Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.
Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.
I would like to focus on the ill-conceived notion that the perpetrators of the January 6 assault on the US Capitol were victims of “weaponization and lawfare” by the Department of Justice.
It was the Biden Department of Justice that initiated the prosecution of the government contractor who was convicted of leaking President Trump's tax returns. Notwithstanding that, every other president since Watergate has voluntarily disclosed their returns, and Donald Trump, as a candidate, vowed to release his returns upon completion of his audit.
Conversely, the January 6 rioters, several of whom attacked Capitol Police officers and members of the District of Columbia police, were duly arrested, tried, and either convicted or pleaded guilty to actual crimes before they were pardoned or granted clemency by the president. It is now the claim of the president that they should be entitled to compensation because, in the view of the president and the attorney general, “they were targeted for political, personal or ideological reasons.”
The cruel and debased hypocrisy of this malfeasance is contrasted by the intentional aggressive and illegal weaponization by the Department of Justice and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement which have engaged in widespread human rights violations including, but not limited to, abusive treatment, cruel and unusual punishment in detention facilities, failure to provide adequate medical care in detention centers, illegal detention, denial of due process, illegal deportations, family separations, multiple deaths and para-military assaults in US cities such as Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis and Los Angeles.
It is worth noting that the Constitution of the United States entitles all persons the right to “be secure in their persons, houses…against unreasonable searches and seizures…and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…(Fourth Amendment)
And further No Person shall be held to answer for…infamous crime …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…(Fifth Amendment) and:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…and have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. (Sixth Amendment).
What is clear is that the Constitution plainly distinguishes between citizens and persons. Further, all persons are entitled to fundamental constitutional protections. Yet the Trump Administration has called for the deportation of both legal and illegal immigrants who have never been charged with crimes, people under Temporary Protected Status, green card applicants, green card holders, as well as suggesting that he would denaturalize naturalized citizens and revoke citizenship from naturally born US Citizens.
One is astonished to compare the abuses of process that Trump claims for the “victims” of the January 6 prosecutions who were duly arrested for cause, tried and convicted for their misdeeds and the people largely but not exclusively of color who have been detained often violently without warrants, notice, access to counsel or any due process, separated from their families from months on end and then often returned to unstable countries or even third party countries where they have no affinity whatsoever.
Empathy has never been one of the President’s strong suits. Cruelty has been a fairly consistent trait. So, he has a perverse perspective on the rule of law. Trump whines when he and his few friends do not get their way. Justice for all has never been his mantra. Advantage for him at others' expense has always been his goal.
We have not seen a president with such a blatant proclivity for utilizing the levers of government primarily to achieve personal wealth and vengeance against not only his enemies, but classes of people who he considers to be an inconvenience to have live in the United States. In England during the Windrush era, the British Prime Minister Theresa May specifically developed what she referred to as a “hostile environment policy”. It is an appropriate description of Trump’s actual intent.
Trump’s goal is to make life in the USA for immigrants (legal and illegal) from countries he despises (regardless of how legitimate their presence is under the law), as well as people of color, so difficult and unbearable that they have no choice but to leave the USA. The difference between Prime Minister May’s government (despite several human rights and other legal protections provided in the UK) is that in the UK, there is no birthright to citizenship as articulated in the 14th Amendment; no bill of rights or written Constitution guaranteeing ALL PEOPLE rights to dignity and due process (regardless of how they got here) and nothing in the Constitution bestows upon the President the ability to abuse anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States Government without due process.
Walter H. White, Jr. is a lawyer living in London. He is a Board member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, a founding director and later chair of the ABA Center for Human Rights, and a past chair of the ABA Civil Rights & Social Justice Section.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.