Is there any defense for the use of the Signal app to discuss war plans for the US military attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen March 15? The Trump White House so far has reacted primarily by attacking Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic for accepting an invite on Signal from national security advisor Mike Waltz to tune in for the planning on the messaging app, instead of holding the meeting in a sensitive compartmentalized information facility (SCIF) as is required for military actions that place our troops in harm’s way.

Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay has something to say about Signalgate in the right column. Whether you agree or disagree, whether from the right or left, we want to further this discussion. 

Join the debate by emailing your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news, and please, indicate your political leanings (which do not have to align with your opinion) in the subject line (e.g., “I lean left” or “I lean right”).

For more analysis and commentary, please visit our Substack page.

______
THURSDAY 3/27/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

In case you missed this from the official White House website:

“Democrats and their media allies have seemingly forgotten that President Donald J. Trump and his National Security team successfully killed terrorists who have targeted US troops and disrupted one of the most consequential shipping routes in the world. This is a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by President Trump and his administration to make America’s enemies pay and keep Americans safe.” (Emphasis not added by The Hustings. The White House evidently thinks you might miss it without it being put in bold face.)

Regarding what is now being called “Signalgate” there is no coordinated effort to distract anyone from anything. Well, maybe there’s the Team Trump attempts to distract at how horrible this situation is.

Never mind the administration officials’ use of a free, open-source app that you can get for your Apple or Android phone, was used for a group chat said to be including:

• Michael Waltz, national security advisor
• Pete Hegseth, secretary of defense
• Marco Rubio, secretary of state
• John Ratcliffe, CIA director
• JD Vance, vice president
• Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence
• Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff
• Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff
• Steve Witkoff, special envoy for the Middle East and Ukraine

Yes, we’re talking the Full Monty.

Oh, and of course, also in the group chat:

• Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic

Goldberg was a class act, hesitating to take the lid off this rancid mess.

But then Team Trump being Team Trump, what did they do?

Smear Goldberg.

Today, Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, called Goldberg an “anti-Trump hater” and that it is simply the “Signal hoax.”

That’s right: Providing information before the fact about an attack on “terrorists who have targeted U.S. troops” on an app is Goldberg’s fault.

Michael Waltz, who created the group for the chat and who included Goldberg, called the journalist “scum.”

Pete Hegseth typed in information prior to the attack not only about the equipment, but even the weather.

Yet he sluffs off any responsibility for doing something wrong.

The level of incompetence of these people is breathtaking.

And let’s not forget that US Attorney General Pam Bondi says that people who are vandalizing Teslas, Tesla chargers, or Tesla stores are committing acts of “domestic terrorism.”

Not only does this trivialize the charge of “terrorism,” but it is done for one reason only: Elon Musk.

Press Secretary Leavitt said on Fox News of Trump: “He will ensure that the harshest penalties are pursued for those who are engaging in this vicious violence.”

Do you think if someone took a crowbar to every windshield of vehicles parked in your local Ford dealer’s lot it would garner the attention of the president of the United States?

Clearly, being “mission critical” isn’t something that applies to Team Trump.

How is it they “keep Americans safe” by holding a group chat that provides specifics about an attack on real terrorists before the fact? Aren’t they putting the servicepeople who were flying the planes in danger by providing operational detail on the app?

Nobody is distracting anyone from this absolute cluster that occurred among most of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. government.

Trump called Waltz “a very good man.”

Perhaps he is. Perhaps he brushes twice daily, flosses, and goes to church every Sunday.

But Waltz is evidently a man who is in well over his head. And Hegseth preens and postures even though this whole situation is, to borrow a military term, FUBAR.

Which may be qualifications for serving on Team Trump.

Just imagine if this happened on Biden’s watch.

Trump would have broken the “caps lock” function on his phone banging out screeds on Truth Social.

On January 27 Trump signed an Executive Order related to the US military that reads, in part:

“Success in this existential mission requires a singular focus on developing the requisite warrior ethos, and the pursuit of military excellence cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”

The “pursuit of military excellence cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas.”

If all of the denials, obfuscations, coverups, and out-right lies being told about the Signal fiasco isn’t a political agenda that has consequences regarding our military excellence, then it is hard to know what is.

By the way, there is something called the “Federal Records Act,” which is codified in Title 44 of the United States Code. It is a law.

It is a law for the perseveration of federal records.

According to the National Archives, “Federal records have value by protecting the rights and interests of the public, holding officials accountable for their actions, and documenting our nation's history.”

“Holding officials accountable for their actions.”

One of the features of the Signal messaging app? “Disappearing messages.”

After a set time, all messages on the app can be automatically deleted.

Poof!

So do you think that group of individuals was using Signal rather than, say, WhatsApp because they think it sounds more serious?

Or because they’d like their messages to disappear?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings. His columns also appear on our Substack.

_____
THURSDAY 3/27/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

I went to New York City this week for a few days’ vacation. By the time I got back, Donald Trump’s Defense Department had stripped articles about the Holocaust and 9/11 from its website. His acting head of Social Security was threatening to shut down the agency that provides me and some 73 million others with monthly checks. And Trump had moved to dismantle the Department of Education, the source of programs ranging from educational support for public school students with disabilities to loans and grants for college students. 

There’s much more cutting and outright obliteration to come, of course. It seems to be the only certainty in American politics today. 

That’s why we all need to put aside the imprecise political definitions that too often serve to separate us from one another. Instead, we need to work together to restore the very foundations of our democracy.  I’m not interested in whether you define yourself as a liberal, a conservative or a libertarian. I don’t care whether you are a progressive, a moderate, or something else.  I do care whether you are serious about being pro-American – the kind of pro-American who believes in the constitutional, democratic form of government that has allowed the United States, with all its imperfections, to be a model for the world for many decades.

Do Not Ignore

If you embrace the Constitution, there’s no honest way to shrug as the Trump administration attempts to obliterate or rewrite history.  There’s no way to ignore the potential theft of Social Security benefits from recipients who saved them throughout a lifetime of work. There’s no way to stand silent as the government strips agency after agency of the capacity to provide basic national support, from predicting deadly storms to tracking the spread of disease.

It's true. There’s a difference between a threat and an action. When CNN reports that “articles about the Holocaust, September 11, cancer awareness, sexual assault and suicide prevention are among the tens of thousands either removed or flagged for removal from Pentagon websites,” the network is reporting on an action.

When, as The Washington Post reports, the acting head of the Social Security Administration is “consulting with the … Justice Department as he threatens to shut down the agency …. A dramatic move [that]… would immediately begin halting benefit payments to millions of Americans,” it is reporting on a threat.  A very sizable threat.

The pace of both actions and threats in the first two months of the Trump Administration is unprecedented.  Judges threatened with impeachment for doing their jobs in a co-equal branch of government, universities threatened with the loss of hundreds of millions in federal funds, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris stripped of their security clearances.

Is this the democracy you learned about in American history classes?  Is it the kind of America you want to live in?

“The president of the United States has essentially declared war on the rule of law in America,” former federal judge J. Michael Luttig told MSNBC (he’s a conservative if you insist on embracing labels). “In the past few weeks… the president himself has led a full-frontal assault on the Constitution.”

Steven Levitsky, a Harvard University political science professor and the co-author of How Democracies Die, put it this way in an interview with The New York Times.  “I’ve never seen anything like it…. These first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”

That is why in today’s United States there is only one political fault-line that carries overriding importance. On one side are those who believe in democracy and the Constitution in this country. On the other are those who actively or passively support their destruction.

None of us individually can stop what’s happening. Collectively, we stand a chance. I urge you to attend public forums, show up at congressional town hall meetings, find your way to one of the mass protests being planned across the country on April 5. 

And I urge you to speak out, not hide behind the illusory safety of silence. That just allows things to slide further and faster toward the abyss of unchallenged authoritarianism.

Contributing Pundit Jerry Lanson writes Jerry’s Substack.

_____
MONDAY 3/24/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

The pitch that defending democracy is a noble, non-partisan cause is a comforting tale, but it’s not the last word on the matter. Instead of uniting us, this slogan has become a partisan bludgeon, swung by one side to hammer the other. Look at the hysteria over Social Security: warnings of an "assault" on this retiree lifeline get paraded as evidence of democracy in peril. It’s a scare tactic, not a shared mission, showing how the concept gets twisted into a political weapon.

Take that claim head-on. Proposals to tweak Social Security—like adjusting eligibility or benefits—are spun as full-scale attacks, proof of democratic sabotage. Yet these ideas often aim to keep the program viable amid real pressures, like an aging workforce. If defending democracy were truly bipartisan, wouldn’t we debate fixes instead of shouting betrayal? The one-sided outrage betrays the game: it’s a rallying cry to energize one faction while branding opponents as threats, not a call for common ground.

The hypocrisy stretches further. When one camp decries election security laws as voter suppression, it’s a crisis of democratic values. When the other side calls out Big Tech censorship or executive overreach—like rules shoved through without Congress—the same voices shrug. If this were a neutral fight, both concerns would matter. Instead, "defending democracy" amplifies selective fears—Social Security today, something else tomorrow—to let one side play savior while painting rivals as villains.

The bias runs deep. The argument props up a "free" press and "independent" judiciary as democratic cornerstones, but a press skewed one way, as bias studies show, isn’t free—it’s a mouthpiece. A judiciary’s independence is a partisan tug-of-war, too, with every appointment a battle. When these institutions echo certain alarms, they’re not safeguarding democracy—they’re picking winners.

The "defend democracy" line assumes we all see it the same way. We don’t. Some view entitlements like Social Security as untouchable; others see reform as survival. Some push majority rule; others guard minority rights. These gaps don’t unite us—they fuel the fight. Democracy isn’t a holy grail to protect; it’s a ring where partisan armies, armed with overblown claims, slug it out.

This vision of a bipartisan defense of democracy is a delusion. It’s a catchphrase hijacked by those who gain from fearmongering, whether over cherished programs or other hot buttons. Unity starts with owning the messiness of democracy—not pretending it’s a saintly ideal we all agree to save.

Corbett writes on a variety of subjects at My Desultory Blog.

_____________________________________________

Has the US already descended into authoritarianism after barely more than two months of President Trump’s (and Elon Musk’s) rule? In the left column, contributing pundit Jerry Lanson makes the case for how we are now under authoritarian rule and why you should care – and fight back – no matter how you identify politically.

As always, we invite you to submit your civil comments on the issue, whether you are a pro-MAGA or anti-Trump conservative, a moderate or progressive liberal, a libertarian or populist, or anywhere in-between.

We are also interested in your comments if you have attended a town hall meeting with Republican elected leaders and/or a rally with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Please submit your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and indicate your political leanings in the subject line so that we may post those comments in the proper column.

Also be sure to read our free Substack here.

_____
MONDAY 3/24/25

Commentary by Hugh Hansen

How does one even consider Bidenomics vs. Trumponomics? There has not been much time for the new administration's actions to yield numbers, except numbers around sentiment and expectations (bad and down, primarily). It's unreasonable to use 45's results, since 47's personnel and stated goals (with the exception, natch, of extending his huge tax cut expiring later this year) are so different.

Forty-six -- President Biden -- was right to pick essential, strategic American interests for both protection and investment (e.g. the Chips program and green energy). He was wrong? Slow? Short-sighted? Allied with impractical people? Not to mate that with vigorous, targeted deregulation of both techie stuff like what it takes to make changes to the electrical grid, and maddening rules around new housing. Biden and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell rolled boxcars, maybe twice in a row, to bring inflation down without a recession.

Forty-seven and his people are now making noises about "detoxing" as a way to pre-gaslight the pain and damage, that there's a good chance their wild lurches of firings and tariffs will cause. 

I've known a lot of New Age sorts who would proclaim the body's wisdom and that anything that felt bad, was bad -- unless it was a sanctioned thing that felt bad, which could only mean that the bad feeling was necessary "detoxing". No toxins were found in, say, the sweat or urine or exhalations of the people feeling bad. Perhaps a Tesla pickup truck and a $Trump coin will protect the detoxing (former) recipients of Medicaid like crystals and algae powder did their ‘90s counterparts. 

Contributing Pundit Hugh Hansen is a retired physics and math teacher, living in Northern Michigan.

_____
FRIDAY 3/21/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

The economic visions of Donald Trump and Joe Biden stand in sharp contrast: Trump’s “Real Economy” emphasizes deregulation, energy independence, and tariffs to bolster American jobs, while Biden’s “Fake Economy” is roundly criticized for government expansion, deficit spending, and inflated metrics. As America awakens to month three of President Trump’s second term, stark differences between the two presidents highlight a pivotal debate over America’s economic future.

Trump 1.0 delivered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, slashing corporate taxes from 35% to 21%, driving investment and pushing unemployment to a 50-year low of 3.5% as of February 2020.

Energy policies fueled manufacturing and kept costs low. Trump 2.0 is doubling down with tariffs — proposing significant tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, China, and the European Union — aimed at leveling the playing field for US companies. This strategy incentivizes domestic hiring by making foreign goods costlier, with Trump claiming it will “bring back millions of American jobs” and shift revenue from foreign producers to the US Treasury. 

This is a “Real Economy” that makes its priority American workers, without wasting a single taxpayer dollar on DEI or green energy boondoggles.

The Biden administration pumped $1.9 trillion into the American Rescue Plan, driving inflation to 9.1% in June 2022 and swelling the national debt from $27.8 trillion in January 2021 to $36.2 trillion by January 2025 — an $8.4 trillion increase. Foreign aid soared and government jobs ballooned, including $80 billion to hire up to 87,000 IRS employees by 2031. By early 2025, the IRS workforce grew from 80,000 to over 100,000. The result of all this government spending: Inflation. It hit 9.1% in June 2022, eroding wages, while green energy mandates raised energy costs, creating a “Fake Economy” that gave away much of our economic strength.

Trump’s tariffs aim to reverse this by encouraging companies to expand and hire domestically. Biden’s defenders point to stock market gains and low unemployment, but skeptics see a mirage — sustained by borrowed billions and government bloat rather than private-sector strength. With economic pressures mounting, the clash between these diametrically opposed philosophies will be enlightening over the next couple of years.

Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett writes about a variety of subjects at My Desultory Blog.

_____
FRIDAY 3/21/25

Join the debate on the US economy under President Trump and his tariff policy by emailing your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news, and please, indicate your political leanings (which do not have to align with your opinion) in the subject line (e.g., “I lean left” or “I lean right”).

In Friday’s edition of The Hustings pro-Trump contributor Rich Corbett comments on never-Trumper Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s right-side columns on the Trump economy. Contributor Hugh Hansen comments in Friday’s left column.

Macaulay’s two recent commentaries are ‘It’s the Economy…” and “This is How to Make America Great Again?”

For more analysis and commentary, please visit our Substack page.

_____
THURSDAY 3/20/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

No one who is an American, I think, doesn’t want America to be great. There may be some question about the “Again” part.

But the inspirational, exceptional, excellent — who could quibble? But getting there takes more than just adding the word, “again.”

One of the things that is being great — at a personal or a national level — is doing something extraordinary. 

Let’s say that you become a great guitar player. It will be known that you are great because you are adding something to the history of guitar playing such that it is something that stands out in a way that is admirable.

From the point of view of a country, it is doing something that the populus can be proud of. This could be by creating systems that take care of the better part of the citizenry when it comes to health care and education.

Or it could be doing something that people are proud of, as in “We did that.”

Take the Hoover Dam, for example.

I don’t think you can see it and not feel impressed by the feat of engineering that went into it.

The dam was built during the Great Depression. The president at the time was Herbert Hoover.

He didn’t name it after himself like someone we are all familiar with probably would.

Rather, Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated it to Hoover.

Roosevelt was a Democrat. Hoover was a Republican.

Roosevelt didn’t spend time belittling and denigrating Hoover.

Imagine that.

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy made a speech to Congress that started the efforts to land a man on the Moon.

On September 12, 1962, he made the speech at Rice University and said the words that still ring with greatness:

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” 

Becoming great isn’t easy. It takes effort, whether it is practicing that guitar or educating and taking care of people or building dams.

Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon July 20, 1969.

When he landed, Richard M. Nixon, a Republican, was president.

When speaking of the achievement Nixon didn’t denigrate Kennedy, a Democrat.

But to bring this to today:

What is the Trump Administration doing to Make America Great Again?

Greatness isn’t achieved by firing thousands of people.

Greatness isn’t achieved by setting the Department of Justice after people you feel slighted you.

Greatness isn’t achieved by creating economic conditions that will put less buying power in people’s pockets.

Greatness isn’t achieved by antagonizing allies and cozying up to enemies.

So where’s the plan?

Where’s the vision?

Where’s something that the American people can be proud of?

This is one of the manifold problems today.

There is no plan.

He doesn’t even talk about building the “big, beautiful Wall” anymore.

Breaking things doesn’t lead to greatness.

Building things does.

Funny thing: when Trump wants to get away from Washington he generally goes to Mar-a-Lago, an estate built by Marjorie Merriweather Post between 1924 and 1927.

You’d think if he was such a great builder he’d be at one of his facilities.

In 2016, when Trump was still running for president, an architect named Doug Staker wrote an opinion piece for the highly respected architecture and design magazine Dezeen.

Staker wrote about what he called “Trumpitecture.”

In part the essay says:

“Trump has built his name on his special combination of blandness and opulence, with complete blindness toward anything that makes architecture with a capital A. Architecture is like a revered founding father. It can rise above its time and leave a lasting legacy. It marks a city for generations, and has the power to affect its environment in positive, memorable ways, to create an identity reflecting the values of those who interact with the environment it shapes.”

In other words, there’s no Greatness there.

If there is a legacy, it is likely to be ruin.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings. Read more of his commentaries on our Substack page.

_____
THURSDAY 3/20/25

Email editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line. Please note: We do not expect you to follow right/left or red/blue party lines with your comments, which is why we ask you to indicate whether you are left or right in the subject line. 

Contributors for our right column include Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay, a never-Trumper conservative, and Rich Corbett, a pro-MAGA conservative. 

Scroll down with the trackbar on the far right to read Macaulay’s “Trump Wants a Putin Victory” and “This is How to Make America Great Again?” commentaries. Contributor Sharon Lintner’s commentary, “About Those Tariffs” is in the left column, opposite a Macaulay column. Scroll further down for a variety of comments, including by Corbett, Macaulay and by Joe Lintner, on President Trump’s recent address to a joint session of Congress.

Email editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line. Please note: We do not expect you to follow right/left or red/blue party lines with your comments, which is why we ask you to indicate whether you are left or right in the subject line. 

For more civil political news and discussion, please be sure to visit our Substack page.

_____
MONDAY 3/17/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Remember the bad old days of Sleepy Joe Biden, the man who with his woke, communist, fascist, radical bunch created the worst economy in American history, the worst conditions in WORLD HISTORY — though we don’t care about the World outside our borders, which are now very, very strong borders--?! Horrible economy. Terrible. 

Unthinkable. That’s what everyone says.

Well it seems as though people — regular people who buy things like groceries and cars that aren’t Teslas (“I’m president. I want to pay full price.”) — are beginning to think maybe things weren’t so bad.

That is evident in numbers from the Survey of Consumers conducted by the University of Michigan.

The surveyed are asked about three categories:

• Index of Consumer Sentiment
• Current Economic Conditions
• Index of Consumer Expectations

So it is basically how they are feeling, how they are spending and how they anticipate things will be working out, economically speaking.

According to the preliminary numbers for March 2025, here’s how things look:

• Index of Consumer Sentiment:    57.9%
• Current Economic Conditions:    63.5%
• Index of Consumer Expectations: 54.2%

Now looking at those numbers you might be thinking: “Looks pretty good. All of them are above 50%.”

But then we go back in time to the numbers in March 2024, back in the days of the Biden debacle:

• Index of Consumer Sentiment:    79.4%
• Current Economic Conditions:    82.5%
• Index of Consumer Expectations: 77.4%

That’s right, declines of 27.1%, 23% and 30% from then until now — and we haven’t even started feeling the brunt of the tariffs. Is Trump ushering in an economic miracle or an economic debacle?

Joanne Hsu, Survey of Consumers Director, pointed out:

“Consumer sentiment slid another 11% this month, with declines seen consistently across all groups by age, education, income, wealth, political affiliations, and geographic regions.”

Yes, pretty much sounds like everyone.

Now some people might think that this is a distorted bad, very bad, twisted liberal agenda at play, Hsu pointed out:

“Despite their greater confidence following the election, Republicans posted a sizable 10% decline in their expectations index in March. For Independents and Democrats, the expectations index declined an even steeper 12 and 24%, respectively.”

One factor that is concerning all participants: Inflation.

The most recent number has an expected rate of inflation of 4.9%, “the highest reading since November 2022 and marking three consecutive months of unusually large increases of 0.5 percentage points or more.”

What’s more, looking at inflation expectations in the long run, it was 3.5% in February and is 3.9% in March, “the largest month-over-month increase seen since 1993.”

That’s during the days of Clinton.

The so-called “Golden Age” is apparently, so far as consumers are concerned, a Lead Balloon.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings. Read more of his commentaries on our Substack page.

_____
MONDAY 3/17/25