Editorials from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and others

Editorials from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and others

___

June 13- The Wall Street Journal says Gabbard, Trump’s DNI are encouraging nuclear proliferation

In case you didn’t know, nuclear weapons are destructive. That’s the message from Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. director of national intelligence, in a social-media video this week warning of a “nuclear holocaust.” This is a scary moment, all right, though not in the way Ms. Gabbard intends.

Ms. Gabbard relates in her three-minute video that she recently visited Hiroshima, “a city that remains scarred by the unimaginable horror caused by a single nuclear bomb dropped in 1945.” As “we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fermenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.”

If this is what passes for current U.S. thinking on nuclear weapons, we are in more danger than we thought. Start with her blinkered history of World War II. The human suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrendous. But the bombs finally shocked Japan to end a war that had killed millions.

The bomb spared hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese from dying in what would have been an inevitable U.S. invasion of Japan. Ms. Gabbard’s seeming regret for the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bomb is another example of the historical illiteracy that is now so common on the right.

But why offer this distorted history lesson now? The reason is the debate inside the Trump Administration over Ukraine and Iran. Ms. Gabbard wants the U.S. to stop aiding Ukraine, and she has opposed using military force to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. She is trying to scare the public about nuclear war to mobilize public pressure on Mr. Trump.

On Russia, Ms. Gabbard is implicitly suggesting that the U.S. should bend to Vladimir Putin ‘s nuclear blackmail. If the Russian dictator threatens to drop a nuclear weapon because Ukraine dares defend itself, then the invaded party must surrender-or else the world may suffer another Hiroshima.

This is a false choice and an invitation for rogues and U.S. adversaries to conquer neighbors with impunity. You can bet the video was viewed with approval in Beijing, which would certainly wield its nuclear arsenal to dissuade the U.S. from aiding Taiwan in a crisis.

Ms. Gabbard doesn’t seem to appreciate that her argument would lead to much more nuclear proliferation. One reason Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program on Friday is because Tehran is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency shows.

The IAEA board voted Thursday that Iran is in breach of its obligations under the treaty, to which it is a signatory. Iran responded by saying it will accelerate its uranium enrichment. If Iran were allowed to get away with it, the NPT becomes a dead letter. Israel chose to use hard power to enforce non-proliferation, and the world should be grateful.

If Iran gets a bomb, the threat won’t merely be from a revolutionary regime that might use it. Nuclear proliferation would spread as other powers seek their own nukes to avoid being hostage to nuclear threats from Iran. The Saudis, the Turks and Egypt would all want a nuclear deterrent. The risk of a nuclear exchange would grow exponentially. Imagine multiple Pakistan vs. India tight-rope walks.

Ms. Gabbard’s logic recalls the left’s “nuclear freeze” campaign in the 1980s, as Ronald Reagan tried to deploy mid-range nuclear weapons in Europe to counter the Soviets. Reagan prevailed and pushed the Strategic Defense Initiative. His show of strength was able to win the Cold War and reduce the nuclear threat. Mr. Trump seems to admire the Reagan playbook but for some reason is surrounding himself with advisers whose thinking on deterrence and war is as shallow as Ms. Gabbard’s video.

The larger truth is that the U.S. nuclear deterrent has been a force for peace in the world for 80 years. The world is the most volatile it’s been at least since the Cold War, and it’s a shame that Ms. Gabbard chose to slander those who disagree with her as elites who don’t mind a nuclear war because they “will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves.”

The real threat to the U.S. is an imperial China, a revanchist Russia, and a possibly nuclear Iran. If Ms. Gabbard believes what she said in that video, her advice to the President is the real risk of nuclear Armageddon.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tulsi-gabbard-nuclear-strategy-atomic-bomb-donald-trump-russia-iran-caa59264?mod=editorials_article_pos8

___

June 14 – The New York Times says antisemitism – despite its serious nature – is being excused by too many

The list of horrific antisemitic attacks in the United States keeps growing. Two weeks ago in Boulder, Colo., a man set fire to peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Israeli hostages. Less than two weeks earlier, a young couple was shot to death while leaving an event at the Jewish Museum in Washington. The previous month, an intruder scaled a fence outside the official residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and threw Molotov cocktails while Mr. Shapiro, his wife and children were asleep inside. In October, a 39-year-old Chicago resident was shot from behind while walking to synagogue.

The United States is experiencing its worst surge of anti-Jewish hate in many decades. Antisemitic hate crimes more than doubled between 2021 and 2023, according to the F.B.I., and appear to have risen further in 2024. On a per capita basis, Jews face far greater risks of being victims of hate crimes than members of any other demographic groups.

American Jews, who make up about 2 percent of the country’s population, are well aware of the threat. Some feel compelled to hide signs of their faith. Synagogues have hired more armed guards who greet worshipers, and Jewish schools have hired guards to protect children and teachers. A small industry of digital specialists combs social media looking for signs of potential attacks, and these specialists have helped law enforcement prevent several.

The response from much of the rest of American society has been insufficient. The upswing in antisemitism deserves outright condemnation. It has already killed people and maimed others, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor who was burned in Boulder. And history offers a grim lesson: An increase in antisemitism often accompanies a rise in other hateful violence and human rights violations. Societies that make excuses for attacks against one minority group rarely stop there.

Antisemitism is sometimes described as “the oldest hate.” It dates at least to ancient Greece and Egypt, where Jews were mocked for their differences and scapegoated for societal problems. A common trope is that Jews secretly control society and are to blame for its ills. The prejudice has continued through the Inquisition, Russian pogroms and the worst mass murder in history, the Holocaust, which led to the coining of a new term: genocide.

In modern times, many American Jews believed that the United States had left behind this tradition, with some reason. But as Conor Cruise O’Brien, an Irish writer and politician, noted, “Antisemitism is a light sleeper.” It tends to re-emerge when societies become polarized and people go looking for somebody to blame. This pattern helps explain why antisemitism began rising, first in Europe and then in the United States, in the 2010s, around the same time that politics coarsened. The anger pulsing through society has manifested itself through animosity toward Jews.

The political right, including President Trump, deserves substantial blame. Yes, he has led a government crackdown against antisemitism on college campuses, and that crackdown has caused colleges to become more serious about addressing the problem. But Mr. Trump has also used the subject as a pretext for his broader campaign against the independence of higher education. The combination risks turning antisemitism into yet another partisan issue, encouraging opponents to dismiss it as one of his invented realities.

Even worse, Mr. Trump had made it normal to hate, by using bigoted language about a range of groups, including immigrants, women and trans Americans. Since he entered the political scene, attacks on Asian, Black, Latino and L.G.B.T. Americans have spiked, according to the F.B.I. While he claims to deplore antisemitism, his actions tell a different story. He has dined with a Holocaust denier, and his Republican Party has nominated antisemites for elected offices, including governor of North Carolina. Mr. Trump himself praised as “very fine people” the attendees of a 2017 march in Charlottesville, Va., that featured the chant “Jews will not replace us.” On Jan. 6, 2021, at least one rioter attacking the Capitol screamed that he was looking for “the big Jew,” referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Mr. Schumer has said.

The problem extends to popular culture. Joe Rogan, the podcaster who endorsed Mr. Trump last year, has hosted Holocaust conspiracy theorists on his show. Mr. Rogan once said of Jews, “They run everything.” In the Trumpist right, antisemitism has a home.

It also has a home on the progressive left, and the bipartisan nature of the problem has helped make it distinct. Progressives reject many other forms of hate even as some tolerate antisemitism. College campuses, where Jewish students can face social ostracization, have become the clearest example. A decade ago, members of the student government at U.C.L.A. debated blocking a Jewish student from a leadership post, claiming that she might not be able to represent the entire community. In 2018, spray-painted swastikas appeared on walls at Columbia. At Baruch, Drexel and the University of Pittsburgh, activists have recently called for administrators to cut ties with or close Hillel groups, which support Jewish life. In a national survey by Eitan Hersh of Tufts University and Dahlia Lyss, college students who identified as liberal were more likely than either moderates or conservatives last year to say that they “avoid Jews because of their views.”

One explanation is that antisemitism has become conflated with the divisive politics of the current Israel-Hamas war. It is certainly true that criticism of the Israeli government is not the same thing as antisemitism. This editorial board has long defended Israel’s right to exist while also criticizing the government for its treatment of Palestinians. Since the current war began, we have abhorred the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of Gaza. Israel’s reflexive defenders are wrong, and they hurt their own cause when they equate all such arguments with antisemitism. But some Americans have gone too far in the other direction. They have engaged in whataboutism regarding anti-Jewish hate. They have failed to denounce antisemitism in the unequivocal ways that they properly denounce other bigotry.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years. “Americans generally have greater ability to identify Jew hatred when it comes from the hard right and less ability and comfort to call out Jew hatred when it comes from the hard left or radical Islamism,” said Rachel Fish, an adviser to Brandeis University’s Presidential Initiative on Antisemitism.

Consider the double standard that leads to a fixation on Israel’s human rights record and little campus activism about the records of China, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela or almost any other country. Consider how often left-leaning groups suggest that the world’s one Jewish state should not exist and express admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis – Iran-backed terrorist groups that brag about murdering Jews. Consider how often people use “Zionist” as a slur – an echo of Soviet propaganda from the Cold War – and call for the exclusion of Zionists from public spaces. The definition of a Zionist is somebody who supports the existence of Israel.

Historical comparisons can also be instructive. The period since Oct. 7, 2023, is hardly the first time that global events have contributed to a surge in hate crimes against a specific group. Asian Americans were the victims in 2020 and 2021 after the Covid pandemic began in China. Muslim Americans were the victims after Sept. 11, 2001. In those periods, a few fringe voices, largely on the far right, tried to justify the hate, but the response from much of American society was denunciation. President George W. Bush visited a mosque on Sept. 17, 2001, and proclaimed, “Islam is peace.” During Covid, displays of Asian allyship filled social media.

Recent experience has been different in a couple of ways. One, the attacks against Jews have been even more numerous and violent, as the F.B.I. data shows. Two, the condemnation has been quieter and at times tellingly agonized. University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia. Islamophobia, to be clear, is a real problem that deserves attention on its own. Yet antisemitism seems to be a rare type of bigotry that some intellectuals are uncomfortable rebuking without caveat. After the Sept. 11 attacks, they did not feel the need to rebuke both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Nor should they have. People should be able to denounce a growing form of hatred without ritually denouncing other forms.

Alarmingly, the antisemitic rhetoric of both the political right and the left has filtered into justifications for violence. But there has been an asymmetry in recognizing the connections. After a gunman murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, observers correctly noted that he had become radicalized partly through racist right-wing social media. There has been a similar phenomenon in some recent attacks, this time with the assailants using the language of the left.

The man who burned marchers in Colorado shouted “Free Palestine!” and (awkwardly) “End Zionist!” The man charged with killing the young Israeli Embassy workers in Washington last month is suspected of having posted an online manifesto titled “Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.” His supporters have since published a petition that includes “Globalize the Intifada.” The demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the right bore some responsibility for the Pittsburgh massacre; the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left bears some responsibility for the recent attacks.

Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem – and in many ways, a narrower one – than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.

No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.

ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/opinion/antisemitism-jewish-hate.html

___

June 15 – The Boston Globe says Elon Musk’s DOGE gets a failing grade

The political bromance between President Trump and Elon Musk may be over – or not! – but the damage done by the tech billionaire’s pet project, the Department of Government Efficiency, continues.

Billed as a tool to weed out government waste, fraud, and abuse, the agency – whose legality and constitutionality is still being challenged in court – failed in cutting even a fraction of the costs Musk promised, even by DOGE’s own often error-ridden calculations. And that says nothing of the human toll.

Here’s our DOGE report card.

1: The DOGE numbers don’t add up.

Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it’s not at all hard to see that it didn’t deliver what was promised.

After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department’s website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings – a recent CBS analysis found that only $70.9 billion was itemized on the department’s website.

But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE’s ” wall of receipts ” has found errors, including a claim of $8 billion in savings from the cancellation of a contract for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, when the contract was actually for $8 million.

DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a New York Times review still managed to spot more inconsistencies, including a claim of $1.9 billion in savings from the cancellation of an IRS contract that was actually terminated during the Biden administration.

And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn’t actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity – if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An April 29 report by the Partnership for Public Service estimated that the cost to Americans for the DOGE cuts amounted to $135 billion – either all but erasing DOGE savings or leading to a net loss for taxpayers, depending on who you ask.

And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative “rescissions” package to claw back previously approved funding.

House lawmakers expressed concerns to CNN about cuts to things like public media organizations and efforts to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS across the globe. If the bill fails or is reduced significantly, that’ll drive the actual savings from the department estimate even further down.

2: DOGE has roiled the job market.

According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Fox Business reports. More than 63,000 layoffs were announced in May, but even that was a drop from the DOGE-driven 105,441 lob losses the previous month.

Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That’s because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs’ often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, according to Axios.

One former FDA worker told The Washington Post: “They wanted to show they were gutting the government, but there was no thought about what parts might be worth keeping. Now it feels like it was all just a game to them.”

That’s not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts.

Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado – affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE’s harms know no partisanship.

3: The incalculable costs.

On Monday a federal district judge in New York ordered the Office of Personnel Management to temporarily stop giving DOGE broad access to its IT systems, holding that such actions likely “violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices.”

“This was a breach of law and of trust,” wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. “Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.”

Whether some or all of DOGE’s efforts to gain access to Americans’ most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Supreme Court allowed the department to continue accessing the information while that challenge moves forward.

According to a report by the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, even allowing DOGE employees “read-only” access to Americans’ data at federal agencies like the Social Security Administration, Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Veterans Administration is risky. That data can still be used to deny access to public services, housing, food, student financial assistance, veteran or military benefits, public contracts, and more, the report stated. Unauthorized copying of data can also lead to doxxing, or the information being sold to foreign entities or data brokers.

Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary “edit-access” to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system.

That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has reduced it to a single webpage with nearly all its staff placed on administrative leave.

The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to estimates by Oxfam, the loss of grants and other USAID funding will lead to 23 million children losing access to education, up to 95 million people losing access to basic health care, and upwards of 3 million preventable deaths each year. Shutting it down will also weaken American influence and diplomatic relations, while disrupting American farms and organizations that rely on USAID contracts.

Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can’t be undone. ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/15/opinion/doge-musk-trump/

___

June 13 – The Guardian says confusing US signals add to the peril of Israel’s attack on Iran

US presidents who thought they could easily restrain Benjamin Netanyahu have quickly learned their lesson. “Who’s the fucking superpower?” Bill Clinton reportedly exploded after his first meeting with the Israeli prime minister.

Did Donald Trump make the same mistake? The state department quickly declared that the devastating overnight Israeli attack on Iran – which killed key military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as striking its missile capacity and a nuclear enrichment site – was unilateral. Mr Trump had reportedly urged Mr Netanyahu to hold off in a call on Monday, pending US talks with Iran over its nuclear programme due this weekend. The suspicion is that Israel feared that a deal might be reached and wanted to strike first. But Israeli officials have briefed that they had a secret green light from the US, with Mr Trump only claiming to oppose it.

Iran, reeling from the attack but afraid of looking too weak to retaliate, is unlikely to believe that the US did not acquiesce to the offensive, if unenthusiastically. It might suit it better to pretend otherwise – in the short term, it is not clear what ability it has to hit back at Israel, never mind taking on the US. But Mr Trump has made that hard by threatening “even more brutal attacks” ahead, urging Iran to “make a deal, before there’s nothing left” and claiming that ” we knew everything “. Whether Israel really convinced Mr Trump that this was the way to cut a deal, or he is offering a post-hoc justification after being outflanked by Mr Netanyahu, may no longer matter.

Israel has become increasingly and dangerously confident of its ability to reshape the Middle East without pushing it over the brink. It believes that its previous pummellings of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s air defences have created a brief opportunity to destroy the existential threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme before it is too late. Russia is not about to ride to Tehran’s rescue, and while Gulf states don’t want instability, they are not distraught to see an old rival weakened.

But not least in the reckoning is surely that Mr Netanyahu, who survives politically through military action, only narrowly survived a Knesset vote this week. The government also faces mounting international condemnation over its war crimes in Gaza – though the US and others allow those crimes to continue. It is destroying the nation’s international reputation, yet may bolster domestic support through this campaign.

The obvious question is the future of a key Iranian enrichment site deep underground at Fordo, which many believe Israel could not destroy without US “bunker busters”. If Israel believes that taking out personnel and some infrastructure is sufficient to preclude Iran’s nuclear threat, that is a huge and perilous gamble. This attack may well trigger a rush to full nuclear-armed status by Tehran – and ultimately others – and risks spurring more desperate measures in the meantime. Surely more likely is that Israel hopes to draw in Washington, by persuading it that Iran is a paper tiger or baiting Tehran into attacking US targets.

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” Mr Trump claimed in his inaugural speech. Yet on Friday he said was not concerned about a regional war breaking out due to Israel’s strikes. Few will feel so sanguine. The current incoherence and incomprehensibility of US foreign policy fuels instability and risks drawing adversaries towards fateful miscalculations.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/13/the-guardian-view-on-israels-shock-attack-on-iran-confusing-us-signals-add-to-the-peril

___

June 14 – The Washington Post say Trump uses Americans as political props

No one needed President Donald Trump’s military parade, which just happened to take place on his birthday, to know that the United States’ fearsome armed forces deserve respect. Ostentatious muscle-flexing does not make America appear confident – particularly when there are questions about whom, exactly, it is meant to honor.

But if the parade had been the only spectacular interaction the president had with U.S. service members over the past week, the nation would have reason for relief. Instead, this was the week that Trump politicized the military, challenging the core principles of civilian-military relations.

The week began with his deployment of troops, including more than 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines, in response to protests of immigration raids in the Los Angeles area. The president stopped short of investing them with policing powers, but his decision to nationalize the California National Guard against the wishes of state officials was an unnecessary escalation. Though there was some violence associated with the protests, for which there is no excuse, the disorder was nothing beyond the capabilities of local law enforcement.

U.S. leaders should treat the deployment of federal troops to a major American city as a regrettable last resort. Yet Trump appeared to revel in the politics of his stunt, warring with California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on social media and portraying Los Angeles as a hellscape of “third-world lawlessness” that only military forces could pacify. Though the troops’ ostensible role was limited, images of armed soldiers accompanying immigration officers during raids and standing by as they detained people conveyed a political message about the president’s resolve to govern forcefully – even if those on the ground wish he wouldn’t.

Then, on Tuesday, Trump led what felt like a political rally with enlisted troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The event was supposed to be a customary presidential visit to boost morale among service members and to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary. Defense Department directives prohibit service members from participating in partisan activity. But Trump encouraged it. “Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don’t think so,” Trump said. MAGA merchandise was on sale at the site. The crowd booed loudly when Trump mentioned former president Joe Biden, the media, Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D).

Military officials circulated memos before the event that might have helped discourage the attendance of soldiers unlikely to favor such messages. “If any soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” the memo stated, according to Military.com.

Trump also used the Fort Bragg event to drag the military into another political battle, announcing that he would restore the names of seven Army bases that had originally honored Confederate leaders. The decision skirts the will of Congress, which in 2021 mandated a Defense Department commission to rebrand U.S. military installations then named for men who sought to end the Union. The Trump administration, in an attempt to deflect criticism, searched for obscure soldiers who shared the names of Confederate leaders to become the forts’ namesakes. Virginia’s Fort Lee, originally named after Confederate general Robert E. Lee, will now honor Fitz Lee, a Medal of Honor recipient from the Spanish-American War. All the same, it is a symbolic victory for Confederate apologists.

Civilian control of the military is a sacrosanct American value. To be sustainable, it requires the armed forces to salute any occupant of the presidency and refrain from serving the personal interests of a single commander in chief. It also helps when the commander in chief uses good judgment.

In the lead-up to Saturday’s military parade, Trump warned: “If there’s any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force.” At its inception, the fledgling Continental Army was cobbled together by George Washington to oppose a monarch who met colonial protests with “big force.” Those revolutionaries secured a democracy in which government leaders can abide dissent. The president ought to be celebrating with the military that this freedom persists today.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/14/military-parade-trump-los-angeles-fort-bragg/