brutality. The intent behind considering such a device for crowd control, as reported, was to disperse crowds near the White House, especially as protestors gathered at Lafayette Square.

Yet, it wasn’t just the thought of utilizing such a device that caused an uproar; it was also its history and intended purpose that intensified concerns. Typically, the ADS was conceptualized and developed for use in war zones or during intense military operations. Its potential deployment in a civilian context, especially against peaceful protestors, raised grave concerns about the militarization of law enforcement and potential breaches of First Amendment rights.

However, context is paramount. The Washington Post in June 2020 drew parallels between Trump’s willingness to use military might against protestors and international instances of government crackdowns on dissent. One could argue that this consideration of deploying a heat ray device was not an isolated event. Rather, it can be seen as part of a broader pattern, wherein the Trump administration, or its officials, were frequently accused of leveraging or willing to leverage extreme measures in response to domestic events.

The Lincoln Memorial incident covered by The Washington Post on June 3, 2020, is another such instance. This event saw heavily armed federal law enforcement agents standing guard on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during protests. A potent symbol of unity and freedom was, at that moment, juxtaposed with a show of military strength against American citizens.

Business Insider on November 15, 2021, revealed that during the George Floyd protests, Trump had expressed an inclination to send soldiers equipped with “rifles and bayonets” into U.S. cities. This inclination towards the use of force in response to domestic unrest is an underlying theme that threads these incidents together.

The contemplation of using a heat ray device, more accustomed to war zones, against peaceful demonstrators was thus met with strong criticism. For many, it exemplified an alarming propensity of the Trump administration to employ military-grade hardware against American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

This incident raises an essential question: What could be the implications of such a decision, especially if it had been executed? If a government demonstrates a willingness to consider or use extreme measures during its tenure, can the populace feel safe and secure in expressing their democratic rights?

For some, this episode was a glaring warning sign, a distress signal of what could come in a second Trump presidency. It underscores the fundamental debates about democracy, freedom of expression, and the role of military equipment and tactics in civilian contexts. The heat ray device, in this scenario, was not just about its physical impact but also about the broader implications it carried for civil liberties and the state’s relationship with its people.

The Portland Van Abductions and its Significance:

In the summer of 2020, amidst the backdrop of nationwide civil unrest, the streets of Portland, Oregon, became a focal point of attention for many. According to The Verge, unidentified federal officers were witnessed arresting protesters and taking them away in unmarked vans. The absence of clear justification and due process for these actions raised considerable concern. Both civil rights advocates and the public at large expressed alarm, signaling the precarious balance between federal power and individual civil rights. Questions emerged regarding the extents to which the federal government might venture in suppressing dissenting voices.

The incident in Portland was not an isolated occurrence during the Trump administration. Concerns regarding the undermining of democratic norms and civil rights were prevalent. For instance, The Washington Post highlighted Trump’s alleged indifference to human rights overseas, particularly concerning China’s concentration camps. Furthermore, Defense One raised eyebrows when they published an article suggesting Trump’s desire for “Presidential Control of Domestic Troops.” Such events painted a larger picture of an administration that seemed willing to exert federal power in unprecedented ways.

How The Danger Posed by a Second Trump Presidency Relates to The Portland Van Abductions:

The Portland van abductions can be contextualized as one of the multiple instances during Trump’s tenure that underscored concerns about the erosion of democratic norms. It showcased a brazen exercise of federal power against individual citizens, casting doubts about the administration’s commitment to uphold civil liberties. A potential second Trump presidency brought with it the fear of further encroachments on these liberties.

Many of the actions and decisions from Trump’s administration raised concerns. The Atlantic reported on the steps taken by General Mark Milley to ensure that the Constitution remained protected from potential overreaches by the then-President. In another telling incident, The New York Times discussed the tragic killing of an Antifa activist by a U.S. Task Force, illustrating the tense dynamics between federal forces and civilian protesters.

When juxtaposed against the broader backdrop of the Trump administration’s actions, the Portland van abductions served as a stark reminder. They epitomized fears about the erosion of civil rights, the potential misuse of federal power, and the dangers such actions could pose in the future.

Masked Presence at the Lincoln Memorial:

The Washington Post, in June 2020, provided a striking image: unidentified federal forces, standing in a militarized line at the Lincoln Memorial during protests. This visual, in many ways, encapsulated the wider concerns about how the federal government was responding to the nationwide protests. With their faces obscured and without proper identification, their presence was reminiscent of tactics seen in authoritarian regimes, where state power is wielded without transparency or accountability.

The Danger Posed by a Second Trump Presidency in Context:

The aforementioned incidents paint a picture of a presidency willing to push the boundaries of federal power in response to domestic unrest. These actions, as reported by esteemed publications like The Guardian, The Washington Post, and CBS, are stark reminders of the methods utilized to address protesters and dissenting voices during Trump’s tenure.

When contemplating the potential dangers of a second Trump presidency, one can’t help but recall these tactics. It raises fundamental questions about how far the balance might tilt towards an aggressive, potentially overreaching federal response to domestic dissent. Given the incidents of Trump’s first term, concerns abound about the potential for further erosion of civil liberties and First Amendment rights.

The nature and magnitude of the federal response to protests, particularly when juxtaposed against traditionally held American values, generate discomfort. Would a second term further normalize such aggressive tactics against US citizens? Would it embolden the use of military-grade hardware or methods more typical of authoritarian governments?

The Washington Post in another article referenced the parallel between Trump’s approach to handling domestic protests and the heavy-handedness seen in international incidents, notably Tiananmen Square. This analogy underscores the potential global implications and the image of the US in the international arena.

The events surrounding the protesters and domestic unrest during Trump’s first presidency serve as stark reminders of the potential paths that could be trodden again. When considering the warning of a second Trump presidency, the past becomes a prologue, emphasizing the importance of vigilance in upholding democratic values, civil rights, and the balance of power. The nature of the federal response to domestic unrest in Trump’s previous term provides a foundation upon which citizens and policymakers can and should critically evaluate the ramifications of future leadership choices.

Potential Dangers of Presidential Endorsement of Violence and Its Implications for a Second Term

Why Cheering the Killing of an Activist is Dangerous

Undermining the Rule of Law: One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the rule of law, which asserts that no one, irrespective of status or power, is above the law. By cheering the killing of an activist without trial, a president could be perceived as endorsing extrajudicial actions. Such endorsements could weaken the foundation of the rule of law.
Politicizing Law Enforcement: Law enforcement agencies are expected to function impartially, treating every citizen equally regardless of their political beliefs. Applauding the killing of an activist due to their opposing political stance risks transforming law enforcement from a neutral body into a political tool.
Chilling Effect on Dissent: Presidential endorsement of violence against political opponents can create a chilling effect. Activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens may become fearful of expressing dissenting opinions, leading to self-censorship and a stifling of free speech.
Potential for Escalation: Such endorsements can escalate tensions and may spur further violence. If opposing political groups believe that the state supports violence against them, they may resort to violence themselves, leading to a vicious cycle.
Damaging International Reputation: Democracies are often seen as beacons of human rights, due process, and freedom of speech. When a president publicly endorses violence against activists, it can damage the country’s reputation abroad and weaken its position to critique other nations on human rights.

Implications for Handling a Sustained Resistance in a Second Term

Given the precedent set by Trump’s response to the Reinoehl case, and the larger context of his administration’s approach to domestic dissent, there are concerns for how a second term might handle a sustained resistance:

Increased Federal Intervention: Based on prior actions, there might be more aggressive federal interventions in regions or cities showing resistance, even if local officials oppose such interventions.
Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering: There could be increased efforts to monitor activists, resistance movements, and even regular citizens expressing dissent.
Rhetorical Amplification: Presidential rhetoric could continue to frame resistance movements as inherently violent or as “enemies” of the state, regardless of the legitimacy of their grievances.
Judicial Pressure: The justice system might come under pressure to be harsher on activists and those opposing the administration, leading to potential miscarriages of justice.
Partisan Polarization: The political divide could further deepen, with opposing sides viewing each other not just as political adversaries, but as existential threats.

In summary, the way a leader responds to opposition, especially when that opposition is non-violent or constitutionally protected, speaks volumes about their governance style. Given the past actions and comments, a second Trump presidency might approach sustained resistance with both rhetorical and actionable force, potentially jeopardizing democratic norms and values.

Public Health and COVID-19:

Undermining of Covid Response:

In the heart of the pandemic, the global populace was tested with the challenges of COVID-19. During this period, the decisions and policies of the Trump administration became a focal point of intense investigation and criticism. NBC News highlighted a report that disclosed there were “deliberate efforts” by the Trump White House to compromise the pandemic response. This was not merely based on a few isolated decisions but pointed to an alarming pattern indicative of intentional choices. The implications for public health were profound, and the fallout affected the American people deeply.

A closer examination of the facts reveals the gravity of these decisions. The Guardian reported that experts believed the U.S. could have prevented approximately 40% of its COVID deaths if not for certain policies and responses that were either delayed or inadequately implemented. This raises questions about whether there was a deliberate indifference towards the health of the American public. The same publication later reported that some in the Trump administration actively championed a controversial “herd immunity” strategy. This strategy, as pointed out by Politico, suggested a drastic deviation from traditional public health approaches, risking countless lives for an unproven theory.

In a similar vein, a report from The Washington Post highlighted the economic ramifications of the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The article noted that, despite the global crisis, Trump’s tenure was marked by the worst jobs record in modern U.S. history, and this wasn’t solely attributable to the pandemic. Such an economic downturn compounded the health crisis, putting added strain on families, businesses, and communities.

Herd Immunity and “We want them infected”:

The approach towards achieving herd immunity without the use of a vaccine was a contentious strategy that drew alarm from a multitude of health professionals. The foundational principle behind herd immunity posits that when a significant portion of a population becomes infected and subsequently immune, the virus encounters fewer susceptible individuals, thereby causing a decline in transmission. However, implementing this strategy without the protective layer of a vaccine exposes countless individuals to potential illness, with a sizable fraction at risk of severe complications or death.

In 2020, Politico reported on the sentiments prevalent within the Trump administration that appeared to favor this approach. One appointee from the Trump administration explicitly stated, “We want them infected.” This statement encapsulated a noticeable inclination towards a herd immunity strategy sans vaccination. Delving deeper into the consequences of such a strategy, a report by The Guardian in 2021 found that the U.S. could have prevented 40% of its COVID-19 related deaths if different health strategies, policies, and measures had been enacted. This suggests that the strategic choices made by the administration during the pandemic, potentially including herd immunity without vaccination, contributed to a significant number of avoidable deaths.

Furthermore, NBC News in December 2021 detailed how the Trump White House made ‘deliberate efforts’ to undermine the Covid response. The undermining of the response coupled with the sentiments leaning towards herd immunity presented a potentially perilous combination for public health.

The approach towards herd immunity without a vaccine, as indicated by the Trump administration’s inclinations, also brings up crucial reflections on what a second Trump presidency might entail. Given that the initial stance on COVID-19 led to divisive strategies and high human costs, a second term might bring further deepening of these strategies or a continuation of policies that many experts view as detrimental to public health. Thus, the comments and actions from the first term serve as a critical reminder and a potential warning of what lies ahead.

How does this relate to the danger posed by a second Trump presidency?

The management of a public health crisis, especially one of the magnitude of COVID-19, is a testament to any administration’s competence, empathy, and foresight. The allegations of undermining the response, a gamble with herd immunity, and the vast number of avoidable deaths, paint a picture of an administration that either lacked the necessary comprehension of the crisis or chose to prioritize other concerns over public health.

If the past is prologue, as our theme suggests, then a second term for Trump could mean a repetition of these decisions or, at worst, their intensification. The American public, already battered by the previous handling of the pandemic, would find itself at the mercy of decisions that have, in the past, proven to be detrimental to public health.

Moreover, the handling of COVID-19 is a reflection of an administration’s approach to science, expertise, and fact-based decision-making. If reports by renowned publications like Politico, The Guardian, and NBC News are taken into account, it showcases a tendency to sideline these essential elements in decision-making. A return to such an approach in a second presidency, especially if faced with another public health crisis, could be catastrophic.

In conclusion, the past handling of the pandemic by the Trump administration, as reported by multiple reputable sources, serves as a stark warning. The danger of a second Trump presidency in the context of public health and COVID-19 is that past mistakes might not only be repeated but could be exacerbated, posing a direct threat to American lives and the nation’s place in global health leadership.

Economic and Employment Record

Trump’s Economic Policies:

Under President Trump, there were undeniable fluctuations in the U.S. economy. Though he frequently claimed significant economic growth, certain notable outlets expressed reservations. The Wall Street Journal critiqued the distribution of this growth, suggesting that prosperity under Trump was not enjoyed uniformly by all sectors of society. There’s a tangible foundation for this viewpoint. The Washington Post disclosed that while the wealth of the country’s upper crust expanded, numerous households in the middle-class bracket and below faced either static incomes or diminishing financial states. A large contributor to this disparity was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which critics argued played favorites with the affluent and big business. Their concerns were rooted in its potential long-term implications for income disparity.

The Danger of a Second Trump Presidency and its Economic Policies:

When evaluating the potential ramifications of a second Trump presidency, it’s necessary to return to the economic policies implemented during his first term. The Washington Post‘s study elucidated the rise in wealth for society’s upper echelons under Trump’s tenure. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which largely aided the wealthy and corporations, could be reintroduced or have its provisions extended. This kind of policy direction could exacerbate wealth inequalities.

In addition, The Washington Post commented that Trump’s tenure saw a net loss in job growth, which counters the president’s claims of being the best job creator. The concern here is that these economic trends, if continued in a second term, would further increase the income and wealth gap. The past could act as a prologue, offering a preview of what might be in store economically for the nation.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to international trade, as detailed by The Brookings Institute, questioned the real benefits of his tariffs on American workers and national security. Reinstating or amplifying these policies in a potential second term might continue to challenge global economic relations and domestic economic health.

In conclusion, the economic trajectory under President Trump’s first term has been documented and critiqued by numerous reputable outlets. As the theme suggests, “What’s Past is Prologue,” these documented events and policies provide an essential framework for understanding and predicting the potential future under a second Trump presidency.

Record on Jobs:

On the employment front, the narrative that Trump’s administration was one of the best for job creation came under scrutiny as well. According to a detailed analysis by Bloomberg, even before the onset of the global pandemic, the job creation record under the Trump administration was not as formidable as publicized. These findings were further bolstered by another report from The Washington Post which highlighted that, as of January 2021, Trump was set to have the worst job record in modern U.S. history. While factors such as trade wars and the approach to international relations played their part, there was also an underlying trend of job losses in key sectors.

To put this into perspective, despite the narrative of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., the policies, including certain tariffs, did not consistently lead to job growth in the sector. An analysis by Brookings in 2020 assessed the impact of Trump’s tariffs and found that they may not have largely benefited American workers as initially intended.

International Relations and National Security

Relationship with Russia and Putin:

The relationship between the former President, Donald Trump, and Russia, particularly its leader, Vladimir Putin, garnered widespread attention during Trump’s first tenure. The nature of this association raised eyebrows on multiple fronts, especially when considered in light of traditional U.S. foreign policy stances.

For instance, CNN had extensively documented 37 occasions by 2020 where Trump’s remarks and actions toward Russia stood in stark contrast to conventional U.S. foreign policy. This inconsistent approach often caused distress among NATO allies, as there were evident discrepancies in how Russian aggression was addressed, especially regarding the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s alleged interference in U.S. elections.

An event from 2023 further intensified this concern. Trump openly admired a statement made by Putin, saying, “I like that he said that,” as reported by Politico. This casual approbation of a remark from the Russian leader, without context or clarification, raised questions about the depth and nature of Trump’s regard for Putin.

During his presidency, Trump’s reluctance to acknowledge Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections became a significant point of contention. The Washington Post detailed how Trump’s reaction differed from that of the U.S. intelligence agencies, which had ascertained the Russian state’s involvement.

Further amplifying concerns were his meetings with Putin, often with minimal staff or recording, causing distress in intelligence circles and policy chambers about the potential commitments or concessions being made.

Moreover, a segment from The Guardian discussed how NATO allies were unsettled by Trump’s wavering commitment to the alliance’s mutual defense. Traditional allies became increasingly wary of the U.S.’s position, especially after Trump openly questioned the utility of the alliance and hinted at conditional support based on financial contributions.

In a global theater where alliances and diplomatic stances have profound consequences, the inconsistent U.S. approach to Russia during Trump’s presidency resulted in palpable unease. The broader implications of this relationship on international security and the delicate balance of power are a reminder of the complexities and potential dangers of divergent foreign policies. This history, and the manifold issues arising from it, acts as a harbinger for what might come in a potential second Trump presidency.

National Security Warnings:

In 2016, a segment of officials from the Republican party cautioned that a Trump presidency might jeopardize the nation’s security. These officials, with affiliations to previous Republican administrations, pointed out a potential lack of understanding of national security challenges, an unusual stance on Russia, and criticism of NATO allies. The sentiment wasn’t isolated. In 2020, leading GOP national security voices labeled Trump “unfit to lead,” expressing their support for Biden instead.

By the close of 2020, as Trump hesitated to accept the electoral results, an assembly of Republican national security experts urged him to acknowledge the outcome and kickstart the transition. Their collective call was more than a mere procedural request; it highlighted profound concerns about the stability of the nation’s democratic institutions and potential threats to national security during transitional periods.

Mocking U.S. Soldiers:

The Atlantic’s Report: In September 2020, The Atlantic magazine reported that Donald Trump, during his presidency, had made multiple disparaging remarks about U.S. military personnel, particularly those who had been captured, wounded, or killed. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the publication, wrote the piece based on accounts from multiple anonymous sources.

Specific Allegations:

World War I Veterans: The article claimed that during a 2018 trip to France, Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris, where U.S. troops who fought in World War I are buried. While the official reason given for the cancellation was bad weather, the article alleged that Trump said the cemetery was “filled with losers.”
John McCain: The article further reported that Trump referred to the late Senator John McCain, who was captured during the Vietnam War, as a “loser.” It’s worth noting that this particular remark is consistent with a publicly known stance Trump took in 2015, where he said of McCain, “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Vietnam War: Trump reportedly told his senior staff, according to the same Atlantic article, that the Vietnam War was “a stupid war” and anyone who went was a “sucker.”

Reactions and Implications:

Denials: The allegations were quickly and strongly denied by Trump and several current and former White House officials. They claimed that the story was false and accused The Atlantic of relying on anonymous sources to push a false narrative.
Corroborations: Various other media outlets, including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Fox News, reported that they independently confirmed some elements of The Atlantic‘s reporting, based on their own sources.
Political Implications: The report amplified existing concerns and narratives about Trump’s attitude towards the military. For many, the president’s alleged remarks were deeply offensive, given the reverence with which the U.S. public typically views its armed forces.
Wider Context: The episode should be viewed in the wider context of Trump’s presidency, which was marked by a number of controversies, as well as his willingness to challenge or dismiss many of the norms and conventions of the U.S. political system.

Deeper Significance

The incident, as well as the reaction to it, can be seen as emblematic of the deeper divides in American society and politics during Trump’s tenure. The speed and intensity with which different parties reacted, either condemning the alleged remarks or defending the president, showcased a nation deeply polarized. It also raised questions about the evolving nature of political discourse, the role and trustworthiness of the media, and the changing dynamics of how Americans perceive their institutions and leaders.

To many observers, the incident was not just about the remarks themselves, but about broader concerns regarding respect for traditions, institutions, and values that many Americans hold dear. The rapid spread of the story and the ensuing debates also highlighted the challenges of the modern information age, where narratives can quickly take hold and spread, regardless of their veracity.

Withholding of Puerto Rico Hurricane Aid:

Following the immense devastation caused by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in September 2017, the island’s recovery process proved challenging. Reports in the aftermath showed that the Trump administration’s response to the disaster was both delayed and insufficient, leaving many Puerto Ricans without vital resources for extended periods.

Key Points:

Delayed and Insufficient Response: While the U.S. government did eventually provide assistance, it was neither as rapid nor as expansive as many believed necessary. This contrasted with aid given to mainland states that suffered from natural disasters around the same time.
Infrastructure and Electrical Grid: Puerto Rico’s electrical grid was decimated by the hurricane, leaving most of the island without power. Though federal agencies were tasked with restoring electricity, the efforts were mired in controversies and delays. Some areas remained without power for nearly a year.
Funding Holdups: A report from NBC News in April 2021 confirmed that Trump administration officials intentionally blocked Puerto Rico from accessing certain aid funds. Such delays meant crucial rebuilding projects were postponed and many residents were left in precarious living conditions.
Public Perception and Communication: The administration faced criticism for its portrayal of the relief efforts. President Trump’s public remarks, such as his comments about throwing paper towels to a crowd during his visit to Puerto Rico, were seen by many as dismissive of the island’s plight. This fueled the perception that the administration did not prioritize Puerto Rico’s recovery on par with mainland disaster responses.
Comparative Data: Following Hurricane Maria, it took weeks to significantly ramp up the federal response. In contrast, federal assistance was more promptly dispatched following hurricanes in Texas and Florida.
Death Toll Controversy: The initial official death toll reported was 64. However, subsequent independent studies, including one commissioned by the Puerto Rican government, estimated the number to be in the thousands, primarily due to the aftermath and inadequate medical care. The discrepancies raised questions about the administration’s transparency and the overall handling of the disaster.

Implications:

The administration’s response to Hurricane Maria and the subsequent withholding of aid further intensified debates about Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory and the rights of its citizens. Many perceived the differential treatment as a reflection of broader systemic inequities. Given the island’s already fragile economy and infrastructure, the insufficient response hindered Puerto Rico’s recovery efforts and deepened existing vulnerabilities. The situation served as a stark reminder of the significant challenges Puerto Rico faces and the necessity for equitable and timely disaster responses.

Implications of a Second Trump Presidency on National Security:

While history doesn’t always repeat itself, it often rhymes. Understanding the actions and decisions of Trump’s first term provides valuable insight into potential threats posed by a hypothetical second term, particularly concerning international relations and national security.

Weakening NATO and Global Alliances: Trump’s relationship with Putin and Russia, as illustrated by CNN, potentially compromised U.S. security commitments. A second term might embolden these relationships, further weakening NATO and risking global destabilization.
Ignoring National Security Warnings: If Trump were to ignore expert advice, as suggested by former officials in The New Yorker, the nation’s defense could be at risk. Avoiding these warnings might lead to misguided actions or the omission of necessary interventions.
Diminishing Military Morale: If allegations like those reported in The Atlantic are true, they could have lasting effects on military morale. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need to believe in their Commander-in-Chief. A leader who mocks their sacrifice could diminish their morale, ultimately affecting the military’s effectiveness.
Humanitarian Concerns: The administration’s response to Puerto Rico’s Hurricane Maria, as shown by ABC News, raises questions about its willingness to help U.S. citizens in times of crisis. A second term might further compromise the aid provided to territories and states during disasters.
Revisiting Past Controversies: A second Trump term could bring a resurgence of past controversies and allegations, distracting from genuine security concerns. Issues like those reported by The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and ABC News would likely be revisited, possibly hindering the administration’s ability to function effectively.

In conclusion, while the past is prologue, the future remains unwritten. It’s crucial for citizens and leaders alike to learn from previous experiences and ensure that the nation’s security and global reputation remain uncompromised.

Trump’s Promised Retribution

Donald Trump’s presidency (2017-2021) was marked by numerous controversies and a distinctive communication style. Throughout his time in office, Trump frequently used combative rhetoric, especially on platforms like Twitter. Among his many statements, there were instances where he threatened or hinted at retribution against his political enemies, detractors, or individuals and entities he felt wronged by.

A vengeful commander-in-chief can have several implications for a nation:

Erosion of Democratic Norms: Democracy thrives on checks and balances. If a president seeks retribution against political opponents, it can undermine the very foundation of a democratic society. It creates a climate where political dissent is met with fear of reprisal.
Chilling Effect: Threats of retribution can lead to a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens might become hesitant to criticize the government or its policies if they fear retaliation.
Divisiveness: A vengeful rhetoric can further polarize an already divided nation. If a significant portion of the country feels under attack by its leader, it can deepen political divides and make constructive dialogue more difficult.
Foreign Policy Implications: International diplomacy requires a level of predictability and restraint. A vengeful mindset can compromise international relations and partnerships if global leaders fear unpredictable reprisals.
Impact on Institutions: Institutions, including intelligence agencies, the judiciary, and regulatory bodies, function best when they’re independent. Threats of retribution can undermine the autonomy and integrity of these bodies if they feel pressured to align with presidential whims.
Economic Consequences: Threats against individual companies or entire sectors can create economic uncertainty. Investors and businesses thrive on stability, and unpredictability can lead to reduced investments and economic downturns.

It’s essential to note that while Trump often made threats or alluded to retributive actions, the actual implementation varied. In some cases, threats remained just that – rhetoric without follow-through. However, even the perception of a vengeful commander-in-chief can have real-world consequences, as it shapes how both domestic and international actors interact with the administration.

Historically, U.S. presidents have held considerable power, but they’ve been restrained by institutional checks and balances and by longstanding norms and traditions. Any erosion of these norms, due to vengeful behavior or otherwise, can have long-term implications for the health and stability of the democracy.

IRS Investigations of Opponents:

Historically, the use of government apparatus for personal or political vendettas has been a point of contention. As detailed by CNN, former President Donald Trump purportedly expressed his intentions to John Kelly, his White House chief of staff, about leveraging the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate his political adversaries. Such adversaries notably included former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. This alleged intent to weaponize a federal agency like the IRS, which is tasked with upholding tax laws equitably, highlights the broader concern about the potential misuse of power.

Implications for the Country’s Democratic Structure

The specific allegations against Trump underscore the possible danger of undermining the independence of federal agencies. When two prominent critics of Trump, Comey and McCabe, find themselves subjected to “intensive tax audits,” despite the odds of any single individual being selected for such an audit being approximately one in 30,600, it naturally fuels suspicion. As Andrew McCabe himself stated, it “defies logic to think that there wasn’t some other factor involved” in the seemingly random selection for a rigorous tax audit. Such incidents, if perceived to be politically motivated, can greatly erode public trust in vital government institutions.

Moreover, the fact that Charles Rettig, the head of the IRS, felt the need to request an investigation into the decision to audit Comey and McCabe further accentuates the potential gravity of the situation and its implications for institutional independence.

Ramifications of a Second Trump Presidency

A recurrence of leadership styles that appear retaliatory or vindictive in nature would likely exacerbate public distrust and deepen partisan divides. The backdrop of Trump’s relationship with figures like Comey and McCabe provides a snapshot of the confrontational nature of Trump’s first term. Trump’s dismissal of Comey in May 2017, his derogatory labels for him such as “liar” and “leaker”, and McCabe’s firing two days before his scheduled retirement, all paint a picture of political tensions that could be further inflamed in a second term. As Andrew McCabe pointed out, people need to trust their government institutions. If actions from a leader’s first term already erode this trust, a subsequent term might further undermine the democratic principles upon which the nation is built.

In summary, the details from CNN‘s coverage of the The New York Times report offers specific insights into the allegations of Trump’s attempt to use the IRS for political gains. These allegations, if true, highlight the potential dangers of leadership that blurs the lines between personal vendettas and governance, ultimately challenging the foundation of U.S. democracy.

“What’s Past is Prologue”:

This phrase resonates when one looks at the retribution and threats made during Trump’s presidency. For many, history serves as a guide, offering insights into what might come next. The various reports from esteemed publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times build a tapestry of a leadership style characterized by threats and potential misuse of power. The use of government agencies as potential tools of retribution is particularly concerning, suggesting a weakening of the boundaries that separate the different branches of government and maintain the balance of power.

This balance, painstakingly crafted by the nation’s founders, is critical to the American identity. Therefore, any erosion of it, any blending of personal and political, or any use of the machinery of state for vendettas, sets a troubling precedent.

While all leaders have their style and approach, the U.S. system is designed to ensure continuity, stability, and adherence to the Constitution. The allegations and actions documented during Trump’s first term raise questions about how these values would fare in a second term. As history often reminds us, actions taken in the past can be the best predictors of future behavior. Given the documentation from various sources, there’s a significant body of evidence to suggest that a second term might see an escalation in such behaviors, posing a potential threat to the very democratic norms that have held the country together for so long.

Legacy and Continued Threat

In examining the correlation between Trump’s business ventures and his presidential duties, The Washington Post cited a report suggesting nearly 3,700 potential conflicts of interest. Delving into the specifics, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in 2021 highlighted how these intersections might have influenced policy and decision-making during Trump’s tenure. Various episodes pointed towards potential financial gains for Trump’s properties, potentially at the expense of unbiased governance. One of the significant issues here is the overlap between private gain and public duty, which erodes trust in the system and diminishes the sanctity of the office.

Trump’s financial endeavors were frequently in the limelight. For instance, his settlement of $2 million for illegally using Trump Foundation funds, as reported by the Office of the New York State Attorney General, and the federal court’s approval of a $25 million settlement for the Trump University case, as covered by NBC News, are indicative of the various legal challenges associated with his businesses.

National Security Risks:

While the potential financial conflicts are concerning, the national security implications cannot be ignored. Certain behaviors and policies during Trump’s presidency raised alarms for many, leading The New York Times to spotlight warnings from intelligence officials about potential risks should Trump return to power.

His foreign policy and interactions with global leaders, especially those from adversary nations, have been scrutinized for being uncharacteristically favorable. His leniency towards Russia, as covered by CNN, with 37 instances of what appeared to be a soft stance, and his apparent admiration for figures like Vladimir Putin, highlighted by Politico, stirred controversy. The relationship with Russia, in particular, generated questions regarding the security implications for the U.S. and its allies.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to domestic situations also signaled potential threats. For instance, during the protests following George Floyd’s tragic death, he reportedly expressed a desire to deploy soldiers armed with “rifles and bayonets” into U.S cities, as noted by Business Insider. This militaristic response to civil unrest could have destabilized the nation further and highlighted a potential inclination to use force against his own citizens.

How the Danger Posed Relates to These Threats:

When considering the implications of a second Trump presidency, past actions provide significant insights. The alleged intertwining of personal business interests with the presidency not only undermines democratic ideals but also risks the possibility of policy decisions being influenced by personal gain. These concerns go beyond mere corruption allegations, touching upon the core of governance and the essence of the presidency.

National security concerns compound these issues. Trump’s seeming propensity to sideline traditional allies in favor of nations traditionally viewed as adversaries raises questions about the U.S.’s global positioning. The decisions, ranging from his response to civil unrest to his interactions with global leaders, signal a potential shift in U.S. priorities and alliances.

In this context, the title “What’s Past is Prologue” stands as a stark reminder. The choices, policies, and behaviors exhibited during Trump’s initial tenure serve as a prelude, offering insights into what a second term might entail. For those concerned about the intersections of personal business with governance or about the nation’s standing on the global stage, these warnings from the past provide valuable foresight.

In a democratic setup, where governance should be for the people and by the people, the encroachment of personal interests jeopardizes the very foundation. Similarly, in a globalized world, where national security is intricately tied to international relations, policy decisions influenced by personal biases or uncalculated admiration for controversial figures can have far-reaching implications.

Conclusion

In the whirlwind of events, facts, and decisions surrounding the Trump administration, certain realities stand out. The deployment of federal agents and the discussions around using heat rays on DC protesters are chilling reminders of the extent to which fundamental rights were at stake (Military Times). Reports from The Washington Post and Defense One that suggest a president unperturbed by, or even supportive of, concentration camps and unchecked presidential power paint a grim picture. The handling of the pandemic, as detailed by NBC News, Politico, and The Guardian, further indicates a series of decisions that many have criticized for being counterproductive, or even harmful.

Underlying these facts is a narrative thread of how power was used and perceived. Whether we refer to the General Mark Milley’s interventions as reported by The Atlantic, the federal activities in Portland, documented by The Verge, or the events leading up to the impeachment as chronicled by The New York Times, it’s evident that the Trump presidency navigated boundaries in ways that alarmed many, both within and outside his administration.

The impacts of his decisions also extended beyond the immediate political scene. The economic consequences, for example, were not just limited to policy implications. As The Washington Post highlighted, despite various influencing factors, the Trump era concluded with the worst jobs record in modern U.S. history.

Equally disconcerting are reports from sources such as The Guardian and Politico that dive into the human rights issues and a worrying approach towards herd immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic. These strategies and decisions are not just footnotes in history, they affected millions of lives, potentially influencing the health, wellbeing, and future of the nation.

However, it’s essential to understand these accounts not merely as criticisms of one administration, but as calls for reflection. As we venture into an uncertain future and consider the potential implications of a second Trump presidency, it’s prudent to heed the lessons of the past. “The Tempest” offers a timeless sentiment: “What’s past is prologue.” This principle underscores that the events and decisions of the Trump administration are not just historical artifacts but prologues that inform future narratives. We must weigh them heavily as we tread forward, remembering that the past, if not fully comprehended, has a way of resurfacing in the chapters yet unwritten.

Bibliography

Acevedo, N. (2021, April 22). “New probe confirms Trump officials blocked Puerto Rico from receiving hurricane aid.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-probe-confirms-trump-officials-blocked-puerto-rico-receiving-hurri-rcna749
Baron, K. (2022, July 28). “Trump Wants Concentration Camps and Presidential Control of Domestic Troops.” Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/07/trump-wants-concentration-camps-and-presidential-control-domestic-troops/375057/
Blake, A. (2020, June 17). “Bolton says Trump didn’t just ignore human rights but encouraged China’s concentration camps.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/17/bolton-says-trump-didnt-just-ignore-human-rights-encouraged-chinas-concentration-camps/
Cai, S. (2023, May 21). “Trump’s 2025 vision, revealed.” Axios. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/21/trump-2025-vision
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (2021, January 15). “President Trump’s legacy of corruption, four years and 3,700 conflicts of interest later.” https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/
Cohen, M. (2020, August 4). “37 times Trump was soft on Russia.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html
Diamond, D. (2020, December 16). “‘We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy, emails reveal.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408
Dickinson, T. (2023, August 1). “Team Trump’s plan: Weaponize the ‘Insurrection Act’ against democracy.” Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jeff-clark-insurrection-act-2020-election-1234799199/
Fandos, N. (2021, January 13). “Trump impeached for inciting insurrection.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html
Garrity, K. (2023, September 17). “‘I like that he said that’: Trump revels in praise from Putin.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/17/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-praise-00116414
Gertz, G. (2020, September 10). “Did Trump’s tariffs benefit American workers and national security?” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-trumps-tariffs-benefit-american-workers-and-national-security/
Goldberg, J. (2023, September 21). “How General Mark Milley protected the Constitution from Donald Trump.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/general-mark-milley-trump-coup/675375/
Goldmacher, S., & Epstein, R. J. (2023, September 22). “Biden, Warning Trump Could ‘Destroy’ Democracy, Moves Past G.O.P. Primary.” The New York Times. (Link truncated for length)
Hill, E., Baker, M., Knowles, D., & Cooper, S. (2020, October 13). “A Sudden Spray of Bullets: Reconstructing a U.S. Task Force’s Killing of an Antifa Activist.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/us/michael-reinoehl-antifa-portland-shooting.html
Holpuch, A. (2020, February 25). “Trump’s separation of families constitutes torture, doctors find.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/trump-family-separations-children-torture-psychology
Holpuch, A. (2021, February 11). “US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump’s policies.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy
Jeong, S., & Olmos, S. (2022, October 19). “The Portland Van Abductions.” The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/21473919/portland-van-abductions-federal-agents-jeff-merkley
Kessler, G., Rizzo, S., & Kelly, M. (2020, October 22). “A guide to the Steve Bannon charges: How ‘We Build the Wall’ allegedly became ‘We Build the Con’.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/guide-steve-bannon-charges-how-we-build-wall-allegedly-became-we-build-con/
Kilgore, E. (2020, September 30). “Team Trump Bumrushed the Showers at the Debate.” New York Magazine. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-team-refused-masks-and-testing-before-debate-in-cleveland.html
Kludt, T., & Gold, H. (2021, January 10). “Right-wing media feeds Trump’s dangerous delusion.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/media/reliable-sources-01-10-2021/index.html
Loveluck, L., & Taylor, A. (2020, November 9). “Trump administration escalates battle with China by ending Hong Kong’s special status.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/trump-administration-ends-hong-kongs-special-status/2020/11/09/99fefe28-2214-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html
Ng, D., & Mayes, A. (2021, November 24). “‘It’s a disgrace’: Trump’s attacks on late senator draw bipartisan condemnation.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-11-24/trumps-attacks-on-late-senator-draw-bipartisan-condemnation
Rosenberg, M. (2021, January 2). “Trump campaign’s star witness in Michigan was deemed ‘not credible.’ Then, her loud testimony went viral.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/04/mellissa-carone-rudy-giuliani-michigan-witness/
Rubin, R. (2023, April 11). “Inside Trump’s attempt to flip the script on his tax returns.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/inside-trumps-attempt-to-flip-the-script-on-his-tax-returns-047510
Sampathkumar, M. (2020, July 14). “US begins formal withdrawal from World Health Organization.” The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-who-us-withdrawal-trump-covid-19-pandemic-a9614636.html
Scannell, K. (2020, July 10). “Manhattan DA says Trump could be investigated for tax fraud.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/manhattan-da-trump-tax-fraud/index.html
Shear, M. D. (2020, September 29). “The President Demands a Recount of His Drug Test.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/trump-drug-test.html
Siders, D. (2023, April 7). “Trump’s ‘voter fraud hotline’ flooded with prank calls.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/trump-voter-fraud-hotline-prank-calls-050149
Stone, M. (2020, December 2). “New Trump rule could require up to $15,000 bond for travel to the US.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/us-tourist-visa-bond/index.html
Subramanian, C. (2020, October 8). “‘Trump betrayed us’: Growing number of military vets back Biden.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/08/military-veterans-reject-donald-trump-growing-numbers-back-joe-biden/3633804001/
Witte, G. (2021, February 19). “Trump’s real estate empire was built on gifts, tax dodges and unfulfilled promises, New York investigation finds.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-real-estate-gifts-tax-dodges-investigation/2021/02/19/20fb82ee-72c7-11eb-948d-19472e683521_story.html
Yilek, C. (2020, July 30). “Barr blasts Trump’s tweets: ‘Impossible for me to do my job’.” The Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-impossible-for-me-to-do-my-job

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
wordpress_test_cookie	session	This cookie is used to check if the cookies are enabled on the users' browser.