The United States Capitol. (Photo: Architect of the Capitol)
April 15, 2025 by David Silverberg
While over 80 senators and congressmen from both parties are urging the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to unfreeze funds already approved by Congress to help communities prepare for natural disasters, Southwest Florida’s congressmen are absent from the effort.
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), who is running for governor, Rep. Greg Stuebe (R-17-Fla.), and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.), all of whom represent hurricane-vulnerable districts in Southwest Florida, did not sign the letter, sent on the eve of the 2025 hurricane season.
“We are writing to urge the Administration to reinstate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant (BRIC) program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),” states the letter. “BRIC funds are spurring communities across the country to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather, and forgoing these critical investments will only make it harder and more expensive for communities to recover from the next storm.”
The letter was dated May 12 and was addressed to Kristi Noem, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and David Richardson, the acting administrator of FEMA.
The letter explains: “The BRIC program was established by Congress in the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump with bipartisan support. In the years since, this program has catalyzed community investments in resilient infrastructure, saving federal funds by investing in community preparedness before a disaster strikes.”
Even if reforms need to be made to the program, the signers wrote, the funds should still be reinstated.
Also absent from the letter were Florida’s two senators, Rick Scott and Ashley Moody.
FEMA canceled approximately $882 million in BRIC funding approved in fiscal years 2020 to 2023, calling it “wasteful and ineffective.”
The letter points out that BRIC funding has helped communities harden their infrastructure and prepare and protect themselves from natural disasters like floods and wildfires.
Florida is facing what is expected to be a very active hurricane season this year.
A depiction of Vichy French gendarmes with “the usual suspects” rounded up in the bazaar, from the movie Casablanca.
May 2, 2025 by David Silverberg
It’s an iconic scene from an iconic movie.
The 1942 movie Casablanca opens with French Vichy police conducting a criminal investigation. They do this by rounding up people at random, which they call “the usual suspects,” in the city’s bazaar. During the movie, when there’s a particularly serious crime they round up twice the usual number of suspects.
It doesn’t matter who the people are or where they were, they’re all under suspicion.
In contrast, in the United States, an arrest is not supposed to occur until there’s “probable cause” to believe there’s guilt. Once arrested, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
It’s a bedrock American principle.
But along with other bedrock American principles it’s under attack by President Donald Trump and his regime.
This is happening under the umbrella of Trump’s almost psychotic hatred, prejudice and rage against migrants, immigrants and foreigners, a psychosis that he is injecting into American government at all levels.
Nowhere is this hatred, prejudice and rage being more fully embraced than in Florida.
More than half of the more than 500 local police departments and state agencies that have joined President Donald Trump’s drive for mass deportations are in Florida.
During the past month Florida towns and counties were essentially forced to vote to cooperate with federal authorities’ immigration actions under pressure from the governor and the state’s attorney general. No dissenting votes were permitted, as was amply demonstrated in Fort Myers. Both the president and the governor used threats against what they deemed to be “sanctuary cities,” even though no Florida municipality has officially adopted that position. Florida schools and universities were pressured into joining the program as well.
On April 24, federal authorities, with local help, began rounding up around people in Florida for incarceration and deportation and have now detained an estimated total of 1,100 people. In Miami federal authorities expanded the Krome Detention Center in Miami to accommodate their new holdings. Gov. Ronald DeSantis (R) is even asking the state legislature for money so that he can conduct deportation flights of his own like the ones he ordered in 2023 to Martha’s Vineyard and Washington, DC.
Trump’s stated target are those aliens who have committed criminal offenses while in unauthorized residence in the United States. But it is clear that this effort is going far beyond that, with his consent and encouragement. The setting of quotas for apprehensions and deportations indicates that these actions are not based on evidence and possible individual criminality but on broad, unproven suspicion rooted in, in Trump’s own words, “hatred, prejudice and rage.”
Criminal deportations have been going on for quite some time. For example, President Barack Obama, deported an estimated 5.2 million undocumented aliens, with an emphasis on those with criminal records. But it was done without fanfare or spectacle, a quiet, relentless but also effective drive to weed out criminal migrants while respecting the basic human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants.
The anti-migrant movement is spilling over into an assault on basic rights of all Americans. If allowed to continue, it is going to become far worse. It has the potential to become the greatest tragedy in American history, the end of America’s constitutional republic, the demise of its democratic experiment and the end of American freedom altogether.
Trump’s actions are being billed as an effort to protect the American people—but they are not. In fact, his regime threatens Americans in new and dangerous ways that hark back to the days before American independence.
What’s under attack now is the very bedrock of America, the cornerstones of the American republic, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
So, what are some of the key bedrock principles in danger? Why is this important? And what can be done about it?
(A note on terminology in this article: This article follows definitions that an “immigrant” is someone who has legally been admitted into a country and all “immigrants” are ipso facto legal. (In other words, technically there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”) A “migrant” is someone who has or is moving. (A useful mnemonic device is to remember that all immigrants are “in,” while all migrants are “moving.”) An “undocumented migrant” is someone who does not have the legal permissions to be present in a country. An “alien” is any foreigner.)
The Blackstone ratio
The statue of Sir William Blackstone in Washington, DC. (Photo: Creative Commons)
In Washington, DC, there is a statue of the famous British jurist Sir William Blackstone outside the federal courthouse where so many cases of national importance are tried.
Writing in the 1760s, Blackstone put forward a principle that has been a bedrock of American jurisprudence from the day it was published in his book, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
“…All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
Ever since the abuses that led to the American revolution, American law has held that an innocent person should never be held, imprisoned or punished for something that he or she did not in fact do.
The entire American judicial and legal system is based on this principle. All the mechanisms of enforcement, investigation, jury and trial are built around ascertaining beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is truly guilty and that not a single innocent person—not just a citizen—is wrongly punished.
The actions being taken by the Trump regime violate this principle. In their pursuit of undocumented migrants they are sweeping up the innocent as well as the presumptively guilty.
This is why the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland has become so important. Garcia is an undocumented citizen of El Salvador who was arrested in the United States on March 12 on suspicion of being a member of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang. He was deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, along with 200 other people seized and deported on suspicion of gang membership. His family denied that he was ever a member of the gang. ICE admitted that his seizure and deportation was the result of an “administrative error.” A federal judge ruled first that he not be deported and then, when he was already in El Salvador, that he be returned. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the regime must “facilitate” his return to the United States for a hearing.
To date he has not been returned, even though he had a visit in El Salvador from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
Garcia is no angel. He has a history of past arrests, detentions and allegations of domestic abuse. But in this instance, he was not given a chance to prove that he was innocent of the suspicions—not even crimes, suspicions—leveled against him.
But this regime, in its defiance and indifference to fundamental principles of human rights, is determined to act on its suspicions without proof, in violation of Blackstone’s dictum. In this it shares the attitude of other authoritarian regimes, which hold that punishing those it pursues is more important than protecting the innocent. In places like Maoist China, communists reasoned, “Better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person go free.” In Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge held, “better arrest an innocent person than leave a guilty one free.” The Trump regime is now joining the likes of communist China’s Gang of Four and the genocidal regime of Pol Pot in sacrificing presumption of innocence in pursuit of its perceived enemies.
Taking action based on suspicion without protecting the innocent is a fundamental violation of American principles, jurisprudence and basic human decency.
But the means to determine guilt or innocence raises another question of principle.
Due process
The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. (Photo: National Archives)
An accused person’s right to go through a formal process determining his or her guilt or innocence—what is known as “due process” —is so important, it is enshrined twice in the Constitution of the United States. Nor is it confined just to citizens.
It first appears in the Bill of Rights, Amendment Five:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It next appears in Amendment Fourteen:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Both Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security advisor, and Tom Homan, head of ICE, have denied that non-US citizens are entitled to due process rights.
On April 1, Miller posted on X: “Friendly reminder: If you illegally invaded our country the only ‘process’ you are entitled to is deportation.” Homan agreed in an April 8 interview with Axios: “People who are enemies of the United States don’t have the same level [of] due process [as in] the normal process.”
Clearly the US Supreme Court did not agree with this interpretation when it unanimously ruled that Garcia had to be returned to the United States for a review of his case.
But however the Garcia case plays out, yet another fundamental American principle is being attacked in the Trump regime’s war against foreigners.
Presumption of innocence
As noted at the beginning of this essay, what’s happening now is reminiscent of the roundup of “the usual suspects” portrayed in Casablanca.
In contrast to roundups like that, in the United States, an arrest is not supposed to occur until there’s “probable cause” to believe there’s guilt. Once arrested, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Even though it’s a bedrock American principle, surprisingly, it is not spelled out as such in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. Instead, it has long been derived from the Fifth Amendment’s commitment to due process. It was more explicitly stated in an 1896 Supreme Court case, “Coffin versus the United States,” which held that the US prosecutor had to overcome a “presumption of innocence” to find the defendant guilty.
American law enforcement is not supposed to round up “the usual suspects” as a formal procedure. That sort of thing has indeed happened but it has been considered an anomaly, an aberration and sometimes, a crime.
But presumption of innocence is not being applied for those people being rounded up for incarceration or deportation by this regime. In fact, the opposite is true: they’re being viewed as national enemies and presumed guilty without the chance to prove innocence.
It is true that there are millions of people who are in the United States without authorization. The reason it was tolerated in the past was because their low-cost labor was widely considered valuable to the US economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. There was enforcement at the border but people still entered illegally. Many found jobs, settled down, raised families, started businesses and even paid taxes. In many quarters, especially by business, they were considered important assets in keeping production high and consumer prices low. They didn’t threaten the country, they built it.
Where there was criminality it was dealt with either by the Border Patrol, federal authorities or local law enforcement. Border authorities and law enforcement also combatted drug smuggling and contraband.
It is not widely known but the border was actually sealed, and quite tightly, after 9/11. For undocumented migrants, many of them seasonal workers, this created a dilemma: they could return to their places of origin, mostly Mexico and Latin America, and possibly never return to the United States. Or else, they could stay in place, hope for the best, and possibly attain citizenship through legal means.
Three times there were attempts in Congress to comprehensively deal with these problems and the undocumented population; in 2007, 2014 and in 2024. In all cases the efforts were scuttled by political opposition. In the last instance senators from both parties had worked out a comprehensive bipartisan agreement but Trump deliberately sank it in order to use the issue in his presidential campaign.
Now Trump has flipped the script: undocumented aliens are classified as enemies, even hostile attackers of the United States. From his very first presidential campaign speech in 2015 when he called all Mexicans “criminals” and “rapists” he has utterly ignored the positive contributions of migrants and immigrants and vastly exaggerated their negative aspects.
By invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 on March 15, Trump declared the United States in a state of “invasion or predatory incursion” by the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua. He used this to treat his targets as wartime enemies not subject normal rights and protections.
While enhanced enforcement could be conducted in a legal and constitutional manner, it is clear that the hatred, prejudice and rage with which Trump’s anti-immigrant crusade is being conducted is being applied to all foreigners. It is now lapsing over into attacks on innocent, fully naturalized and even native-born American citizens.
Protesters at a May Day rally in Naples, Fla. (Image: Pamela Hostetter)
In the current atmosphere, any American could become one of the “usual suspects.”
This kind of conduct puts every American citizen at risk. With the erosion and indifference to constitutional rights and protections, we are already in a time when any American can be picked up at any time for any reason, without a warrant or probable cause.
It is exactly the situation the founders sought to avoid by approving the Bill of Rights. It is oppression.
Prominent opposition voices are already speaking out on this.
On Wednesday, May 1, former Vice President Kamala Harris spoke in San Francisco in her first major speech following her presidential campaign.
“Instead of an administration working to advance America’s highest ideals, we are witnessing the wholesale abandonment of those ideals,” she said. Americans were speaking out to say “it is not ok to detain and disappear American citizens or anyone without due process.”
She encouraged people to organize, mobilize and be active. “Please keep doing what you are doing. and to everyone, let’s lock it in.”
But it was a speech by Gov. Jay Robert “JB” Pritzker (D) of Illinois on Sunday, April 27, that most directly proposed action. Speaking at the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, Pritzker directly attacked “do-nothing Democrats” and “a culture of timidity.”
But he also directly addressed the attack on the fundamentals.
“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” he insisted, arguing that this was a question that went beyond immigration to the heart of the Constitution. “Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history,” he said. “Today, it’s an immigrant with a tattoo. Tomorrow, it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Trump.”
His solution? “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now,” he said. “These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box … and then punish them at the ballot box.”
Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security advisor, said Pritzker’s call to action “could be construed as inciting violence,” to which Pritzker responded by noting Miller’s support of the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol and saying, “It’s terrible hypocrisy on the part of Stephen Miller and of others who have said somehow that my remarks [are anything other than] about peaceful protest.”
In Southwest Florida, people have been mobilizing and protesting in repeated demonstrations against the regime’s actions. Even in Naples, known for its conservative Trumpism, well-attended demonstrations took place on April 5 and 19th (the 250th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord) and again yesterday, Thursday, May 1.
And there was one bit of good news: On the same day that Trump celebrated his 100 days in office and Harris denounced him, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., ruled that the regime cannot deport Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
The Act only applies when there is an “armed organized attack on the United States,” stated Rodriguez.
“The historical record renders clear that the president’s invocation of the AEA… is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms,” the judge wrote. “As a result, the court concludes that as a matter of law, the executive branch cannot rely on the AEA… to detain the named petitioners… or to remove them from the country.”
It was one small push back against the regime’s effort to arrest, detain and deport anyone it wants without due process or probable cause or proof of guilt. It only applies to South Texas. It will no doubt be appealed. It may be ignored. But it also shows that a commitment to the Constitution and the bedrock fundamentals of America is hardly dead.
Clearly, the “usual suspects” aren’t going to go quietly.
Victorious North Vietnamese troops on tanks take up positions outside Independence Palace in Saigon, April 30, 1975, the day the South Vietnamese government surrendered, ending the Vietnam War. (AP Photo/Yves Billy)
April 27, 2025 by Paul Atkinson
As the Trump tariff offensive is unleashed, one of the nations most impacted is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. A nation of 100 million people, with 60 percent under age 30 crammed into an area the size of New Mexico, it has become one of America’s fastest growing trading partners.
Vietnam’s exports to the United States – electronics and semiconductors, apparel and footwear – totaled 30 percent of its 2024 gross domestic product, and grew at a rate faster than that of any other country. Foreign investors, among them Apple and Nike, have relocated major portions of their operations from China. But as of April 9, those exports were scheduled to be hit with a 46 percent tariff, among the highest applied to any nation.
Beyond just trade, Vietnam sees its relationship with the United States as a potential counterweight to the risk of Chinese dominance in Southeast Asia. In 2023, the Biden administration initialed a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” with Hanoi, one that covered not only economic relations, but included a commitment to “Maintaining Substantive Diplomatic and Political Engagement.”
Vietnam’s To Lam was the first world leader to respond to President Trump. He requested a 45-day delay in implementation of duties and offered to reduce to zero his country’s 9 percent average tariff on U.S. goods. While non-committal, the President described their conversation as “very productive.”
What makes this mercantile brinkmanship ironic is that it unfolds in the shadow of a remarkable historical milestone. April 30 marks the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the end of a 30-year struggle to unify Vietnam under Communist rule.
America’s role in support of the non-communist Republic of Vietnam began in the Eisenhower years, following the 1954 defeat and withdrawal of the French colonial administration, and the country’s “temporary” division at the 17th parallel. It officially ended in 1973, when President Richard Nixon removed the remaining US troops based in the South.
Over that span, the costs of the war were enormous. America suffered 58,000 combat deaths and 175,000 wounded and disabled. Total Vietnamese deaths, civilian and military, were in the millions. Two million more, many of Chinese descent, fled the postwar South as refugees, tens of thousands drowning in the South China Sea.
Four U.S. administrations spent $140 billion on the war: $1 trillion in today’s dollars. The protracted conflict upended U.S. politics, compromised America’s role in global finance, and began a debate on the limits of American power that continues to this day.
The circumstances of America’s Vietnam withdrawal are worth recalling. As Richard Nixon confronted his 1972 re-election, he wanted the war-weary electorate focused on his efforts toward detente with Communist China and the Soviet Union. In contrast to public pledges of “peace with honor,” the President and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger recognized that the military outlook was hopeless. “Vietnamization,” the strategy whereby South Vietnam’s army would assume responsibility for the country’s defenses, was not working.
Nixon and Kissinger hoped to orchestrate a “decent interval” between the time American troops pulled out and the North conquered the South. They were, in the words of University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, “well aware that they were abandoning the Nguyen Van Thieu government in Saigon when they negotiated the American withdrawal with Hanoi in 1972 and early 1973.” They wanted out of Vietnam “once and for all.”
The abandonment accelerated with the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s August 1974 resignation. That fall Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year. It is debatable whether the additional spending would have made a difference or just postponed the inevitable. But by April of 1975, the “decent interval” concluded with haunting photos of panicked Saigon residents scrambling to board American helicopters.
Half a century later, America and Vietnam face each other across a very different strategic landscape. Post-Cold War detente with China and Russia has dissolved. Vietnam, while it remains an authoritarian regime, offers Washington a potential strategic partner in its struggle with Beijing for mastery in Asia.
In 1967, on the shores of Hanoi’s Truc Bach Lake, the North Vietnamese erected a monument celebrating the spot where Lt. Commander John McCain was shot down in an American bombing raid. Today, visitors will see a renovated version, representing a symbol of Vietnamese American reconciliation. At Senator McCain’s 2018 death, Hanoi residents held a memorial at the site, leaving flowers to remember the man who was a major figure in establishing U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995.
America’s first attempt at “Vietnamization” ended in failure. Now, in a remarkable reversal, it confronts a Vietnam fully capable of standing on its own in a US-led Asian coalition. It would be tragic if such an opportunity, the legacy of John McCain and millions of others, were abandoned in favor of taxes on tee shirts, sneakers and iPhones.
Paul Atkinson, a Bonita Springs resident, is a member of the Naples Council on World Affairs and a contributor to The Hill newspaper.
President Joe Biden visits the John McCain Memorial marker in Hanoi, Vietnam on Monday, September 11, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Rep. Byron Donalds responds to a question at his town hall meeting in Estero on Monday. (Photo: Author)
April 24, 2025 by David Silverberg
The town hall meeting of Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) held at Estero High School is now in the history books.
This was a lot different from his previous town halls. Not only did it generate a lively turnout, it attracted major media, including CNN, and it was covered extensively by local media, which often give scant coverage to politics. It was raucous and rambunctious and that’s where most of the coverage focused.
But it was a political event a cut above the run of the mill in Southwest Florida and given that Donalds is a declared candidate for governor it provided some indicators of the kind of governor he would be.
So what were the broader implications of the meeting, what deeper lessons can be derived from it, and what did it reveal about the politician, the political dynamic in the district, the state and the nation?
Reading the room
A view of the audience just prior to the start of the meeting. (Photo: Author)
After initial indications that the meeting would be highly restricted, when the event occurred it appeared that virtually anyone who wanted to get in could do so. Even with that, the hall was not filled. This author estimates the crowd at 300 to 400.
An indication of the strength of Donalds’ supporters came early when he came out on stage and they gave him a standing ovation. From this author’s vantage, those standing appeared to constitute a quarter of the audience at most.
Questions were written out on cards and the questioners in the audience were named and acknowledged when the questions were asked. This author counted 18 questions being formally asked during the session. Other questions were shouted from the audience, which Donalds occasionally answered as well. Most questions received lengthy answers.
Other than welcoming the audience and thanking the people who arranged the meeting, Donalds did not make any opening statement other than to say he was not going to get into politics (in the sense of purely partisan discussion) and he was not going to address his gubernatorial bid. Instead he opted to go right to the first question. That question, his answer and the audience’s response set the tone and was a precursor of the direction the rest of the meeting would take.
The question was: “As a member of the Oversight Committee, what oversights are you imposing on Elon Musk and DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency]?”
The question brought prolonged, vigorous applause and cheers. “You like that question,” Donalds joked. He answered that Musk was a special White House employee, similar to others that had been appointed by previous administrations. He specifically mentioned President Barack Obama’s appointment of former senator John Kerry as “climate czar” in his administration to deal with climate change issues.
Because DOGE was not run with congressionally appropriated funds, Donalds said, it was outside the House Oversight Committee’s purview.
“What DOGE is doing right now is they’re going through every agency and they’re examining any contracts or any inefficiencies in spending federal dollars,” he said but was interrupted by shouts and expressions of disagreement, with people pointing out DOGE’s mass layoffs and disruption of government operations.
Donalds’ answer and the response began an uproar that never really died down and Donalds never regained full control of the proceedings.
Nonetheless, he compared DOGE’s actions to those taken by President Barack Obama to increase government efficiency. This kicked the uproar into a higher gear and intensity. “You cannot deny that President Obama famously said that he wanted to examine efficiency or lack thereof in the government. Elon Musk is doing the exact same thing,” which elicited even louder expressions of outrage.
“The Oversight Committee is doing the responsible thing, we are letting DOGE complete its work,” he said. “Most of the budget cuts that DOGE will present have to go through the appropriations process. It goes through the Appropriations Committee and most of the judgments of federal spending will occur there and then get an up or down vote in the Appropriations Committee first and then on the floor of the House” before moving to final approval. “That is the process.”
As he was saying this the calls and shouts from the crowd were mounting in volume, complaining that he wasn’t addressing the broader issues created by Musk and DOGE.
But Donalds continued his defense. “Now, it is actually clear that from the President, who is the unitary executive under our system of government…he wants [Musk] to work in the federal government. So, I find it interesting that people who are upset about Elon right now, were not upset, as I brought up earlier, when John Kerry was going around” doing work for the Obama administration as a special employee.
After trying to calm the crowd, Donalds continued. “Here is the last thing. There is a report that comes out every single year. This is the GAO [Government Accountability Office] report. The GAO report, every single year, says the government wastes more than 250 billion dollars a year. 250 billion!” which also elicited shouts of dismissal. “Over the last 20 years the federal government has wasted 3 trillion dollars. (More about GAO and its report below.)
“I believe that it is in the interests of the people of Southwest Florida and of the United States to examine all inefficiencies in the federal government,” which elicited prolonged applause from his supporters. “If there are concerns [it is] that Elon Musk and his team are going through agencies and cancelling contracts that are inefficient”—which brought an outburst of disagreement from the rest of the crowd.
“When appropriations language is ready, under federal law today, Congress has given discretion to the secretaries of the various Cabinet agencies. So what the DOGE is actually doing is that they are working with Cabinet-level secretaries, who have all been confirmed by the United States Senate, to bring their findings to that secretary and then that secretary is the one who is making the decision because the authority has been given to the Cabinet secretary by Congress. You may not like it but that’s the way the law is written.”
After some of the shouting died down from that, he continued: “As a member of Congress, I actually believe that Congress should not give discretion to the federal agencies, no matter who’s president and Congress should actually prescribe how money is spent in the federal government but the Congress has been derelict in its duty and allowed money to go through the federal branch, the executive branch, and they have given full discretion to the executive branch, which goes around Congress and goes around these issues in the United States of America.”
He continued: “This is where there’s a little bit—a little bit—of public perception. If you examine broad-based polling on government efficiencies, it is popular with the American people.”
Then, he asked a question of his own: “For those in the room upset about DOGE; are you going to be upset when DOGE gets to the Department of Defense?” There was a resounding affirmative response. Then he repeated the question and the response rose higher. “Every recommendation that DOGE makes, is approved by the Cabinet-level secretary and confirmed by the United States Senate.”
Then he stated, “At the Oversight Committee we have to actually observe DOGE do its work first and we’re in the process of doing this, number one. Number two, for true accountability if we truly believe it’s necessary true accountability for DOGE will be found in the appropriations process. At that point, any recommendations that DOGE has made, the Cabinet-level secretary will be reflected in budgetary requests and it will get an up or down vote through the appropriations process.”
Answering that question took approximately 7 minutes.
Analysis: Call and response
Elon Musk wields a chain saw at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee on Feb. 20, 2025 (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
All the media coverage of the meeting has focused on its raucousness and the anger of the audience. A major question, though, is: why was it so raucous and why were constituents so angry?
It was not because there was any kind of advance planning or “astroturfing” (paid disruptors) to cause chaos. Rather, as was clear from the very first question and answer there was a yawning reality gulf between Donalds and his audience.
Each appeared to exist in a separate universe and there was little to no connection between them. Donalds’ answers, which uniformly defended President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the regime, also presented a picture that, while presented as factual, was completely at odds with the reality understood and experienced by constituents.
As shown in the first answer, Donalds was putting DOGE in the context of the congressional appropriations process and addressing it as a regular budgetary process. But the audience, like the rest of the American public, is experiencing DOGE as a furious, unchecked, personally-directed purge of the federal government, with massive layoffs, severe cuts to services, disruption of orderly processes, threats to mandated benefits and intrusion into personal information.
Donalds would not acknowledge or address these concerns among his constituents. Instead, he blindly recited the Trumpist catechism and defended the regime’s actions. He did not provide even a hint of sympathy or understanding for constituent concerns. His approach was that if he explained it, or in the phrase he repeatedly used, “if we’re intellectually honest,” it would be sufficient.
He also repeated assertions that were wildly at variance with what the rest of the audience understood to be the truth, prompting amazement and outrage.
(At this point it seems appropriate to address some of the inaccuracies and misconceptions in Donalds’ first answer.
For example, there is no equivalency between previous special presidential employees and Elon Musk. John Kerry was Special Presidential Envoy for Climate of the United States from 2021 to 2024. He represented the United States in climate forums and made recommendations to other government agencies to accommodate climate issues. He did this as a highly qualified former US senator and secretary of state. There were no instant layoffs, agency closings or data intrusions at his command. Elon Musk is a private citizen and profit-driven entrepreneur with no prior government background who has physically wielded a chainsaw to demonstrate his approach to government operations.
The GAO report referenced by Donalds is the annual report on federal programs with fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative goals or actions. As part of its mandate GAO annually suggests hundreds of ways to address problems, reduce costs and boost revenue. It makes suggestions, often of a very technical or financial nature, for achieving those ends. In the 2024 report it made 112 suggestions, recommending for example that “Congress and the Internal Revenue Service should take action to improve sole proprietor tax compliance, which could increase revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars per year,” or saving money by “using predictive models to make investment decisions on deferred maintenance and repair for federal buildings and structures.” It has never recommended—much less imposed—abruptly closing down entire agencies or making mass layoffs. Even so it estimates that its recommendations have saved the US government $667 billion over the past 13 years.
Also, if DOGE and Musk were really just making recommendations to be worked through the appropriations process, all the closings and layoffs would be submitted as recommendations to Congress for consideration during the normal 2025 appropriations process. They would not be implemented until the 2026 fiscal year. They would be examined, debated and then approved by Congress, and conducted in an orderly fashion, not suddenly imposed by executive fiat and lockouts.)
Other assertions that Donalds made during the meeting were:
That the answer to gun violence lies in mental health care rather than any kind of gun restrictions or red flag laws, which he opposes. “It always goes back to the mental health of the shooter,” he said.
That DOGE/Musk access to Social Security information is equivalent to the access allowed to 53 students under President Joe Biden’s administration. (Donalds didn’t elaborate on the source of this information and it is nowhere else on the Internet that this author could discern. It’s not clear whether these alleged 53 students were interns at the Social Security Administration, when, why or where this happened or what they accessed.) As Donalds put it: “It is not intellectually honest to be upset with Elon Musk and not with the 53 students.”
That DOGE/Musk are examining Social Security files to find waste, fraud and abuse and have found 300 alleged recipients over the age of 100. (This claim was debunked by Leland Dudek, the acting commissioner, who said in February that the raw numbers did not reflect actual benefits being paid and that only 89,106 people older than 100 years were listed on Social Security rolls as of December 2024. “The reported data are people in our records with a Social Security number who do not have a date of death associated with their record. These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.”)
That the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional and uncontrolled by Congress. “I want to get rid of the CFPB, it is a rogue agency” and “a terrible agency,” he said.
That Trump’s tariffs are “re-setting the balance of global trade.”
That nuclear power should be the future source of energy in Florida rather than solar power, which Donalds said does not produce sufficient energy. Also, he said discarding and recycling solar equipment is ultimately dirtier and more polluting than nuclear power.
That 60 percent of phone calls to the Social Security Administration for assistance are fraudulent.
That the problem with diversity, equity and intrusion (DEI) lies in the equity portion, since life is inherently inequitable and that DEI programs and practices do not level the playing field. “Equity is an impossible standard to achieve,” he said. The only time Donalds became angry and emotional was when he was giving this answer, which he took personally.
That the US Agency for International Development (US AID) was pursuing programs that were not in the American interest and were even treasonous.
That the No Rogue Rulings Act (House Resolution (HR) 1526), which would restrict the ability of federal district judges to issue national injunctions, and passed by the US House on April 10 with Donalds’ vote, would not pass the Senate.
That illegal aliens have more rights and due process entitlements than American citizens. He charged that President Joe Biden abused the asylum process. Donalds said that he supports illegal alien deportations.
That parents and “community members” have a right to inspect school instructional materials, because they make up the bulk of the taxpaying base but that school boards have final say.
That President Donald Trump has pledged not to touch Social Security and it will not be subject to congressional budget reconciliation but that if it becomes insolvent there will be an automatic cut, so it must be reformed.
That he missed votes in Congress because he was campaigning for Trump.
That he does not vote party when in Congress but “I vote the Constitution.”
That Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth did not violate the Espionage Act when he shared classified operational intelligence in Signal chats.
The most dramatic moment in the meeting occurred when a question was asked whether Israel’s cutoff of water and food to the Palestinians of Gaza was a war crime, along with the deaths of 35,000 Gazans.
Donalds answered that the 35,000 casualty figure was from Hamas, that Israel had been careful in its strikes on Gaza, that Hamas was using both Israeli hostages and civilian Gazans as human shields and Israeli forces had warned them before striking.
He said that the United States would have reacted similarly if Mexican drug cartels had taken American hostages in the United States. “On October 7, it was not an Israeli incursion into Gaza, it was Hamas that incurred into Israel,” he said. “We should stand behind Israel 100 percent and make sure the hostages come home. My stance is to stand by our ally.”
This answer prompted an audience member to stand up and loudly protest on behalf of the Palestinians. She continued to do so until a security officer approached her to remove her and she left of her own volition.
An audience member protests on behalf of Palestinians. (Photo: Author)
Analysis: Omens and portents
First, credit must be given where credit is due: Byron Donalds did not have to hold this town hall meeting at all.
It was a risky idea from the start and no doubt there were voices in his camp arguing against it. He could have easily let it slide and been none the worse for wear. In fact, the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has recommended that all Republican members of Congress avoid town hall meetings and Donalds could have followed his guidance.
He could have made the meeting a gubernatorial campaign rally but he did not. Nor did the questions seem to be filtered to avoid challenges or controversy.
Beyond subjecting himself to angry constituents, Donalds risked damaging his gubernatorial campaign. Whether the meeting proves detrimental or provides useful publicity remains to be seen but it certainly gave him some local and national headlines.
Contrary to some of those headlines the meeting was not “chaotic” or “in chaos.” Chaos is when punches are thrown, the benches empty and the police charge in with tear gas and tasers. This was certainly rancorous and at times disorderly but it was hardly chaotic. Most people stayed in their seats except when they got up and left, which a significant contingent did early.
But, as stated earlier, what was really in evidence was the vast gulf in the realities between constituents and their congressman.
It was obvious that much of the audience reaction was driven by fear, outrage and worry. The repeated questions about Social Security and DOGE showed key points of concern.
That fear is also fueled by the man in the White House and the tone of hatred, prejudice and rage he exudes to the nation. The day before, those attitudes were on full display in an Easter greeting on the X platform.
President Donald Trump’s Easter greeting on X.
It was no wonder that constituents were fearful, angry and loud in their turn.
A more skillful or empathetic politician would have acknowledged the concerns and explained what he or she was doing to allay them or seek solutions. A more accomplished congressman might have told the audience what he or she was doing on their behalf.
But that was not the approach Donalds took. He was there to recite the Trumpist creed, not connect with the audience. For every question about the activities of Trump, Musk or DOGE he responded with Trumpist talking points and standard Make America Great Again fodder that was often at odds with the audience’s general perception of reality. Several times when challenged about Trump or Musk actions Donalds took refuge in a “whataboutism” response: what about John Kerry? What about the alleged 53 students?
In fact, Donalds’ true constituents appeared to be Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They, at least, will likely be pleased with the meeting results.
Donalds did not reveal himself to be a deep or original thinker in this regard.
After the meeting Donalds was interviewed by the media.
“How do you feel about being a congressman tonight?” asked WINK TV reporter Claire Galt.
“Great. Look, this is part of the reason I signed up for the job a couple of years ago. I do think it’s important to bring information to the electorate,” he replied.
“Did it surprise you?”
“No. I don’t get surprised by much anymore,” he smiled. “You know, you just kind of deal with it as it comes. I could tell from the first question or two what kind of night it was going to be. But that’s alright, it’s part of the business.”
It was a mature and professional answer. It’s also one Donalds should get accustomed to giving—because as long as he remains a faithful Trumpist as he pursues the governorship there are going to be many more nights like the one in Estero.
Rep. Byron Donalds interviewed after his town hall meeting. (Image: WINK TV)
Protesters in Bonita Springs, Fla., demonstrate outside Rep. Byron Donalds’ rally announcing his gubernatorial campaign on March 28. (Photo: Author)
April 16, 2025 by David Silverberg
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) has scheduled a town hall meeting on Monday, April 21 at 6:30 pm at Estero High School, 21900 River Ranch Rd., Estero, Fla.
This town hall is especially significant—and could be historic—because it is the first one scheduled since he declared his candidacy for governor of Florida on Feb. 25.
Every indication to date is that this will be a highly restricted meeting, intended more as a campaign rally for his gubernatorial race than as an open forum where constituents can freely air their concerns.
The meeting is restricted to voting constituents of the 19th Congressional District (CD19), the coastal area from Cape Coral to Marco Island.
The Donalds website for tickets states that only 700 spaces are available and these have already been taken. Ticketholder access will be confirmed by an emailed response from Donalds’ office, which must be shown, either printed or digital, upon entrance. The emails will not be sent out until 5:00 pm on April 18, according to the website. Guests must arrive between 4:30 and 5:30 pm.
Ticketholders may bring up to four family members but anyone entering over 18 years of age must have identification proving their residence in CD19.
According to the website, “Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated; the office reserves the right to remove protestors or those engaging in out-of-order activity.”
Town halls, past, present and local
“Freedom of Speech,” painting by Norman Rockwell, 1943.
The town hall meeting is a time-honored American democratic tradition, originating in the New England colonies, a place where all citizens were free to speak and in some cases vote on common concerns.
They became especially important in 1795 when Americans debated ratification of the Jay Treaty with Britain, ending the War of Independence.
Ever since then they’ve been a fixture of the American political process, a place for dialogue and discussion with elected representatives.
Since the 2024 election of Donald Trump, town hall meetings with Republican congressional representatives across the country have become especially contentious as constituents have protested and aired deep worries about the course and decisions of the Trump regime. As a result, many Republican representatives are avoiding town halls altogether.
Since the first election of Donald Trump as president and Francis Rooney as the CD19 representative in 2016, town hall meetings in Southwest Florida have taken on an air of urgency and contentiousness.
Then-Rep. Francis Rooney speaks at a town hall meeting at in Bonita Springs, Fla., in May 2017. (Photo: Author)
During his four years in office Rooney held town hall meetings that were extremely well attended to the point of overflowing the capacities of their venues. With Trump using unprecedented rhetoric and making radical moves, constituents expressed alarm and anger at the administration’s policies, which Rooney defended in a rote and workmanlike manner.
Rooney defended town hall meetings, telling the Fort Myers News-Press, they “are critically important because this is democracy at work. This is what our country is built on.”
The last two Rooney town halls were held on the same day, Feb. 22, 2018, in Marco Island and Cape Coral. These occurred eight days after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. In stormy gatherings, Rooney defended gun rights and advocated structural improvements to school buildings in response. It didn’t satisfy attendees, who were frantic, emotional and outraged, with participants at times screaming and chanting at him.
Rooney never held another town hall meeting during the rest of his term in office.
Since taking office in 2021, Donalds has held ten town hall meetings including a “roundtable” in Fort Myers and virtual events online, according to his office. Two of these events focused on veterans. He also participated in debates with his Democratic opponent, Cindy Banyai, in his 2020 and 2022 runs for Congress but did no debates in 2024 against Kari Lerner, the 2024 Democratic candidate.
The Estero High School entrance. (Photo: Estero High School)
In announcing the Estero town hall meeting Donalds is going against the Republican trend of avoiding facing constituents, as recommended by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-9-NC), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
It’s an especially risky move, given his campaign for governor.
However, it appears clear that his staff and campaign advisors are doing whatever they can to minimize any risk of embarrassment or failure. There are several choke points in the attendance process that accomplishes this.
Requiring proof of residency to ensure only constituent attendance makes sense given limited seating in the venue.
However, the fact that ticket applications must be vetted before sending a confirming e-mail likely means that staff is sifting through RSVPs to admit only Republican loyalists. The goal is to ensure that the town hall meeting appears as a campaign rally rather than an open discussion. This would explain the long delay in replying to RSVPs on the website, since people began responding immediately when tickets were first offered on April 8.
Indeed, one person who RSVP’d received a form asking the political affiliations of the family members she intended to bring with her.
A closed, vetted, restricted, supportive meeting can be streamed and used as propaganda in future campaign media.
Another choke point occurs when the meeting gets under way. A frequent technique is to require participants to write questions on cards, which can then be filtered by staff to weed out anything critical or challenging.
While the town hall meeting website does not state whether this technique will be used or not, it is highly likely in order to ensure a controlled, favorable meeting featuring softball questions and statements flattering the candidate.
So, in all, the indications are that this will not be a genuine town hall meeting of discussion and challenge but a carefully controlled campaign rally.
That said, constituents and others who are kept out of the meeting can assemble on public property outside the high school.
Donalds has said previously that any protests at his events constitute “astroturfing.” That’s political slang for the opposite of “grassroots”—i.e., paid, fake actors demonstrating rather than genuine local citizens.
Donalds charged that the protesters who showed up at his kickoff rally in Bonita Springs on March 28 were astroturfers, which they were provably not, and he has pre-emptively charged that protesters at his town hall meeting are the same.
“I would tell any Democrat that wants to come out there and astroturf my town hall, bring it, because we’re going to talk the truth, we’re going to talk about what’s really going on. I’m not afraid of you,” he said on March 5 on the Fox Network show, “The Ingraham Angle.”
However, given Trump’s propensity to project one’s own sins onto opponents, Donalds’ imitation of Trump’s manners and methods, and Donalds’ own lack of a following outside his district (and even within it), an observer has to wonder if any astroturfing going on is in his own camp, to turn out numbers for his events.
Whether astroturfed, vetted, filtered or not, the April 21 town hall represents a potential milestone in the politics of Southwest Florida—and given Donalds’ run for the governorship, in all of Florida and possibly the nation. It may just be a night to remember.
The April 5 “Hands Off” protest in Naples, Fla., as broadcast on the Rachel Maddow show. (Image: MSNBC)
April 11, 2025 by David Silverberg
The last time America had a king it successfully rebelled against him and created a new nation.
Now America has a monarch. His title isn’t “king” but he is a monarch nonetheless.
It bears remembering that the term “monarch” doesn’t necessarily mean “king.” It just means “mono,” Greek for “one,” and “arch,” Greek for “power” or “authority.” One power.
The main point is that we are on a path away from a nation of laws, as founding patriot and second President John Adams envisioned, to a nation of men, or in this case, one man, who is, of course, Donald Trump.
On Saturday, April 5, Americans across the country demonstrated against this trend in what was an astonishing show of dissent and resistance.
In otherwise conservative, Trumpist Southwest Florida, hundreds of people participated in demonstrations in Cape Coral and Fort Myers.
In Naples the turnout was so great that it got the attention of television host Rachel Maddow.
“In deep red Naples, Florida, organizers there said they had 7,000 people turn out in Naples, Florida,” she said with wonder in her voice. “Yeah, that’s good weather so, I know, but that’s also a county that went for Trump by 33 points in November and they had 7,000 people turn out on Saturday?”
While 7,000 seems a bit of an overcount (this author estimated 2,000, still a huge turnout by Naples standards) it was nonetheless an impressive show of independence, opposition and—yes—patriotism.
She observed that while Washington, DC had a massive protest, the “Hands Off” protests were nationwide and that was a key element of their impact and strength.
“…Holding disparate protests all over the country, not only one big protest in one place, means that people can do this again and again and again,” she said. “I mean, you look at really effective protest movements against rising authoritarianism in countries like Poland where the population essentially rose up and took their democracy back through frequent mass protests.”
She continued: “One of the things that you realize about mass, peaceful protest movements fighting against authoritarian takeover is that they have to stay peaceful and they have to be relentless. They have to frequently, frequently, frequently protest, again and again and again.”
In keeping up the momentum, supporters of democracy and the Constitution in Naples, Florida will have yet another opportunity to express their dissent and opinion on Saturday, April 19, once again at the Collier County Courthouse, this time at 10:30 am.
The protest is part of the 50501 movement to hold 50 protests in 50 states with one purpose and it is being organized by a new chapter of FREE Indivisible SWFL (Freedom, Rights, Equality, Enforcement).
The call for an April 19 protest in Naples, Fla. (Art: FREE Indivisible)
Resisting Trumpist authoritarianism
The movement to protect democracy has now become a protest movement because the formal mechanisms of government are being used by Trump and his regime to devolve the country from a democracy to a dictatorship.
When it comes to national decisionmaking, the national calculations are no longer based on policy but on personality. The country’s direction is no longer determined on the way constitutional institutions will respond according to circumstance, law and their missions but on the moods, urges and whims of the monarch on any particular day.
In contrast to the structure established by the founders in the United States Constitution, there are no longer effectively co-equal branches of government. The executive branch is being purged of all but the most subservient loyalists and the legislative branch has been subjugated except for only its most hollow, pro-forma functions.
Currently Trump and his regime are working to bring the judicial branch to heel, attacking not only the courts but the entire legal establishment, which includes the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the federal regulatory agencies and the even the nation’s private law firms, many of which are submitting. When confronted with an adverse ruling it is either ignoring or evading the court.
On April 10 the Republican-dominated US House of Representatives passed the No Rogue Rulings Act (House Resolution (HR) 1526). It aims to restrict the ability of federal district judges to issue national injunctions.
Introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-48-Calif.), the bill passed the House by a party line vote of 219 to 213. (All of Southwest Florida’s representatives voted for the bill: Reps. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.), Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.). The only Republican voting against it was Rep. Michael Turner (R-10-Ohio), representing the Dayton area).
If passed by the Senate and signed into law, HR 1526 would effectively end the ability of the courts to put any checks on unconstitutional Trump actions. It would neuter the judicial branch.
As chilling as it is, the attack on the judiciary is just one element of a takeover that is broad and intended to be thorough. The next Trump targets are increasingly at the state, county and local levels.
This was already demonstrated in Southwest Florida where localities were forced to participate in the 287(g) Program whether they wanted to or not. The program allows local law enforcement to train and work with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directorate of the Department of Homeland Security to take immigration enforcement actions that are otherwise reserved to the federal government.
Even though each municipality and county had to individually vote to approve participation in 287(g), the governor and state attorney general threatened legal action and sanctions if they did not. This was what happened in Fort Myers, which was effectively coerced into approval after initial refusal.
One might ask: if only a “yes” vote was acceptable, why have a vote at all?
A vote is supposed to be a free and uncoerced expression of will, whether that vote is cast secretly by an individual in a voting booth or publicly by a city council member or a county commissioner in chambers.
The kind of legal limbo that the Fort Myers City Council found itself in last month, where a vote was required but only the “right” vote was deemed permissible, is being weaponized throughout American society. Law firms can take up causes the president opposes but they will be subject to extrajudicial sanctions if they do. The media can theoretically independently pursue the truth but will be punished with lack of access or worse if their reporting displeases the president.
Only one institution still reflects independent judgment and autonomy: the stock market. It represents the decisions of millions of investors pursuing their individual interests and it’s not designed to flatter the monarch, or bend to his delusions, or participate in his manias. It can be manipulated and quite clearly was over the past week, but it isn’t designed to bend a knee to anyone. Last week its participants clearly declared that Trump’s tariffs were economically ruinous and they continued declaring so until he reversed course and paused most of the tariffs for 90 days.
What can I do?
In these circumstances, the only thing that grassroots citizens can do is take to the streets and raise their voices.
As Maddow noted, these kinds of protests have stopped the slide to dictatorship in other countries.
Ironically, in this Americans can learn from Ukraine, whose democracy the United States has been defending up until now. In 2013 Ukrainians persistently and relentlessly protested their president Viktor Yanukovych’s increasing authoritarianism, corruption, defiance of parliament and subservience to Russia.
After months of protest, which grew increasingly violent on both sides, the protesters triumphed. In February 2014 Yanukovych fled and a new government was instituted.
Democratic institutions, the practice of democracy and constitutionalism is much deeper rooted in the United States than it was in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014. At the same time that seeming permanence has lulled Americans into overlooking the deep, fundamental threats to their democracy and Constitution represented by Trump and his regime.
On April 19, Americans have another chance to return their country to its democratic roots and the rule of law.
And that applies in Naples and Southwest Florida no less than anywhere else, including Washington, DC.
The lights of London outside Parliament. (Photo: British Museum)
April 3, 2025 by David Silverberg
As dusk fell and the darkness gathered on August 3, 1914, Edward Grey, Britain’s foreign secretary, was standing at the window of his office with John Spender, editor of the Westminster Gazette. On the mall below them men with torches were lighting the gas-fueled street lamps.
Germany had just declared war on France. Austria-Hungary had already declared war on Serbia. Germany had declared war on Russia. The next day Britain would declare war on Germany.
Grey turned to his friend. “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime,” he said.
We know that conflict today as the First World War.
Today the lamps are going out in America. They’re deliberately being quenched. The resulting darkness is very strong and overwhelming.
At this moment, the great question is what each of us can do to keep the light alive.
Here in Southwest Florida there is one small gesture that can serve as a start. On Saturday, April 5, Americans around the country are going to demand that the regime of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk keep their hands off those things that Americans hold dear: the Constitution, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, a wide variety of other issues and simply a decent, normal, life and society.
In Naples, this protest will take place at the Collier County Courthouse, 3315 Tamiami Trail, Naples, at 2 pm. It was organized and publicized by HandsOff.com, a coalition of pro-democracy, progressive groups.
Places where Hands Off protests are planned. The entire interactive map, which provides specific locations, can be accessed here. (Map: Axios)
The protest was organized long before Trump’s tariff announcement on Wednesday, April 2 and the stock market crash that followed. But those events and the prospect of economic catastrophe have made the Hands Off event even more urgent.
It is clear that people are alarmed, distressed and deeply concerned by what is going on, especially now that Trump’s incompetence and recklessness is reaching deep into their pocketbooks, businesses and lives.
But it also helps to take a broader, historical look at what is being threatened.
A century and its lessons
The year 1914 inaugurated a century of upheaval and slaughter that included World War I, the Wall Street Crash, the Great Depression, the rise of Fascism, the surge of Communism, World War II, and the Cold War. With it came the industrialized death of millions of people on battlefields, in gas chambers and in civil upheavals, revolutions and conflicts of all sorts. It saw the birth and use of the atomic bomb and creation of the terms “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.”
But at least when the century came to an end some lessons had been learned: hyper-nationalism was dangerous and destructive; totalitarian authoritarianism was evil; borders couldn’t be changed by brute force; ethnic hatred and scapegoating was unacceptable; rational discussion and negotiation was better than shooting and bloodshed; all people are created equal and have inalienable rights; democracy for all its flaws was the highest form of government.
There were particular lessons for the United States: isolationism didn’t work; free trade made everyone more prosperous; America was not only the beacon of human freedom, it was the leader of the free world; common concerns addressed through government action could make people safer, healthier, wealthier and benefit all.
May 8, 2025 will mark exactly 80 years since the fall of Nazi Germany.
It is hideously ironic that as we approach that anniversary, the United States is in the grip of an authoritarian president who knows absolutely nothing of the history that brought this country to this moment—and if he knows it, he’s ignoring it or worse, deliberately defiling it.
As this is written, the Dow Jones industrial average is down 1,600 points. This is happening because the previous day, April 2, Trump imposed tariffs on virtually all the other trading nations of the world, disrupting America’s business bonds with all its trading partners.
It was already apparent that Trump knew nothing of America’s past experience with tariffs. He is now deliberately ignoring—or desecrating—every lesson learned from the Great Depression.
Added to this ignorance and irresponsibility are his violations of all the other lessons of the 20th century; his threats to expand American borders by force; his ethnic hatred and racial prejudice and his mass roundups and deportations of people without due process; his tolerance of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked attempt to conquer the sovereign, independent, democratic state of Ukraine; and his bullying, domineering approach to all international relations.
On top of that is his domestic war against the federal government, his domination of the legislative branch of government, his threats against the media and private law firms, his indifference to law and due process, his attempt to control the judicial branch, and his weaponization of every coercive power of government that was previously restrained by law.
What is being attacked and in danger of being overturned is every single lesson of diplomacy, good governance and international peace and prosperity that was learned with blood and suffering over the previous century.
During the 20th century American presidents made great contributions to the peace of the world based on the American experience. Woodrow Wilson proposed the 14 points that offered some basis for negotiating a post-World War I peace and helped lead a war-weary world beyond old imperialistic empires. Instead of the old secret horse trading and backroom deals among great powers he called for “open covenants openly arrived at” and brought sunlight into international relations. Franklin Roosevelt led the fight against Fascism and built the foundation for the United Nations and a lasting peace where discussion, negotiation and mediation settled disputes. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhour helped rebuild Europe, sent humanitarian aid around the world and kept Stalinist Communism at bay.
All of these positive, humanitarian and democratic achievements are now being attacked by Trump and Musk. Their indifference to the greater good of the United States and their ignorance of the past and its lessons is simply staggering.
In their wanton destruction they’re seeking to return America to a time of racism, isolationism and insularity, with the added disgraces of authoritarianism, lawlessness and deep corruption. They’re on a path to set back the world as a whole to an era of imperialism, conspiracy and aggression.
Gradually, people are waking up to the depth of the danger they represent. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) has just spent 25 hours and 5 minutes on the floor of the United States Senate to warn of these dangers.
Perhaps the protests scheduled for this Saturday will be a small step toward expressing dissent and resistance.
There’s no doubt that Trump and Musk and their minions are spreading a darkness that’s dangerous, diabolical, and destructive. But no matter how many lamps they darken, they should never be permitted to extinguish the greatest lamp of all because, as this platform has always maintained, while democracy dies in darkness…
Bill Mitsch in his natural habitat, 2021. (Photo: Bill Mitsch)
March 30, 2025 by David Silverberg
On Feb. 12 of this year, Prof. Bill Mitsch passed away at the age of 77.
William Jerome Mitsch was one of the world’s foremost scientific experts on wetlands like the Everglades and did much of his work in Southwest Florida at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU).
Although no one can stop the march of time and the toll it takes, Mitsch’s passing does leave a gap in the expertise and knowledge so critical to the environmental health of Southwest Florida. His knowledge of wetlands was awe-inspiring and encyclopedic.
Mitsch’s legacy of environmental activism is particularly relevant now as fights over control of wetlands and maintenance of their health flare anew under the regime of President Donald Trump.
The work Mitsch did and the causes he advocated should not be forgotten with his passing.
Mitsch first became interested in water and wetlands growing up in Wheeling, West Virginia, where he explored a nearby creek as a young boy.
“The creek, that must be where I started getting interested in aquatic science,” Mitsch, said at a 2022 presentation in Naples. “We knew everything about this creek, where the deep areas were, where the shallow areas were and how the creek meandered. We learned all this by chasing balls into the creek.”
A 1969 graduate of the University of Notre Dame, he was inspired by the first Earth Day celebrations in 1970 to pursue graduate environmental studies at the University of Florida. He pursued his doctorate under Howard Odum, a pioneering ecologist, at the university’s Center for Wetlands.
From there he pursued an active academic career studying, researching and analyzing wetlands. Among his many books, he was chief author of the standard textbook, Wetlands, now in its sixth edition. He held multiple faculty positions, sponsored over 85 master and doctoral students, published extensively and served on numerous boards.
Locally, Mitsch joined the faculty of FGCU in 2012 when he served as Eminent Scholar and Director of the Everglades Wetland Research Park, located in the Kapnick Center next to the Naples Botanical Garden. (The Park is now part of FGCU’s Water School.)
Mitsch was no ivory tower academic; he literally got his feet wet. And that didn’t just apply to swamps; it also meant the swamp of politics.
No sugarcoating
I first got to know Mitsch after moving full time to Naples in 2013. He was a source on several stories I worked on for Gulfshore Business magazine.
The word that springs to mind when I think of Bill Mitsch is “crusty.” He could be curmudgeonly, gruff and impatient. He was direct and brooked no bull. Even so, I always enjoyed talking to him. He was secure in his scientific expertise and fearless in speaking out about the truths it revealed.
Our first encounter came when I was researching an article for Gulfshore Business on water (“The Trouble with our Water”) in the January 2014 issue. (No longer available online.)
Mitsch provided background information for the article—but then he continued about the sugar industry’s interference in wetlands and water research to the point where I drafted a separate article to cover everything he provided.
In particular, he recalled an incident from 1992 when was distinguished professor and head of Ohio State University’s wetland research park. Along with Thomas Fontaine, then director of the Everglades Systems Research Division of the South Florida Water Management District, he was putting on the fourth international wetlands conference at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. It was sponsored by the International Association for Ecology. Only registered participants were supposed to be admitted.
Just before the conference began Mitsch was suddenly startled by Fontaine banging on the glass door to his office.
“They’re here!” Fontaine shouted when Mitsch got to the door. “They’re filming us and if you don’t get rid of them I’m taking my people and walking!”
“They” were people from the Florida sugar industry.
Mitsch rushed with Fontaine into the large, dark auditorium where the conference was going to be held and high up in the gloomiest murk of the highest seats he could see a tiny red light. He climbed the rows and sure enough, there were two men with a camera.
“I said, ‘I guess you guys are filming this event?’ and they didn’t argue,” Mitsch told me. They acknowledged that they worked for a company in Miami hired by sugar interests. “They were clearly there to hear every word that every state and federal official said.”
Mitsch had to get a legal opinion from the university before he could ask the cameramen to leave – and if they hadn’t departed he had the authority to have campus security throw them out. As it was, they did agree to depart but he also had to request that anyone in the audience turn in any recordings of the proceedings, which forced one poor graduate student to yield his tape recording.
That was hardly the only information he had to share. He plied me with allegations of Big Sugar interfering in research into the sources of pollution from Lake Okeechobee, to the point of industry agents breaking into laboratories to physically destroy notes and material. They blackballed scientists and targeted anti-pollution politicians. Regrettably, juicy as it all was, little of it was verifiable, so the article never appeared. But it was valuable in providing me with an understanding of the stakes and the extremism that water could inspire in this swampy realm.
Mitsch helped me formulate wetlands and Everglades policy positions when I worked as communications director for congressional candidate David Holden who ran in the 19th Congressional District in 2018.
That was also the year that Southwest Florida experienced the Big Bloom, a nasty, persistent red tide off the coast that was coupled with an intense blue-green algae outbreak in the Caloosahatchee River.
The Bloom continued for months, starting around October 2017 and persisted well past the 2018 election. Its cause seemed mysterious and unlike previous blooms, it showed no sign of dissipating.
On Jan. 10, 2019, Mitsch delivered a lecture at FGCU at which he pinpointed what he believed to be the causes, based on his research.
Bill Mitsch pinpoints the causes of 2018’s Big Bloom in a lecture to an audience at FGCU. (Photos: Author)
The cause, he said, was nitrate fertilizer—after years of debate and finger-pointing, it was the first time the source had been so authoritatively identified.
He also said that nitrate-laden rainfall, much of it caused by cars using I-75, leaking septic tanks, and pollution flowing from the Mississippi River drifting across the Gulf of Mexico, fed the naturally-occurring Karenia brevis organisms.
At least in part due to Mitsch’s findings, the state, some counties and towns enacted rules regulating fertilizer use in an effort to cut down the pollution and combat the red tide. To this day Lee and Charlotte counties in Southwest Florida ban fertilizing from June 1 to Sept. 30. In Collier County the cities of Naples and Marco Island do as well.
The birth of ‘wetlaculture’
Mitsch didn’t just chronicle and analyze problems, he also proposed fixes.
At the same lecture where he focused on nitrates as the cause of the Big Bloom, Mitsch argued for a solution to the pollution plaguing the Everglades and all the water that slowly flows south from Lake Okeechobee.
He called it “wetlaculture.”
The concept was that pollution could be defeated by creating new wetlands, which would filter out contaminants. These new wetlands could be created on previously cultivated land. Furthermore, they would create soil so fertile that nitrate fertilizers would not be necessary.
“Wetland restoration and creation are not easy,” Mitsch warned in his lecture. “They require attention to Mother Nature (self-design) and Father Time (projects take time to reach their potential).”
Further, he argued, wetlaculture had to be implemented on a massive scale. He estimated it would take 100,000 acres of wetlaculture to ensure clean water to the Everglades, 14 times more than that provided in Everglades restoration reservoir plans—of which he was very skeptical.
“They’re not digging a hole at all,” Mitsch said of the reservoir in a 2022 Naples Daily News interview. “They’re just putting up a gigantic wall around this rectangle and fill it with 34 feet of water. Nature doesn’t use squares and rectangles. They’re hoping the water will be clean enough but there are not enough [stormwater treatment areas] to put a dent in the nutrients.”
However, his preferred solution required time—10 years for new wetlands to establish themselves, in Mitsch’s estimation. For 10 years the soil would be used for agriculture. At the end of that time, the soil would be flipped and left fallow for 10 years to serve as a wild, cleansing wetland. Then, it could be flipped again, and so on, indefinitely.
It would also take a lot of money—much more than state government could provide, in Mitsch’s view. That meant it would take a federal commitment.
“We need the feds to keep an eye on our state government,” he said.
A wetlaculture experiment was actually implemented in May 2018 and it can be seen to this day. It’s in a fenced area at the back of Freedom Park in Naples that anyone can visit.
It actually doesn’t look like much. There are 28 kidney-shaped bins in the ground with sawgrass growing out of them. All of them will sit while the sawgrass grows. Researchers experiment with different levels of water and nutrients in the different bins. They measure nutrients in the soil and see if nitrates and phosphorous are being removed. When the soil is deemed to be clean and fertile enough they’ll plant crops and see how well they grow.
It wasn’t clear when the experiment started whether the cleansing process would take just a few years or 10 years, as Mitsch estimated.
But whatever it ultimately takes, in those quiet, stationary bins, Mitsch may just have launched a wetlands revolution.
The wetlaculture experiment in Freedom Park in Naples, Fla., in 2019. (Photos: Author)
A dark day
On the night of Jan. 24, 2020, I happened to be surfing the Internet and went into LinkedIn, which I rarely checked. By pure coincidence I discovered a blistering, infuriated screed from Mitsch, that had been posted minutes earlier.
The day before, Jan. 23, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Donald Trump had rolled back federal protections for wetlands and American waters and Mitsch was outraged.
Trump had boasted: “I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule.”
“This is the darkest day for Federal protection of wetlands since it first started 45 years ago. This is a horrible setback for wetland protection in the USA, ” Mitsch wrote.
“I have followed this tug of war for all these years between those who appreciate the many ecosystem services that wetlands provide including cleaning our waters, sequestering and permanently storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and providing the best habitat for hundreds of threatened and endangered species, and the industrial-scale agricultural, energy, and real estate giants.”
He followed with a call to action: “It has always been a David vs. Goliath. I am calling for those of us who appreciate some of the good things that nature has provided for us, whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, to speak out about the rape of our landscape that will surely follow this action. I especially call upon those who are in the business world to help establish environmental bonds, local and state ordinances, and novel approaches to save our remaining wetlands. I also call upon the children and young adults, who are much more knowledgeable about wetlands than their parents and grandparents, to join the ‘silent majority’ who appreciate the role of wetlands to move forward, with or without our Federal government, to save our planet.”
The David versus Goliath struggle would continue for the next four years, with battles in courts and appropriations committees.
It reached its next inflection point on June 9, 2021 when the EPA under President Joe Biden reversed Trump’s wetlands decision.
Mitsch was ecstatic: “It’s a good move,” he told me when I called him. “I’m happy because it’s the right direction.”
The EPA’s announcement was made in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers.
“I’m delighted both agencies have stepped forward,” said Mitsch. “This, in my view, is a good turn for Southwest Florida and especially the Everglades.”
Still, Mitsch had reason to be cautious. “This is déjà vu all over again for me,” he said. “It’s the same issue that keeps coming back. It’s quite contentious.”
The core of the dispute was the definition of “waters” and “wetlands,” which had twice been defined in different ways.
“I hope they don’t get on a third definition that’s political and not scientific. I hope they have the stamina to go through with it,” he said of current efforts. “There is no such thing as a [legitimate] political definition of a ‘wetland’—otherwise we might as well throw out all our scientific books.”
Mitsch opposed the State of Florida’s efforts to take over wetland permitting and environmental protection. That authority was transferred to the state in December 2020 in one of the last official acts of the first Trump administration.
Mitsch’s hope was that the environmentally-aware Biden administration would keep control of permitting.
“I’m very much afraid of Florida taking wetland management away from the feds. What the feds are doing is great but I’ve seen it before,” he said. “There’s no question why [the state] wanted to take over water regulation; it was for development.” While he said he was discouraged that “the train is out of the station in Florida, I hope the momentum of this [new federal rule] spills into Florida somehow.”
As Mitsch predicted, the battle continues.
On the one hand the federal government won a round on Tuesday, March 25, when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the US Army Corps of Engineers and against the sugar companies. While the sugar growers sought a larger water allocation than the Corps was providing and sued to get it, the court sided with the Corps, keeping the water flowing for Everglades restoration.
Mitsch would have approved.
However, with Trump back in office, Florida is again trying to seize control of the state’s wetlands.
In 2024 a US District judge vacated the 2020 Trump decision to hand permitting authority to the state, ruling that the transfer violated the Endangered Species Act. The ruling came in response to a 2021 lawsuit filed by Earthjustice, an environmental organization. That lawsuit argued that the state of Florida was still trying to evade the Endangered Species Act restrictions. The lawsuit aimed to force compliance.
Regrettably—or perhaps mercifully—Bill Mitsch will not be present for the latest developments.
Mitsch retired in 2022 after a 47-year career, but he remained alert and interested in his field to the end.
In Southwest Florida, a land so critically dependent on its wetlands, which are extremely endangered and likely to be even more assaulted, it’s worth remembering Mitsch’s work and the enormity of his scholarship and innovations.
But especially at this time it’s particularly important to never forget his activism and his fearlessness in conducting good science, speaking the truth and acting on it. He did that despite controversy and opposition and big forces arrayed against him.
It set a good example and one that has never been more important than now.
Darla Bonk (Ward 6) of the Fort Myers City Council (center) tears up as she votes against a motion to participate in the 287g policing program at the March 17 city council meeting. To her left is Diana Giraldo (Ward 2) and to her right is Liston Bochette (Ward 4). (Image: FMCC)
March 23, 2025 by David Silverberg
For 92 years, since 1933, Americans have not had to fear their government.
That was the year that President Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural address that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Roosevelt took office in an atmosphere of fear; fear of economic and social collapse. He himself had to overcome fear in his personal life when he confronted the loss of his legs to polio. He inspired Americans to face adversity with the same confidence he had to instill in himself to struggle against the ravages of that terrible disease.
In 1941 he again emphasized his opposition to fear when he made “Freedom from Fear” one of the four fundamental freedoms for which the United States stood, along with freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, and freedom from want. Then, he was thinking of freedom from fear of international aggression.
Americans have had moments of fear since then: fear of war, nuclear annihilation, Communism, terrorism, disease. But the United States government, made of, by and for the people, has not deliberately used the inculcation of fear in the people it governs as a deliberate tool of state.
Until now.
President Donald Trump has used threats and intimidation—the inculcation of fear—throughout his time on the political stage, whether threatening violence against protesters at his rallies, or inciting a mob to attack Congress, the Capitol building and his vice president, or disparaging migrants and immigrants.
Where other presidents would use public threats sparingly and only as a last resort, for Trump the use of threats and intimidation is a first response, his default mode. It’s his immediate, reflexive reaction when facing a challenge, whether from foreign actors, domestic opponents or uncooperative judges.
In the past his threats were just bloviating on Twitter or he used them against celebrities, business rivals, unpaid contractors, or local officials insisting he adhere to the law. But now, as president, he is setting the national tone and establishing the model for behavior. As he himself once said in projecting his feelings onto his opponents, his primary emotions are “hatred, prejudice and rage.”
He has taken the presidential bully pulpit and turned it into a pulpit for bullying.
Coupled with the presidency’s formal, constitutional power, he’s creating a national mood of intolerance, intimidation—and fear.
That mafia-like atmosphere of menace is pervading American society. It’s falling most heavily on migrants and foreigners, for whom Trump is showing an almost psychotic hatred. It’s also manifest as officials down the chain of government ape Trump’s attitudes and approaches.
No one is immune, not even heavily Republican, Trumpist Southwest Florida.
The case of Fort Myers
On Monday, March 17, the seven-member Fort Myers City Council deadlocked on whether or not to give the city’s police officers immigration enforcement training under the 287(g) program.
Established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the program allows local law enforcement agencies to work with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security. Local law enforcement agencies can detain suspected undocumented migrants and perform other immigration enforcement functions, which are constitutionally under federal authority.
In the current atmosphere of widespread deportation raids that are seen as increasingly indiscriminate, 287g has become a controversial program. Since each local jurisdiction has to individually approve involvement in it, it has sparked intense debate at the local level.
When it came up in Fort Myers, three members of the City Council voted against the training: Diana Giraldo (Ward 2), Terolyn Watson (Ward 3) and Darla Bonk (Ward 6). Three voted for it: Liston Bochette (Ward 4), Fred Burson (Ward 5), and Mayor Kevin Anderson. Another councilmember, Teresa Watkins Brown (Ward 1), attended remotely but was ineligible to vote, hence the evenly split vote.
The vote followed a passionate and intense discussion, driven by palpable fear. Although the program means only that local police will be trained to handle immigration cases and cooperate with ICE, speakers at the meeting worried about raids and mass deportations. They expressed concerns about racial profiling, improper detentions, disappearances, unwarranted surveillance, illegal arrests and persecution of Fort Myers’ Hispanic population and just general anti-immigrant attitudes.
The council members who voted against the program were sensitive to those concerns.
Addressing Police Chief Jason Fields, Giraldo, an immigrant and the first Latina to serve on the Council, said, “The city is not just us sitting here, it’s the people who live here. To support you, chief, to support the intent of the city, I can’t stand behind this. As an immigrant, though this is not going to affect me particularly [as a full citizen] I have been in that position and…I can’t even express how heavy this is to my heart and my mind, knowing that the majority of us that come as immigrants, we don’t come here to commit crimes. Of course there are crimes out there, people who commit crimes but everybody needs to be accountable for it regardless of whether they are legal or not. But this notion that all immigrants have a motive and we’re chased after, it’s just something I just can’t…” and she choked up and couldn’t continue.
Bonk followed her: “The last thing I want is anyone in our community feeling that we are not hearing a very deep concern that has been nationally put at our feet from many people who have become piranhas about the issue, that we have to be very careful at the local level,” she said.
In the pre-vote discussion she became increasingly distraught as she spoke and finally broke into tears. “You cannot begin to imagine how this affects me,” she said, weeping. “The argument—and I know there is no malice meant to it—that we would risk federal or state funding if I don’t sign up for this… . It is a tumultuous day and age and this is a day I hate to be in this seat, but my city is not for sale.”
Because the Council deadlocked, the motion was defeated.
That brought swift, outraged threats from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who has made hostility to immigration a cornerstone of his governorship and Attorney General James Uthmeier, who served as DeSantis’ chief of staff before being appointed attorney general.
DeSantis posted on X: “The 287 (g) program trains local law enforcement to aid ICE. Florida will ensure its laws are followed, and when it comes to immigration—the days of inaction are over.” Then in a direct command to Fort Myers he stated: “Govern yourselves accordingly.”
Initially, Uthmeier announced that his office would investigate the vote and the individual council members who voted against the program.
Subsequently, he posted on X: “Today, I sent a letter to the Fort Myers City Council.
“Sanctuary policies are illegal in Florida. Your vote last night makes you a sanctuary city.
“Fix this problem or face the consequences.”
In the letter he sent, Uthmeier provided his legal reasoning and detailed his threats to bring civil and criminal charges against the Council members and have them removed.
In addition to the legal warnings, there were extrajudicial threats. In a subsequent town hall, Bonk confirmed that she had received death threats because of her vote.
In addition to DeSantis and Uthmeier demanding obedience, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), a Trump-endorsed candidate for governor, piled on. Fort Myers is in his congressional district.
“These officials that don’t understand their role, which is to implement a federal and state law, not circumvent and create sanctuary cities,” he said in an interview on the conservative NewsMax channel. “They simply need to be removed from office. They’re not going to follow the law. It’s that simple.”
He continued: “These Council members need to understand they have a responsibility to execute and implement state and federal law not to run against it, not to create a sanctuary. In my view, that’s a dereliction of their duty and their oath of office, and if they don’t reverse course, they should be removed.”
The Council reconvened in a special meeting on Friday, March 21.
Once again there was passionate input from the public overwhelmingly opposed to 287g, in fact to the point where people had to be gaveled down and order maintained. Members of the public still expressed fears of ICE and anti-immigrant measures and the speakers were overwhelmingly opposed to the agreement.
But this time the meeting was very different from the previous one.
The atmosphere had altered and council members were calmer. No one had changed more than Bonk. She went from a weeping, remorseful politician to a steely, resolved civil official and an angry one at that.
“Last I checked, this is still a republic,” she acidly observed. Regarding her comments on March 17 she said: “Expressing emotion is not a sign of weakness in leadership but of strength and for that I will not apologize, ever.”
She said she had not gotten answers from the city attorney to her previous questions about the 287g program but had done research on her own among state agencies, cities and attorneys who volunteered their advice.
Though she said she didn’t “harbor a sense of anger,” she directed a calm, relentless fury at City Attorney Grant Alley, who she said hadn’t provided the Council with the advice it needed to make an informed decision.
“I must express my grave concern that there was a significant dereliction of duty on the part of my city attorney. We as council members were put in a position of voting on a matter that was not within our legal authority or jurisdiction,” she said.
“It is the duty of our city attorney to guide this Council clearly, lawfully and thoroughly, especially when our decisions carry legal, financial and physical implications. The silence last Monday night placed each of us in jeopardy.” Addressing him directly, she said: “In this matter you failed us.”
But Bonk also defended her right to skepticism.
“Let me be clear: asking a question does not equate to disloyalty to my country,” she declared.
“Seeking understanding does not equate to weakness. And upholding the law includes questioning it when necessary to ensure that we act within it.”
She continued: “To those who misrepresented my actions, mischaracterized my words or weaponized misinformation I urge you to continue to get your facts straight. I will continue to uphold my oath and I will continue to represent Ward 6 with integrity, transparency and courage. I will continue to ask the hard questions, not in spite of my responsibility but because of it.”
Another vote was taken and this time all members of the Council voted to approve the program.
After the vote was taken, Donalds gloated on X: “Fort Myers will never be a sanctuary city. Today, City Council members UNANIMOUSLY reversed course to allow @ICEgov coordination with @fortmyerspolice. Thank you to everyone who helped us pressure them into taking corrective action & ensuring the security of our SWFL community.”
Analysis: Fear and consequences
The new national attitude of fear was on full display in the Fort Myers debate. Everything was pervaded by fear; the residents’ concerns, the council members’ votes, the debate and discussion, the reaction and the final decision.
For immigrants, migrants and other residents of Fort Myers, the fear was of indiscriminate, racially-based persecution that would know no legal bounds.
No matter how much the police chief tried to reassure the Council and the public that the program was limited and bound by law, he couldn’t cut through the fear driving the opposition. Despite all his responses, 287g was seen as the immediate, tangible tip of the spear of a Trump-generated effort that increasingly appears to be heading toward ethnic and racial “cleansing.”
One Fort Myers resident, Christina Penuel, put it very succinctly in a letter to the editor published in the neighboring Naples Daily News on March 23.
“I’m not confident that our local police force wouldn’t take advantage of ICE’s broad language and lax training. We live in a very safe community and adding some terrible ICE program isn’t going to make it safer,” she wrote. “The ICE program is nothing more than thinly veiled racism aimed towards out Spanish population. We can decide as a community what we need and Fort Myers doesn’t need ICE.”
Speaking up like that was the only thing people could do given their limited leverage and ultimate powerlessness.
The council members responded to these constituent fears with their initial votes. They had their own concerns too. Furthermore, they were well within their rights and duties as elected public officials in casting their votes based on their individual and independent assessments of the issue even if, as Bonk stated, they were not given the full information they needed to make a fully cognizant choice.
But in an atmosphere where threat, menace and intimidation are the operative attitudes rather than rational discussion, respectful disagreement and dispassionate analysis, the immediate reaction to their vote, regardless of its legal legitimacy, was to issue threats and those threats were made to induce fear—“pressure,” in Donalds’ language—and through fear impose compliance.
Donalds’ approach was very instructive and illuminating. He didn’t really have a dog in this fight and could have stayed out of it without consequence. But aping Donald Trump, his endorser and the person to whom he owes any chance of the governorship, his immediate reaction was to jump in with threats to the city, the Council and the individual council members. What was more, his demand that they be removed was reflexive and unthinking.
It demonstrates that if elected he will be a very Trumpist governor in both policy and approach. Floridians can expect him to bully and browbeat officials, cities, towns, counties, lawyers—and individual citizens—into submitting to his will, just as Trump is trying to do to the rest of the country. Florida will become a state ruled by fear—even more so than now.
It is notable that the zeal for enforcing the law shown by DeSantis and Donalds in the case of Fort Myers on its most powerless and vulnerable residents, somehow does not extend to a 34-count convicted felon who has escaped punishment for his crimes, who incited a riot, attempted to overturn an election, overthrow the legislative branch of government, allegedly stole secret documents and sought to improperly alter election results, not to mention was found liable for sexual assault and whose collaboration with Russia has been well documented—and who presents an immediate and present danger to the public on a vastly greater scale than any possible migrant in Fort Myers. In his case, they have not made a peep about the majesty of the law or the need to vigorously enforce it.
(It also bears mentioning that if DeSantis and Uthmeier really want to crack down on a “sanctuary” jurisdiction, they should look at Collier County’s “Bill of Rights Sanctuary” ordinance, passed in 2023. If they’re going to be consistent, this one, which aims to place Collier County outside the “commanding hand” of the federal government, should be on their radar.)
It was written by Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi writer and academic, under the pseudonym Samir al-Khalil. It detailed the way Saddam Hussein and the fascist Ba’ath Party took over Iraq and imposed a regime of threat, menace and deadly violence on that country.
It opened with a man named Salim being taken from his house for no discernible reason by men with no discernible authority, with no warrant or justification. Nonetheless he doesn’t resist when he’s taken to an office, interrogated closely and then told to vacate his home immediately, which he does. After a time he’s allowed to move back. He never learns why he had to leave, who ordered him out or why he can return. It’s just the way things worked in Iraq.
And throughout the ordeal, Salim is in a state of fear, a state that Makiya made clear extended to all of Iraq and all Iraqis. Fear was simply how Saddam Hussein governed.
Fear is how all dictators govern.
Now fear is spreading outward from the Oval Office as President Donald Trump pursues retribution against all enemies, real and imagined; against prosecutors who charged him, against political opponents who dared to challenge him, and against judges who resist him to uphold the law.
The fear being used to impose this domination is trickling downward and outward and no place is immune, no matter how obscure or remote, as the case of Fort Myers has shown. At least these councilors who voted their conscience only faced removal and their city only faced a loss of grants and legal retaliation. In places like Iraq and Russia dictatorial retaliation has been and is deadly and permanent.
Under the nearly 250 years of their independence, Americans became perhaps the most fearless people on earth, securely confident in their values and inalienable rights, overcoming fear to settle a wilderness, explore the heavens, defeat Fascism, build a democracy and welcome people from all places and races. It’s what made America great.
Right now, unlike in Roosevelt’s time, there is more to fear than just fear itself. It has a name and address. But as Americans have conquered fear before, if they’re going to preserve themselves as Americans, this new fear must be confronted—and conquered in its turn.
The cover of the August 2006 issue of Homeland Security Today (HSToday) magazine, with Supt. Mike Gaudreau of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) standing before the Canadian Parliament building. Gaudreau was with the RCMP’s Organized Crime and Border Integrity Division dedicated to securing the US-Canadian border. The photo was taken by Roxanne Ouellette with the cooperation of the RCMP exclusively for HSToday.
March 16, 2025 by David Silverberg
Americans, especially those currently in government, have no idea how blessed the United States of America is to border only two countries.
Russia borders 14 countries. So does China. That means 14 different governments, foreign policies, wars, disputes, currencies, cultures, languages, migrants, smugglers and everything else that comes along with a territorial border (and this doesn’t take into account maritime borders, which can be much more complex).
Instead, the United States borders Canada and Mexico, two countries with which it has been at peace for the past century. Until Jan. 20 of this year these were friends and major trading partners. Canada is formally allied to the United States through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Southwest Florida benefits from Canadian tourism and seasonal visits and until the accession of President Donald Trump, its local tourism bureaus were making efforts to encourage even more Canadian visitors.
People of Mexican origin built businesses and contributed to Southwest Florida communities in a wide variety of ways. Mexican-origin workers, documented and undocumented, filled Southwest Florida’s building trades, staffed hotels and restaurants, and provided the people to pick the fruits and vegetables of its fields.
Now, Trump, his cronies and his regime are engaged in a determined, relentless effort to turn these friends into foes. He insults and disrespects these countries and their people, subjects them to punitive and completely unnecessary tariffs, mocks and defames them and even threatens their independence and sovereignty.
One veteran, well-respected analyst even believes that a decision has already been made to invade and conquer Canada. The only question is when and how.
The attacks on Canada especially hit home for me. I take them personally.
I would like to tell you why.
A laughable notion
In the 1920s Canadian military planners had to come up with a strategy in the event of war with the United States. If such a war broke out and US troops violated Canadian territory, the Canadian Army planned to invade the United States in turn and take the city of Fargo, North Dakota. They would then hold it until allied British troops came over and opened a new front elsewhere.
I learned this directly from the Canadian Minister of National Defence (with a “c”), Perrin Beatty, during an interview in his office in 1987. At the time, I was the international trade reporter for the newspaper Defense News.
Beatty and I both laughed at the notion—not just the notion of conquering Fargo, ND, but the completely absurd idea that the United States and Canada might ever go to war.
After all, both the US and Canada were English-speaking NATO allies. American and Canadian troops fought side by side against Fascism in Europe during World War II. More recently, in 1979 Canadian diplomats provided refuge for American diplomats hiding from Iranian revolutionaries who had overrun the American embassy in Tehran. With fake Canadian passports provided by the Canadian government, the six Americans were smuggled out of Iran. The whole story was so dramatic it was made into the movie Argo, which in 2013 was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won three, including Best Picture.
More pertinent to our discussion, Beatty was determined to upgrade Canadian defense capabilities to meet the country’s full NATO commitment. A recent exercise had revealed operational gaps that needed to be closed.
Canada was also considering purchasing a fleet of nuclear submarines, which is what had brought me to Ottawa. France and Britain were in a fierce competition to supply them. (The United States does not sell nuclear submarines.) Canada wanted them to safeguard and patrol the Northwest Passage, which even then was being affected by global warming breaking up the polar ice.
In the end, Canada never made the purchase, it being deemed too expensive by a succeeding government.
No matter what the story, in every encounter I had, Canadian authorities were helpful, cooperative and forthcoming. It made me appreciate just how close US-Canadian relations were in meeting common challenges and pursuing common interests.
To this day, the full sweep of US-Canadian defense cooperation is broad and deep and goes well beyond NATO. The two countries created the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958 to guard and monitor Soviet—and later, Russian—polar air activity.
On May 10, 2024 the two celebrated NORAD’s 66th anniversary. “But we’re more than just friends across the 49th parallel,” said Lt. Gen. Blaise Fawley, a Royal Canadian Air Force commander, at the time. “We are a team. We monitor the seas and skies together. We crew aircraft together. We train and exercise together. We also live, and strive, and grieve together.”
Canada is a participant in the International Space Station program, providing the vessel with key technologies and robotics. Canadian astronauts have been working with the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) since 1983, sending 14 astronauts on 17 space missions with their American colleagues.
US and Canadian industry didn’t just work together on civilian projects and products like auto manufacturing, Canadian companies offered significant capabilities in defense, particularly when it came to training and simulation. As the Defense News trade reporter I did extensive coverage of Canadian companies, mostly located in Montreal, and their products and technologies serving the common needs of the US, Canada and NATO.
In contrast to so many countries around the world, US and Canadian relations were close, collaborative and cooperative.
But the closeness of US-Canadian ties were really revealed when they were put to their most strenuous test.
Stress test
On Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda terrorists struck the United States in the heart of New York and Washington, DC.
For the first time, NATO invoked Article 5 of its treaty: an attack on one was an attack on all. Canada was immediately by America’s side.
Canada accepted US-bound flights that couldn’t land in the United States because the airspace was shut down. That left thousands of passengers and crew stranded.
Canada mobilized to meet the need and Canadians opened their facilities and even their schools, gyms and homes to welcome travelers.
The challenge and response was so massive it was given the name Operation Yellow Ribbon. In Newfoundland, Gander International Airport accepted 38 airliners with over 6,000 people.
The whole effort even inspired a Broadway musical, “Come From Away”—which recently played in Southwest Florida at the Barbara B. Mann Performing Arts Hall in Fort Myers.
Over time, Canada strengthened its border security, its counter-terrorism efforts and its intelligence sharing with the United States.
Canadian forces served alongside American troops in Afghanistan and did so for 14 years. They suffered 159 fatalities in combat and 22 more in other circumstances, the highest per capita casualty rate among coalition members. Sadly, the first four died in a friendly-fire incident at American hands at a place called Tarnak Farm. Even so, the Canadian commitment remained unwavering.
Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. (Photo: ISAF HQ)
Canada paid in treasure too, spending an estimated $18.5 billion dollars on the effort by 2011.
I had the opportunity to observe Canada’s counter-terrorism efforts first-hand. After 9/11, I focused my journalistic efforts on US homeland security and was founding editor of a magazine, Homeland Security Today, or HSToday, which reported on all aspects of this new and emerging discipline, department and effort.
It was always clear to me and the rest of us at the magazine that US homeland security meant North American homeland security. The United States homeland wouldn’t be safe unless it worked together with Canada and Mexico. The leaders of all three countries understood that as well and repeatedly met to synchronize their countries’ efforts.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mexican President Vicente Fox and US President George Bush posed at the Mexican ruins of Chichen Itza during a March 2006 summit to coordinate common security measures. (Photo: Reuters/HSToday)
Canada was right there with the United States, standing against Islamist terrorism. Canada strengthened its borders, mobilized its forces and sharpened its intelligence collecting.
Canada even suffered from its own instance of terrorism on Oct. 22, 2014. A lone gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, shot two ceremonial guards at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, killing one, and then entered the Canadian Parliament building, presumably intending to murder top officials. However, he was killed in a shootout with security guards and the heroic Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Vickers.
It was a demonstration that terrorism didn’t respect national boundaries in North America and all civilized countries faced the same threat—and had to meet it together.
The cooperation didn’t just cover governments. As in the common military defense, Canadian industry offered its technological capabilities to the United States and the world in combatting the jihadist menace and closing vulnerabilities.
A personal view
Those are the governmental, defense and security areas of cooperation and I was privileged to see, experience and cover them first hand.
On a personal level, I and my wife have also experienced Canadian hospitality during vacation visits to Vancouver, Quebec, Halifax, Saint John and Niagara-on-the-Lake. In July 2017 we traveled to Ottawa to see the celebrations of Canada’s 150th anniversary and enjoyed them along with millions of Canadians.
As an undergraduate student in 1976 I traveled north to meet my intellectual idol, professor Marshall McLuhan, to explore studying under him at the University of Toronto. We had a delightful lunch and lengthy, stimulating discussion. Though a position didn’t come to fruition, I’ll always treasure that meeting.
Even today, although I now live in tropical Naples, Fla., I will never part with my thick Canadian toque, complete with embroidered maple leaf, and scarf, bought in a favorite Ottawa shop.
So now, when the American president—my president, even though I voted against him—attacks Canada and Canadians, it hits home in a very personal way.
Let me put this on the record: As a United States citizen—as a human being—I find Trump’s attacks on Canada to be beyond outrageous. In fact the English language lacks the words to fully convey their awfulness and unacceptability. They are monstrous and perverted. They are barbaric and disgusting, they are revolting and obscene. They are wholly unjustified, completely unprovoked, and utterly indefensible. Let me revert to some ancient language: they are wicked. They are evil.
They’re also treasonous given that they are so inimical to United States interests and serve the goals of Vladimir Putin and Russia.
But horribly, they’re not random or thoughtless.
Personally, while I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, in this instance I see something much larger and more dangerous at work. (See: “Warning! A Trump-Putin-Xi conspiracy theory”).
As though to confirm my worst fears, an analyst whom I greatly respect, Malcolm Nance, worries about roughly the same thing, only in more detail.
I have some personal acquaintance with Nance, so I can vouch for him. For 20 years he served in the US Navy as a cryptologist and served on many intelligence and counter-terror missions. I became familiar with him when he submitted an op-ed to Homeland Security Today that I edited and published. He’s author of numerous books, among them, The Plot to Destroy Democracy: How Putin and His Spies Are Undermining America and Dismantling the West, published in 2018. It was one of the first books to comprehensively detail Russian interference in the 2016 election—and label Donald Trump as a Russian puppet.
When the Ukraine war broke out, Nance didn’t sit on the sidelines. He cammied up and joined the Ukrainian Foreign Legion, putting his bullets where his mouth was.
“The political rhetoric in the first five weeks of the Trump regime is giving clear indications that the United States fully intends to invade and seize Canada and Greenland at President Trump’s command. The possible timeline is 6-18 months of political destabilization to weaken the Canadian economy, split political parties, and carry out secret destabilization efforts, including identifying and making contact with Canadians who would betray their country.”
It’s a playbook used by Putin in Ukraine. Trump and his Cabinet are politically and psychologically “shaping the battlespace” in military parlance. The insults and tariffs, trade wars and denigration are part of a well-worn Trump practice of wearing down and diminishing opponents. It’s worked in a domestic American context, now it’s being applied to Canada.
Next step is to use traitors to create an anti-Canadian internal element that opposes Canadian sovereignty and calls for union with the United States.
We have seen this before: Adolf Hitler did it in Sudetenland and Putin did it in the regions he coveted in Ukraine and then annexed.
In Nance’s view this is something Trump might try in western Canada using fringe political groups like Wexit, which advocates that the oil-rich provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan split and join the USA.
“Groups such as these, under the guidance of the Republican party via clandestine pathways operated by the CIA, could receive tens of millions of dollars to fund a nationwide information warfare campaign to give the appearance that there are a large majority of Canadians who want to leave and join the USA,” he writes. With enough obfuscation and disinformation, much of it funded by Elon Musk, “the confusion would be enough to give Trump cover that he was ‘rescuing’ the Canadian people from an extremist liberal autocratic government.”
Trump has called Canada “not viable” as a country, said “Canada would not exist without the United States” and called the US-Canadian border “an artificial line.” (And what border is NOT an artificial line?)
Then, Nance points out: “On February 24, 2025, Elon Musk tweeted on his social media platform X that ‘Canada is not a real country.’ Musk surely deliberately chose those words after being privy to the discussions about annexing the country in a rapid invasion.
“They are almost the very words and justification that Putin used for the invasion of Ukraine,” he pointed out.
The downsides to an attempted American takeover of Canada are immense but both Trump and Elon Musk have in the past shown great appetites for risk. So, for that matter, has Putin but even his best calculations foundered in Ukraine, as Trump and Musk’s might in Canada.
“The occupation of Canada would quickly become a continent-wide, high-intensity modern war akin to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” Nance points out. “It would rapidly devolve into a higher-intensity insurgency, which could lead to the deaths of thousands on both sides. Any operation would most likely collapse the American economy and precipitate a violent Second American Civil War.”
Damage being done
Whether Trump invades or not, he’s already done extensive and possibly irreparable damage to US-Canadian relations and to personal interactions between Canadians and Americans.
This was expressed by outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a press conference on March 4: “Canadians are hurt. Canadians are angry. We are going to choose to not go on vacation in Florida. We are going to choose to try and buy Canadian products … and yeah we’re probably going to keep booing the American anthem.”
Starting April 11, Canadian visitors to the United States staying over 30 days will now be fingerprinted upon entering the country. They’ll have to fill out an I-94 form proving they are approved legal visitors. They’ll have to report their arrival date and the length of their stay.
Essentially, they’ll be treated as hostile aliens and that’s already happening. For example, this month a Canadian entrepreneur was arrested during a border crossing from Mexico, chained and incarcerated for having an incomplete work visa application form.
There is already resistance to Trump’s anti-Canadian moves. In the US Congress, Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-2-RI), introduced the No Invading Allies Act (House Resolution 1936) on March 6 to withhold funds to prohibit Trump from invading Canada, Greenland or Panama.
It would be nice if that passed and could actually stop Trump from attacking allies either militarily, economically or verbally, but legal safeguards are at best an iffy proposition with this regime.
Of course Canada is not being idle either. An election has brought forth a new premier, American tariffs are being met with Canadian tariffs, and a new wave of patriotism is sweeping over Canada. Canadians are determined not to be America’s 51st state and no one can blame them, especially given the nature of the Trump regime.
The whole monstrosity is completely unnecessary. It’s entirely the result of one single, sick, twisted individual creating a crisis that only he thinks he can solve in pursuit of ends that are megalomaniacal, to say the least, arguably treasonous and certainly unconstitutional.
Both Trump and Musk like to see themselves as big, bold disrupters who flout conventional wisdom and practices. But this is not merely introducing a new chip or product or company into the marketplace. This is an atrocity with the potential to literally kill millions of people and physically destroy both countries.
A time to speak
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with his Security Council on Feb. 21, 2022. (Photo: Kremlin)
On Feb. 21, 2022, just before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, he held a Security Council meeting. His ministers sat obediently and silently before him at one end of a giant room while he sat alone behind a desk at the other.
One by one the ministers trooped to a lectern to give rote endorsements of his proposal to recognize the independence of Ukrainian provinces occupied by Russian-backed insurgents. It was tantamount to endorsing the invasion of Ukraine.
Only Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, hesitated, to Putin’s great annoyance. “I would support the proposal…” stammered Naryshkin. Putin prodded him to give a clear endorsement. Naryshkin tried to evade the question. Putin turned the verbal knife slowly, repeatedly until finally Naryshkin submitted and endorsed independence, knowing full well what it would mean. “You can take your seat,” Putin said dismissively when he was done.
It was the last chance for anyone in Russia to speak out against what was clearly a crime, a travesty and what would prove a devastating blunder.
Three days later, Putin launched a brutal war of aggression against an independent, democratic Ukraine.
In the United States there’s still time to speak out against injustice and the mistreatment of people who have been our allies, our partners and most of all, our friends. Trump may be sitting behind the big desk but we don’t have to be Naryshkins.
By standing up and speaking out for Canada and Canadians, for immigrants, for allies, for democracy—and for Ukraine—Americans are also standing up for themselves and for the United States of America.
And writing as one American, we can simply do no less.
The Paradise Progressive 