Politics
Opinion: When Donald Trump cites history, watch out
Yet again Donald Trump has provided a reminder of the irony in his slogan “Make America Great Again” — besides the fact that America is great.
Whenever the ahistoric former president approvingly cites some event in U.S. history, it’s usually a chapter that we learned in civics class was something more infamous than famous, something that stood as a lesson of what not to do.
Detention camps, punishing tariffs, discredited “America first” slogans, appeasing dictators and, in a bizarre what-if, even suggesting compromising on slavery. His former White House chief of staff, retired Gen. John F. Kelly, is now recorded confirming that Trump, as president, expressed admiration for Hitler.
Opinion Columnist
Jackie Calmes
Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.
One of the most recent examples of Trump’s warped views is his promise that if elected he’ll employ the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, intended as a wartime measure, “to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil,” as he said in Coachella last week. On Monday in Greenville, N.C., Trump sounded so pleased with himself to be citing a 226-year-old law, as if he were a student of history instead of a revisionist poser: “Think of that, 1798. That’s when we had real politicians that said we’re not going to play games.”
The law is the only survivor of the Alien and Sedition Acts. I recall being taught that those laws were a big mistake perpetrated by an infant republic, unduly empowering the president to infringe on civil liberties. That sounds like a good thing to Trump, of course, but the backlash two centuries ago helped Thomas Jefferson defeat President John Adams in 1800.
Presidents Madison, Franklin Roosevelt and Truman invoked the Alien Enemies Act in wartime. Using separate but related powers, Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals in concentration camps during World War II — a popular move then but such an enduring shame that Congress and President Reagan in 1988 authorized reparations and apologized on behalf of the nation.
Yet these days candidate Trump doesn’t shy away from talking about peacetime roundups and camps for about 11 million undocumented residents, including those with U.S. citizen children, starting on day one of a second presidency.
Then there’s his repeated talk of “the enemy from within,” by which Trump explicitly means his Democratic enemies, “radical left lunatics.” To thwart these supposed threats, which he calls more dangerous than Russia, China or Iran, Trump suggests he’d sic the National Guard or military on them. (“We should take those words seriously,” his former Defense secretary, Mark Esper, told CNN.)
In history the idea of domestic enemies is most closely associated with Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the disgraced demagogue of the early Cold War era. “Enemies from within” was the title of his speech 70 years ago in Wheeling, W.V., where he (in)famously waved a paper claiming that he had the names of “card-carrying” communists in the State Department. With that, McCarthy kicked off years of reputation-destroying, red-baiting lies. His oleaginous staff sidekick at Senate hearings? Future Trump mentor Roy Cohn. Trump learned from one of the worst.
Not since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which by the consensus of historians and economists exacerbated the Great Depression, has a presidential aspirant proposed such high across-the-board tariffs on imports as Trump does.
Against all historical evidence, he denies that the result would be retaliatory tariffs by foreign nations, higher costs for Americans and lost jobs. He pooh-poohs warnings from the Wall Street Journal editorial board and cites the 19th century tariffs of President McKinley, who in fact disavowed such protectionism late in his term. No one seeking to lead the nation in an integrated 21st century world should be looking to Industrial Age policies for inspiration.
When Trump frequently boasts that as president he’ll settle Russia’s war against Ukraine in a day (even Russia’s ambassador to the U.N. refutes him), he calls to mind British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” gambit — his appeasement of Hitler by allowing Germany to seize a hunk of Czechoslovakia. (Trump’s “America First” declarations are a throwback to the discredited U.S. isolationist movement of the time.)
All of Trump’s comments suggest he, too, would bend to an expansion-minded dictator, Russia’s Vladimir Putin. He praised Putin as “brilliant” after the 2022 invasion, opposed most U.S. aid to Ukraine and recently blamed Ukraine for starting the war (huh?). His idea of a quick peace? Likely a deal on pal Putin’s terms, allowing Russia to keep captured Ukrainian territory.
Perhaps nothing, however, says historical ignorance so much as Trump’s recent comment on Fox News — not his first such remark — that Abraham Lincoln should have cut a deal with the South to prevent the Civil War. “Why wasn’t that settled?” he said on Fox & Friends, prompting a rare pushback from a host, who noted that Southern states had seceded before Lincoln took office.
There had been futile compromises in 1820 and 1850. Southerners started the war, and they did it to preserve slavery. As Lincoln said before his election: “What will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong and join them in calling it right.” Is that what Trump would have condoned? He did, after all, attack opponents of Confederate statues for trying to “defame our heroes.”
Unlike so many of his predecessors, Trump doesn’t read histories and biographies; he’s said so. Having failed to learn from history, he’s poised to repeat its sorriest sagas, in the service of his ignorant, misinformed prejudices. Make America Great Again? No, keep America great.
@jackiekcalmes
Politics
Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran
new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran
By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry
March 1, 2026
Politics
Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”
“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.
“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.
“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”
“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”
Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.
Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”
“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.
California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”
DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.
“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.
“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.
“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.
“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”
“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.
“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”
JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”
Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”
“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”
Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X.
Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.
Politics
Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight
Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.
Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?
Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.
With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.
So he effectively broke the rules.
Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.
The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.
In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.
Then came the deluge.
In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.
Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.
But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.
The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”
Well.
That was a lot of wasted time and energy.
Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.
In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.
But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.
Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.
That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.
(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)
In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.
But that’s not necessarily so.
The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.
In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.
But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.
By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.
In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.
Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?
-
World4 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts4 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Denver, CO4 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana7 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT