Author: Rick

I have again written more than I had planned and hope you read it all. 𝐈 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝.

The phone numbers below are Des Moines offices for my Congressional Representation. I encourage you to call your congress members to voice your opinions.

𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟐𝟖𝟖-𝟏𝟏𝟒𝟓

𝐉𝐨𝐧𝐢 𝐄𝐫𝐧𝐬𝐭 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟐𝟖𝟒-𝟒𝟓𝟕𝟒

𝐙𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐍𝐮𝐧𝐧 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟒𝟎𝟎-𝟖𝟏𝟖𝟎

This quote above is from an article from Radio Iowa on February 18th regarding a conference call with Senator Grassley. The senator went on to explain his position by referencing our nation’s legal framework stating, “The Constitution says all executive power of the federal government shall be vested, and that’s the word that’s used, vested in the office of the presidency.”

With that in mind, let us look to what else the Constitution says:

• “𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1; Section 1

• “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨:” Article 1; Section 8

“Regulate Commerce with foreign nations”

“Establish a Rule of Uniform Naturalization”

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for

carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other

Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the

United States, or in any Department or Office thereof”

• “He [the President] shall have Power, 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐰” Article 2; Section 2

• “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 , 𝐢𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority” Article 3; Section 2

• “The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Article 1; Section 2

• “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Article 1; Section 3

While the President does have significant leeway and authority, Senator Grassley is just plain wrong. Congress can do much, much more than complain. However, since he made his comments about complaining, let’s look at the comments the Senator has been making regarding the actions of this President:

• As I’ve mentioned before and to his credit, Senator Grassley was asked what would happen if Trump defied court rulings and replied, “He wouldn’t get away with that and he shouldn’t.” However, Senator Grassley did not say what he will actually do if the Trump administration actually did defy rulings and downplayed the likelihood. Since these comments, we have seen the Trump administration continue to ramp up attacks on judges and rulings come through that they are not complying with court orders. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧.

• The President has given the DOGE broad authority to look at all aspects of the United States government, cutting thousands of federal jobs across numerous agencies, upending congressionally approved grants worldwide and sowing chaos and confusion into the United States economy. The head of this office was not confirmed with the “advice and consent of the Senate”. I have not heard Senator Grassley complain. 𝐈𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐐&𝐀 𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐧: 𝐐&𝐀: 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲

• As the administration is cutting funding, USAID has been a major target. While this program sends money abroad to help insecure countries around the world, the program also supports people in the United States, including health researchers and farmers in the United States. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧.

• The President has spent the past several weeks trying to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal that provides the United States with rare earth minerals. Without agreeing to accept, the President is suggesting the United States will not work with NATO, will stop supporting Ukraine with military aid, and is choosing to meet with Vladimir Putin to negotiate peace for Ukraine without allowing our allies NATO and Ukraine seats at the table. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧.

• The President is continuing to ramp up the trade war with Canada, Mexico, and China while threatening to start applying tariffs to Europe.

Shortly after experiencing the COVID pandemic, we should all easily remember what happens to businesses and households when we see a major disturbance in supply chains – this unnecessary trade war will create such a disturbance. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

Senator Grassley has the power to legislate. He can come together with other Senators, work with Representatives, and bring a unified, Republican, voice to the table speaking out against Donald Trump. If the President refuses to do what is in the best interests of the United States of America, legislate. Come together to stand up for what is right: pass bills that curtail the power of the Executive and claw back the powers Congress has given away. If the President truly will not uphold the rule of law and follow the laws of Congress and the rulings of the courts, impeach him.

𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲, 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐔𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐨𝐰𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚.

Thank you for reading

A few quick thoughts before I get into the heart of my post today. I have had quite a few people express skepticism that Congress will act. I frequently share that skepticism, but right now it is ultimately Congress that has the authority to act and as such, I feel that reaching out to my representation as frequently as possible to ask what they will do and provide my opinions for what they should do is critical to any hope that they ultimately choose to use their powers to check the President; they have been exceptionally slow to respond. In addition to Congress, the courts also have the ability to check the President through rulings on the law. As I said in a recent post, 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.

Again, I am listing the Des Moines office numbers for my representation; please reach out to them however you see fit if you would like to add your voice.

𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟐𝟖𝟖-𝟏𝟏𝟒𝟓

𝐉𝐨𝐧𝐢 𝐄𝐫𝐧𝐬𝐭 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟐𝟖𝟒-𝟒𝟓𝟕𝟒

𝐙𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐍𝐮𝐧𝐧 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟒𝟎𝟎-𝟖𝟏𝟖𝟎

Today, I would like to talk about transparency. A little over a week ago, Elon Musk joined the President in the Oval Office, essentially taking over an interview, and declared, “I don’t know of a case where an organization has been more transparent than the DOGE organization.” While I will talk here about transparency within DOGE, let’s look at the lack of transparency in the Executive as a whole.

The past month has been an absolute whirlwind. So far, this President has had an average of approximately two and a half Executive Orders every single day. In addition to these Executive Orders, there has been a constant barrage of statements about Ukraine, Gaza, NATO, Europe, Canada, Greenland, Panama, and the list goes on. It is almost literally impossible for any news organization to even keep up, let alone someone who is trying to care for a family or work a normal week. This entire strategy is designed to allow things to fall through the cracks, make it hard to notice what is going on, make the opposition discouraged, and simply make everything as confusing and chaotic as possible. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐠𝐮𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.

With Executive Orders swirling overhead constantly, the specific departments and policies are also opaque. I have no concern with wanting a secure border. I can understand wanting to carry out some deportations and make sure our country is safe, though I would strongly prefer improving existing systems to work with employers. Instead we have chosen to send migrants to Guantanamo Bay and potentially open further detention facilities in the United States, even floating the idea of imprisoning some of them in Guatemala! If we are looking to deport people, why do we need a facility to house 30,000 people? If you want to deport them, then send them home immediately. Furthermore, the administration isn’t telling us who was sent there, they are being denied access to immigration lawyers, and we have no clue what the conditions are there. 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

Elon Musk is running DOGE. President Trump has stated this week that Musk is not the one making the final decisions then following it up by saying he is. Regardless, it is evident that Elon Musk has significant sway over the President right now – it isn’t often that someone who wasn’t nominated or appointed is allowed to have a joint press conference with the President in the Oval Office. In the name of transparency, we would expect someone with significant financial stakes throughout the world to disclose such information. However, the President has said Elon Musk’s financial disclosures would be submitted to the White House but would not be released to the general public. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐥𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐤.

The Executive Branch has been slashing through the government for the past month claiming it all waste, fraud, and abuse. Given the size of our government, I am absolutely sure there is some spending that should be cut. This administration has shared various reports of what they claim to be fraud or abuse in spending. Almost all of that has been either simply wrong or grossly misstated. They even went so far as to slash inspectors general who are designated to find abuse and fraud in government and cut a number of workers who are critical to maintain the nuclear stockpile of the United States. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞, 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

I have seen very little pushback from Zach Nunn or Joni Ernst. I have seen some disagreements with the President from Chuck Grassley, but they have been pretty minor overall. It is the job, the Constitutional Authority, and Patriotic Duty of Congress to check the President. It is Congress who has the power to investigate the Executive Branch. It is up to Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, and Zach Nunn to stand up for our country and demand answers from the President. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 Branch.

I will also note that I contacted Senator Grassley’s office on 2/12 asking what he will do if the Executive Branch does not adhere to court rulings and Senator Ernst’s office on 2/10 asking how she will stand up to uphold the right of Congress to approve spending. I have not yet received a reply from either office.

As I was reminded in a comment on my previous post, the most effective method of communication with Members of Congress is calling their office. Therefore, the phone numbers for the Des Moines offices of my representation are included if you wish to make your voice heard.

𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 – (𝟓𝟔𝟑) 𝟑𝟐𝟐-𝟒𝟑𝟑𝟏

𝐉𝐨𝐧𝐢 𝐄𝐫𝐧𝐬𝐭 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟐𝟖𝟒-𝟒𝟓𝟕𝟒

𝐙𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐍𝐮𝐧𝐧 – (𝟓𝟏𝟓) 𝟒𝟎𝟎-𝟖𝟏𝟖𝟎

I completely understand the concept of America First; we cannot reasonably help others if we do not ensure we are adequately cared for ourselves. However, one of the biggest strengths of the United States since the start of the Cold War has been the maintenance of a major international coalition of allies willing and able to stand together.

Under the guise of America First, Donald Trump has chosen to either implement or threaten tariffs on many countries throughout the world – this includes our closest allies in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, despite the fact that one of the underlying agreements (USMCA) was his own. These tariffs and the uncertainty and instability that comes with them is widely expected to cause significant issues with international trade and supply chains and they will ultimately serve to show other countries that we cannot be trusted as international trade partners forcing them to move away from international trade with the United States. Reduction in trade will ultimately cause prices to rise, decrease our export market, and harm the United States. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭; 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐀𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞.

Claiming significant waste in USAID, Donald Trump has chosen to cut all outlays for the program. This is another mechanism to claim an America First policy and slash international humanitarian aid. However, with major cuts to USAID there will be ramifications for the United States economy as well as international relations, and impacts to American health. Much of the food and medical aid provided to countries in times of crisis are provided by American companies and American farmers. Pulling funding for this aid will immediately impact both of those industries and harm the American economy. In addition to the economic impacts here, this also will likely exacerbate health conditions in developing countries causing disease and famine to spread which will inevitably have worldwide consequences.

The United States has been providing aid worldwide for decades – USAID and PEPFAR both immediately come to mind. Not only is this aid morally justified by the immediate impacts it has on the people who receive it directly, it also helps strengthen the international presence of the United States and improves our diplomatic efforts worldwide. 𝐂𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐒𝐀𝐈𝐃 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭; 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐀𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞.

Constitutionally, the ability to levy tariffs lies with Congress, not the President. However, a series of Congressional Acts over the past century have ceded that authority from Congress to the President, largely for use in emergency situations where National Security is threatened – unfortunately, there is little to no legal definition for such an emergency. However, Congress has not ceded their authority to allocate funding and the President should not be able to simply refuse to carry out acts of Congress.

𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 – 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.

For anyone who does not already know, Senator Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a committee he has served on in different capacities since at least 2009*. Especially given his presence on this committee, I was pleased to see his recent comments this morning in the Des Moines Register regarding President Trump potentially defying court rulings: “He wouldn’t get away with that and shouldn’t”. However, the Senator went on to indicate he does not believe the President would go so far as to ignore court rulings.

Here are some of the recent statements which give me concern that this Executive Branch may not give deference to the Judiciary:

• J.D. Vance stated, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

• President Trump said “Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation.

• Elon Musk posted that a judge “needs to be impeached, NOW!”

• White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, “each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people.”

It seems likely that these comments are attempting to lay the groundwork for ignoring the rulings of the courts on the grounds that they are not legitimate rulings. In fact, a judge has already ruled that the Executive Branch has not fully complied with recent rulings. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞.

In the event the judicial branch oversteps its authority and provides an illegitimate ruling, it is the role of Congress to step in. Congress has the power to write new legislation which would either clarify or codify the ruling deemed to be judicial overreach – of course, this would also require a Presidential approval. Congress also has the power to impeach federal judges and remove them from office if they are deemed to have violated their oath to the Constitution. Regardless of which action is most prudent, both lie with the Legislative Branch. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞.

The likelihood that our current Executive Branch decides not to honor the rulings of the Judicial Branch seems to be higher than ever before in my lifetime; I would also like to point out I find it possible the Executive Branch does not comply with rulings while claiming they are in compliance. Given this increased likelihood, I have asked my representation in Congress: 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭? I encourage you all to ask your Congressional representation the questions you have as well.

In response to questions about shutting down government departments, Senator Grassley admitted he did not know if Trump had the authority, but did not seem bothered by his actions, instead saying that the 2024 election was a “clear mandate to drain the swamp in D.C.”.

So, what defines an electoral mandate? There is no formal definition but, in the past, we have typically considered a mandate to require several key pieces: a resounding victory with a significant margin between the two candidates, a voter turnout that was larger than normal, and a clear policy objective that drove the enthusiasm and victory for the elected candidate.

The 2024 election ended up with a margin of 49.8% for Trump to 48.3% for Kamala Harris – a margin of victory of 1.5 percentage points. Since 1972, only two Presidents have won the presidency with a smaller margin of victory, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, both of whom lost the popular vote.

The 2024 election ended up with a total voter turnout of 155 million, which constituted approximately 63.4% of the voting eligible population. While the total voter turnout has been going up over time, this actually is a relative increase in the voter turnout since the data was tracked starting in 1980, however, it is a lower turnout in terms of the eligible population in 2020 and a lower overall turnout compared with 2020 which saw 158 million voters and 65.3% of the eligible population cast a ballot. This means that Joe Biden had a higher turnout in 2020 compared with Donald Trump in 2024, and a much higher margin of victory at 4.5 percentage points.

I don’t know what formally defines an electoral mandate. But if the 2024 election constitutes an electoral mandate for President Trump, we must also consider that Joe Biden won an electoral mandate with his victory in 2020. Furthermore, we would also expect that we must consider Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 constituted an electoral mandate in that election, specifically with the clear policy objective and key platform of passing Health Care Legislation during his term.

Naturally then, we would trust that Senator Grassley supported the mandated legislation in 2009; however, he strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), voting against it. He even said if every single amendment he proposed had passed he still would have voted against it. Moreover, we would expect that Senator Grassley worked closely together with Joe Biden after his victory and electoral mandate in 2020; however, he staunchly opposed almost every action of his administration and toed the Republican line during his four years in office.

𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. I did not care about a mandate in 2008, in 2020, or today. What I do care about is the mechanisms being used to achieve political objectives. When Barack Obama won in 2008 he did not push through executive actions to enforce his mandate; he pushed Congress to do their job. He pushed Congress to write a bill, debate it, pass it and put it on his desk. With a mandate in hand, Congress came together to do just that and passed the Affordable Care Act which Senator Grassley had the opportunity to discuss, debate, and amend.

𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. What I do know is using this line is merely an excuse. Senator Grassley has an undeniable constitutional duty to ensure the means President Trump uses to “drain the swamp” adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.