Donald Trump is a magnet for danger. Everyplace he goes, including to his own golf course, is at risk for becoming a danger zone

The Loneliness of Donald Trump echo opinion published in The New York Times by James Boule.

(Maine Writer: IOW, bone spurs again❓)

On Saturday night, April 25, at the gala White House Correspondents Association Dinner (WHCA), held in the Washington Hilton hotel, a gunman made an attempt on Donald Trump’s life.

WHCA another failed assassination attempt

This was the third such attempt in roughly two years. The first was in 2024, during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania., where Trump — then still a candidate — sustained some minor injuries. A father named Corey Comperatore, age 50, was shot and killed when the gunman fired from a rooftop.  

Then, the next attempt took place the same year, this time at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., where the would-be assassin was stopped before he could get close. And then we have this most recent incident, at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington.

To add to the catalog of recent political violence, there was the assassination of the former Minnesota House speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband last summer, as well as the killing of Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk at an event in Utah later last year.

Predictably, in the wake of Saturday’s attempt on Trump’s life, the president’s allies immediately jumped to blame his political opponents for the incident.

“The deranged lies and smears against Trump, his family, his supporters have led crazy people to believe crazy things, and they are inspired to commit violence because of those words,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Monday April 27th.

Trump added his two cents in an interview with CBS News: “I do think that the hate speech of the Democrats much more so is very dangerous. I really think it’s very dangerous for the country.” So, the Republican argument is simple. The more Democrats criticize Trump — the more they condemn him as a malign force in American politics — the more they put his life in danger.

But this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

To start, even the most heated language coming from Democrats over the past few years falls well within the boundaries of ordinary political discourse in the United States. No elected Democratic leader has called for violence against Trump or his allies. All have condemned such violence when it has taken place. And you would be hard-pressed to find anything different among Democratic Party officials and liberal activists.

The same cannot be said about the political right, where figures like Steve Bannon muse about putting “heads on pikes” on “the two corners of the White House as a warning.” And it certainly cannot be said of the president.

Trump has been the most high-profile purveyor of violent language toward his opponents since he stepped onto the national stage in 2015, as a political contender.

Fantasies of violence against political enemies are, in fact, a defining feature of Trump’s political language.

During his first campaign for president, he pointed to the “Second Amendment people” when he wondered, aloud, whether anything could be done about a President Hillary Clinton. As the George Floyd protests consumed the country in the summer of 2020, Trump threatened violence against protesters. “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen … when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” 

Trump called for the death penalty against Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and once compared his political opposition to “vermin,” calling them the “real threat” to the nation. On the eve of his second election victory in 2024, he floated the use of the military to handle “the enemy from within,” defined as “sick people, radical left lunatics.”

And then, of course, there was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness,” he said to thousands of supporters at a rally outside the White House. “We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” All of this is just a small sample of the president’s embrace of violence in his language.

Conservatives once understood that societies are complex systems, and that the reason to try to preserve certain norms and traditions was to avoid needless chaos and disruption as we change and progress. We cannot predict the full consequences of what we do, and so we should choose carefully and deliberately as we navigate the world. We should be modest in our ambitions, aware of our own fallibility and mindful of the way things can go wrong.

Of course, inasmuch as this perspective actually shaped American conservatism, it was mostly to defend existing inequalities and hierarchies. Consider William F. Buckley Jr.’s defense of the Jim Crow South or Ronald Reagan’s jeremiads against Medicare. What looked like wisdom was usually just a rhetorical trope used to justify the power that some held over others. Still, there is something to be said for that spirit of humility, especially as it relates to our politics.

So it goes with Trump’s embrace of violent language. If his predecessors in the White House did not speak this way, it was not because they lacked a killer instinct or were never frustrated by criticism and mockery. Rather, they understood the weight and power of the office, and the way that this language, if used, could spiral out of control into actual violence and disorder.

But, in Trump we have a person who isn’t concerned with the impact of his language and the consequences of his words — who delights in wielding them as a weapon against others, with no regard for what it might do or whom it might influence. He thought nothing, for example, of calling a group of Democratic lawmakers “traitors” who were “guilty of seditious behavior at the highest level” and who should be “arrested and put on trial” and even punished with “DEATH!” He thinks nothing of targeting individual critics with vitriolic social media posts and of threatening entire nations with total destruction.

Trump may not care about the power of his words. But those words still matter. They weigh on society. Ten years of violent language, 10 years of fanning the flames of discord and conflict, 10 years of calls to effect change through violence — all of these have had an effect.

It is not that Americans are new to political violence. It is one of the defining aspects of our national experience. But in the decades between the assassinations of the 1960s and the present, there had been a steady decline in incidents of such violence, broadly defined. Trump’s entry into American politics has corresponded with a reversal of that trend — with a growing sense among a number of people in society that the only way to make change is through the use of force.

Trump probably did not cause the attempts on his life. But, it would be dishonest to deny that he is responsible for shaping the environment in which we live — for creating an atmosphere in which these kinds of events are more likely. And as the single most visible politician in the country, an atmosphere where political violence is more likely is one in which he may find himself a target, for whatever reason the particular person happens to have.

Trump’s response to this latest failed attempt on his life was to tell his audience of journalists that this was the reason he needed a White House ballroom — a space where he could safely hold court. And there is no doubt that, in addition to his megalomania, the ballroom reflects Trump's selfish desire to make the White House a North American Versailles. But one should also consider the extent to which it reflects something else: a desire to isolate himself from the world.

This is a man who rarely travels beyond the confines of the White House compound or Mar-a-Lago. He rarely meets people where they are. Trump holds the occasional rally, but he does not move through the world the way most presidents have. More so than most who have held the office, he lives inside a bubble.

Some of this is vanity. Some of it is laziness. But some of it, I think, is fear. Trump is afraid of the world. Which in a way might mean he is afraid of the world he has helped to build.

Another failed Trump assassination attempt! A weird cluster. but do the incidents pass the straight face test?

My Instagram friend authored this opinion on his page and it is worth republishing. I could not have explained this weird pattern of failed Trump assassinations any better:  See source at this link here.

Did (3-D printer Barbie press secretary) Karoline Leavitt have inside information regarding events to come at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner

White House Correspondents Association in Washington DC on April 25, 2026

❓ In her own words an hour before the start of the event: "There will be shots fired tonight in the room"

None of this makes any sense. Under normal protocol, any threat to the President would demand that the entire facility be placed on immediate and complete lockdown. How this was handled raises so many questions.

This event was obviously pre-arranged and is in alignment with Trump’s exit strategy to redirect any attention back to himself that allows him to say that the Press is out of control and out to get him. Trump attended this dinner in the first place only for the opportunity for him to have another attention grabbing fiasco. This is his go-to plan to redirect the focus back on himself and stop any further attention to his failing poll numbers, his popularity, his demented decision for getting us involved in the Iran War, and the Epstein files.

Trump and his minions have a track record of not being able to coordinate their stories...ie, their lies. He wants to be able to say that he is the only President to survive three "supposedly" attempted assassinations. And now he is dictating to the Press that this dinner be rescheduled within the next month. For him, "The show must go on" for more distractions. Idiot❗

A New York Times Editorial must read and that means YOU Ms. Karoline Leavitt!

Trump’s Stifling of Dissent Reaches a New Level- Read the autocracy measures at the end of this opinion.

Editorial opinion published in The New York Times:

(Maine Writer:  Seems to me this editorial should be a cc directed to Trump's 3D Copier Barbie Karoline Leavitt, JMO❗) 

The crackdown on dissent and speech in Minnesota this winter follows a pattern that is common in countries that slide from democracy to autocracy: A leader enacts a legally dubious policy. Citizens protest that policy. The government responds with intimidation and force. 😧😟💢😓When people are hurt, the government blames them and lies about what happened.

The New York Times editorial board published an index in October tracking 12 categories of democratic erosion, based on historical patterns and interviews with experts. 

Our index places the United States on a scale of 0 to 10 for each category. Zero represents the United States before Donald Trump began his second term — not perfect, surely, but one of the world’s healthiest democracies.

Ten represents the condition in a true autocracy, such as China, Iran or Russia.

Based on recent events, we (the NYT Editorial Board) moved our assessment of one of the categories — stifling speech and dissent — up one notch, to level four:

The wide-ranging abuses in Minnesota are the main reason for the change. The Trump administration is conducting a military-style operation in an American city under dubious pretenses. The stated goal is immigration enforcement, even though the state is home to relatively few undocumented immigrants. The true goal seems to be instilling fear in people who oppose Donald Trump’s agenda. Federal agents have killed two protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and assaulted and menaced others. The administration has made clear that the abusers will face no accountability.😡

The acceleration in the stifling of dissent and speech is broader than what’s happening in Minnesota. Since late last year, the administration also widened its campaign for investigating perceived enemies, such as Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security used subpoenas that no judge approved to demand information on critics. The F.B.I. searched the home of a journalist who had exposed problems with the administration’s policies.

Our country is still not close to being a true autocracy. Many forms of speech and dissent remain vibrant in the United States, in courts, in Congress, the media and the streets (and in blogs, 😊too❗). But, Donald Trump and his allies have restricted dissent in fundamental ways. It is a violation of basic American values.

Background and methodology: The clearest sign that a democracy has died is that a leader and his party make it impossible for their opponents to win an election and hold power. Once that stage is reached, however, the change is extremely difficult to reverse.

The 12 benchmarks in this editorial offer a way to understand how much Donald Trump is eroding American democracy. The categories are based on interviews with legal scholars, political scientists, historians and other democracy experts. The ratings come from the New York Times editorial board. In our 0-to-10 scales, zero represents roughly where the United States, flawed though it was, had been under presidents of both parties prior to Mr. Trump. Ten represents the condition in a true authoritarian state. Moving even one notch toward autocracy is a worrisome sign.

We first published the index in October 2025. This version is the first update. We plan to publish future updates as events warrant.

Here is the autocracy measurement tool: 

The Autocracy Index: 12 markers of democratic erosion

• Stifling speech and dissent
• Persecuting political opponents
• Bypassing the legislature
• Defying the courts
• Declaring false emergencies
• Using the military at home
• Vilifying marginalized groups
• Controlling information
• Taking over universities
• Creating a cult of personality
• Using power for personal profit
• Manipulating the law to stay in power

💥💢

democracy














autocracy


Persecuting political opponents






democracy














autocracy


Bypassing the legislature






democracy














autocracy


Defying the courts






democracy














autocracy


Declaring false emergencies






democracy














autocracy


Using the military at home






democracy














autocracy


Vilifying marginalized groups






democracy














autocracy


Controlling information






democracy














autocracy


Trying to take over universities






democracy














autocracy


Creating a cult of personality






democracy














autocracy


Using power for personal profit






democracy














autocracy


Manipulating the law to stay in power






democracy














autocracy

Renee Nicole Good an unarmed American citizen was murdered by evil ICE agents when she driving away from the shooter!

Echo opinion letters to The New York Times: Dateline Minneapolis


Re “I’m the Mayor of Minneapolis. Trump Is Lying,”* 🤥by Jacob Frey (Opinion guest essay, January 10)- (see story lead below):

At some point, we have to ask ourselves as Americans whether we are willing to accept a country with no shared moral base line, no principle that rises above political affiliation.

Are we comfortable living in an America where a 37-year-old mother can be shot dead in the street and, almost immediately, have powerful figures justify it or attempt to construct an alternate reality that contradicts what we all plainly witnessed?

Are we comfortable living in an America where an insurrection that threatened our democracy on January 6th is minimized; where foreign and domestic policymakers increasingly act as judge; jury and executioner; and where blatant misinformation is delivered from behind the White House logo from 3D Barbie Karoline Leavitt❓

These are not abstract concerns. They cut to the heart 💔😟of whether we still agree on right and wrong, truth and falsehood, restraint and accountability.

We should be asking ourselves where the line is, and at what point we decide we simply will not tolerate the disregard for the democratic norms and human dignity that generations before us worked to preserve.

Red, purple or blue, the question is not about ideology. It’s about whether we can still come together to defend something as fundamental as basic decency.

From Seth Schlussel in San Francisco, California

To the Editor:  The killing of unarmed American citizen Renee Good by an ICE agent raises an urgent question: If the federal government won’t protect its citizens, when will the states step up? New York has ample but unused leverage to rein in ICE’s increasingly violent operations. It must act immediately to prevent escalating unrest.

Under the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, a constitutional principle articulated in the Tenth Amendment, states cannot be compelled to assist federal law enforcement. This principle affords New York lawful tools not to abolish ICE but to refuse to enable conduct that endangers citizens.

The state could, for example, prohibit rental companies from renting cars to ICE without a judicial warrant, restrict hotels and short-term rentals from staging federal operations without oversight, bar New York-regulated companies from sharing sensitive data with ICE without a criminal warrant or deny state contracts to entities that do business with ICE. These measures would not conflict with federal criminal law, but would ensure New York would not facilitate dangerous and unaccountable (evil❗) ICE operations.

From Alexander Thomson in Ithaca, New York

To the Editor: The recent killing of Renee Good, a 37-year-old unarmed American woman, by a federal officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota demands careful legal scrutiny, not political slogans or emotional reactions.

Under well-established constitutional principles and longstanding federal case law, the use of deadly force by a government agent is justified only when there exists an immediate, objective and unavoidable threat to the life of the officer or others. That determination must rest on observable facts at the precise moment of force is used, not on subjective fear or speculative danger.

In cases where an officer stands only a few feet from a vehicle that is stationary or just beginning to move, basic physics, human reaction time and standard police training all indicate that reasonable avenues of evasion are typically available.

Federal courts have repeatedly held that an officer may not voluntarily place himself in the path of a vehicle and then rely on that self-created risk to justify lethal force. The threat must be truly imminent and not reasonably avoidable by other means. This is not an ideological issue; it is a legal one. Whether the constitutional limits on the use of deadly force were respected or violated public trust depends on those limits being applied rigorously, transparently and without exception.

When the state exercises its ultimate power, the burden of justification must be equally exacting.

From Juan Carden in St. Louis, Missouri

To the Editor: Re “Early Comments Cast Doubts Over ICE Inquiry” (news analysis, front page, Jan. 11):

JD Vance’s false claim that ICE agents have “absolute immunity” not only suggests agents have something to hide; it also reveals an ignorance of federal law.

Civil rights crimes perpetrated by ICE agents and their bosses are addressed specifically in Federal Statute 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.”

In the Justice Department’s own language: Section 242 makes it a federal crime for a person “acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. If those acts lead to the death of that person, the statue says, punishment could include imprisonment or a death sentence. It offers no immunity.

Statute 242 was intended to protect Renee Good’s civil rights, and the F.B.I. has a responsibility to investigate possible deprivation of those rights. If F.B.I. officials refuse to investigate, wouldn’t they themselves be violating Statute 242, in depriving Ms. Good of the right to due process, as well as of one of her legal protections❓

From Mark Thurmond in Kneeland, California

Jacob Frey the mayor of Minneapolis

*Minneapolis:  On August 1, 2007, the Interstate 35W bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed into the water during rush hour. Thirteen people died, and dozens more were injured.

In the immediate aftermath, the president, a Republican, showed up in a city full of Democrats ready to help.

Minneapolis leaders were passionate and vocal critics of President George W. Bush’s policies at the time. 

But when the crisis struck, it didn’t matter. We were partners in what mattered most: saving lives, steadying our community and rebuilding infrastructure. 

Cities could count on the administration in a crisis. Politics stopped, quite literally, at the water’s edge.

Blue largely Democratic cities like Minneapolis used to be able to count on good-faith partnerships with the federal government under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Under the Biden administration, our police officers worked with federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s office to bring down shooting rates in North Minneapolis. The effort wasn’t political — it was practical, and it continues to keep people safe.

But such partnerships, in both crisis and ordinary governance, are not the experience of big-city Democratic mayors under the Trump administrations. I learned that the hard way in 2020, during the civil unrest that came in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer. I’ll never forget the shock I felt when Donald Trump not only encouraged violence during the unrest, but denied federal approval for disaster relief.

After I learned that a Minneapolis resident had been shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, I didn’t feel the shock in my gut that I felt over five years ago. Nothing about this was shocking. The chaos caused by ICE and the Trump administration have brought Minneapolis to this sadly preventable, although predictable, tragedy. In mid-December, ICE agents were filmed dragging a pregnant woman through the street. Heavily armed agents have been deployed to arrest lone individuals in public libraries and malls. Even in the aftermath of this week’s shooting, ICE agents continued to spread chaos, apparently deploying chemical agents at a local public high school.

The actions of the ICE agents deployed to my city are dangerous, and now, even deadly. But that danger has been compounded by the administration’s claim that the victim committed an act of domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security secretary, Kristi "Evil ICEDiva" Noem, baselessly insisted the shooting was an act of self-defense. Mr. Trump falsely claimed that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, “behaved horribly” and “ran him over,” referring to the ICE agent. I’ve watched multiple videos, from multiple perspectives — it seems clear that Ms. Good, a mother of three, was trying to leave the scene, not attack an agent.

Renee Nicole Good killed by an evil ICE agent in Minneapolis

The Trump administration’s false narrative about this week’s shooting, and the demonization of the victim, are only part of a bigger lie. It wants the American public to believe that ICE’s heavily militarized crackdown across this country is an effort to keep cities like Minneapolis safe. It is not. It is about vilifying not just immigrants, but all who welcome them and their contributions to our communities. By defending the lie about this clearly avoidable shooting in Minneapolis and refusing to allow Minnesota officials to investigate the crime, the administration is sending a message to the entire country: If you show up for your immigrant neighbors, or even are simply present when those neighbors are taken, your rights will not be protected by the law and your life will be at risk.

Under both the first and second Trump administrations, the country has learned from watching Minneapolis that the federal government holds no regard for cities or the people who live in them. When coupled with this administration’s open contempt for democratic norms — indeed, our Constitution — this is a threat to the long-term endurance of our Republic.

My hope is for no more of my fellow mayors find their cities in this administration’s cross hairs. 

But, for those who do, here is my advice: The best thing you can do is to build cities that work, and love those streets and those citizens above any ideology. By bringing down violent crime, Minneapolis has been able to successfully push back against those who have tried to portray our city as a postapocalyptic hellscape. By building housing and focusing on affordability, we have made our city a place that immigrants, transplants and native Minneapolitans can all call home. By supporting immigrant-owned small businesses, our city has become living proof that immigrants make our city and our nation stronger.

Cities are on the front lines of this dark hour in our national politics. But after we weather this moment — and we will weather it — it will be on us to light the way forward. The best way to convince the country that welcoming and lifting up immigrants is good for its communities is by proving it in our own cities.

Donald Trump is 79 years old with visible physical and mental health symptoms. Americans must hear from his physicians NOT lie diva Karoline Leavitt

An open, honest presidential health report, please - Echo editorial published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper:

We don’t have to suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or be an ugly red-hat-toting Trumpzi loyalist to be more than a little concerned when the most powerful person on the planet, says he doesn’t know what part of his body was scanned for a recent diagnostic MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) medical exam, two times within six months❗.💢😠

“What part of the body❓ (Duh❓) It wasn’t the brain," he said. "Because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.” (OMG...#SIASD)

Donald Trump gave a self assessment health to reporters on Air Force One this month, when questioned about his recent medical exams. (But where is Donald Trump's physician order for these exams❓❓)

White House "3-D printer Barbie", the press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Trump’s October tests (beyond an annual checkup) as showing his cardiovascular system in “excellent health” and major organs appearing “very healthy” and “well-perfused” (meaning they had proper blood flow).  This is a lie 🤥....Trump shows evidence of cardiovascular risks because his ankles are swollen, in other words, the venious blood return from his lower extremities, back to his heart, is not efficient.) 

(As a registered nurse, I am qualified by education, training, experience and license, and even required to ask, "Where is the physicians orders and the exam results❓)

And given Trump's advancing age, he is now 79, Americans have valid reasons to seek more persuasive reassurance about the state of Donald Trump's health, especiallly now when we see him falling asleep at his cabinet meetings while others are telling him how  wonderful he is.....no humble response from the sleeping monster. 

It’s no wonder, then, that the Trump White Houses’ vague and imprecise comments about Donald Trump's health examinations sparked a media frenzy and enormous speculation over whether he is concealing a serious ailment.

The lack of candor is all the more galling because Trump has repeatedly mocked his predecessor for his signs of aging, and Biden regularly showed signs of cognitive decline that even the most basic observer could have noticed.

The point here is not to humiliate anyone. If presidents have problems with incontinence, for example, the public doesn’t necessarily have to know full urinary tract details. 

But when you have the power to: 

• drop bombs on foreign governments
• commit troops to an invasion
• pardon dangerous criminals
• declare emergencies
• explode a nuclear device....

The world must know for certain if you are of sound mind and body❓ Sorry, but reassurances from paid spokespeople are not quite the same as hard medical evidence.

And, a lack of transparency clearly hasn’t succeeded in shoring up public confidence. 

As a general matter, Donald Trump must be forthcoming — or, better yet, Congress must mandate for basic disclosures.

Bonjour et aurevoir Raphaël Glucksmann: A French scientist is now a victim of Trumpzism

Echo opinion published in the Houston Chronicle by Robert Zaretsky:

A funny thing happened to a French researcher apparently on his way to the Woodlands, the site of last week’s Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. Upon arriving at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, the scientist was stopped at immigration and customs where officials went through not just his toiletries but his work computer and personal phone. 

Mais oui, their suspicions were founded: there were messages on the sudden plight of the American scientific community “that express hatred towards Trump and can be qualified as terrorism,” according to a source quoted by the French news source Le Monde.

The suspected, though now disarmed, terrorist was swept onto the next flight back to Paris. We can breathe more easily…or can we?

The Lunar and Planetary Science Conference website announced this meeting as the “defining event in planetary research, bringing together a diverse group of international experts in a truly collaborative environment.” But to paraphrase Nayib Bukele, the Salvadoran president, “Oopsie…it’s too late to edit that line.” Somehow, the conference organizers had not gotten the message that it is politically toxic to use the word “diverse.” Moreover, their claim was factually wrong: diversity for scientists in the next four years will exclude scientists mad enough to criticize the Trump administration’s catastrophic attack on their fields of research.

Ironically, this incident explains why this conference is a “defining event.” Many observers have compared the fear and dread now stirred by the dogs of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) to the fear and dread spurred 75 years ago by the determined red-hunters of HUAC e Un-American Activities Committee). Whereas Senator Joseph McCarthy terrifi(Housed scientists and academics with the phrase “I have here in my hand a list,” so too does Elon Musk with either lists of 360-year-old Americans still receiving Social Security checks or lists of agencies he has happily shuttered (and sometimes reopens when he learns — oopsie! — they are tasked with preventing diseases like Ebola).

In other ways, this moment in our history more closely resembles the 1930s, and 1940s, in Stalinist Russia, when a cartoonish version of Marxism replaced hard-nosed empiricism, forcing scientists to acquiesce to utterly bogus theories like Lysenkoism (denying the existance of genetics), which trashed the science of genetics, or the pseudo-science of Lamarckism (a debunked theory of evolution proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, suggesting that organisms can pass on traits acquired during their lifetime to their offspring, which is now largely considered incorrect). 

The consequences of this willed obscurantism were baleful not just for the lives of Russian scientists, but also for the future of scientific research in Russia.

But, we need not look as far as Russia for insights into what the Trump Administration’s actions will mean, not just for the pursuit of knowledge, but for liberty and equality. Leave it to a citizen of our sister republic, France, to remind us about the significance of our Statue of Liberty. A few days ago, the young and influential French politician, Raphaël Glucksmann, addressed recent events in America. In his speech, he declared “We say to those Americans who now side with tyrants and to those Americans who fire researchers who insist on the freedom of scientific study (my italics), give us back the Statue of Liberty. We gave her to you as a gift, but it seems you now scorn her. And so, let her find a home, chez nous.”

A clip of Glucksmann’s speech caught fire 🔥 on social platforms, with plumes of smoke reaching as far as the White House. A Fox News reporter asked the press secretary, ex-Fox intern Karoline Leavitt, if the administration plans to return the statue. Expecting this softball, Leavitt swung mightily: “Absolutely not, and my advice to that unnamed, low-level French politician would be to remind them that it’s only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now.”

(Maine Writer note:  Check out my Substack blog in response to the stupidity in Leavitt's idiotic statement link here.)

A few hours later, Glucksmann tweeted a reply. He fully and gratefully acknowledged that thousands of Americans had given their lives to help the French defeat Nazi Germany. 

But, he added a crucial proviso — namely, that they had done so on behalf of a certain idea of freedom, one that was launched by the French Revolution, which was inspired in part by our own revolution little more than a decade earlier.

Et, le voilà, here we are. While our new government will not return the Statue of Liberty, they have just returned a French scientist to France. It is, of course, impossible not to think of Glucksmann’s astonishment that the Trump administration is firing men and women engaged in scientific research. But it is also impossible not to be astonished that the beacon’s light held aloft by the “Mother of Exiles” rather than “glowing world-wide welcome,” may well soon be extinguished.

Robert Zaretsky teaches courses in modern French and European history at the University of Houston.

Editor's note: A statement from the Department of Homeland Security, published Friday by the New York Times, claims that the researcher "was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a nondisclosure agreement — something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal." However, the French minister for higher education repeated that the researcher was targeted for his opinions about Trump.