A Personal Perspective
When I published Recht ohne Gerechtigkeit (Law without Justice) by Bernd Schimmler1, a documentary recounting the workings of the Sondergerichte (Special Courts) in Nazi Germany, I never imagined that its themes would echo so strongly in today’s society. The book describes how individuals labeled as “criminals” or “traitors” to the Third Reich were prosecuted under a legal system designed to serve political power rather than justice.
Laws by themselves do not constitute justice. They are products of lawful or unlawful processes within any society, whether democratic, autocratic, or dictatorial. In Western democracies, constitutions are intended to safeguard against unlawful processes by establishing independent courts, including a high court empowered to interpret the constitution and ensure legality. Ideally, this structure ensures that laws comply with constitutional principles and allows courts to settle legal disputes through binding decisions. Yet even rulings from the highest courts do not inherently guarantee justice; they merely define what is lawful at a given moment, and they too can reflect political bias or shifts in public sentiment.
The rule of law, whether shaped by common law or codified statutes, holds that society is governed by legitimately created laws. It is one of democracy’s essential pillars, alongside free elections, independent institutions, and the state’s monopoly on legitimate force.
In political theory, democracies are often understood as systems formed through free, lawful, and unhindered elections in which no segment of society is discriminated against. Historically, however, voting rights have frequently excluded broad parts of the population: women, racial groups, residents of controlled territories, and young people below a certain age. Democracies are therefore not the pure “will of the people,” but rather the will of the eligible electorate in a specific moment, from which the executive branch derives its legitimacy and authority.
In the 1975 landmark ruling about the sovereignty of the Sioux nation after the Wounded Knee incident, Federal Judge Warren K. Urbom argued that the laws of the United States and acts of Congress superseded and restricted the sovereignty originally acknowledged in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty.2 Subsequently, Congress passed Act of February 28, 1877 which confiscated the Black Hills in violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Only in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the 5th Amendment and noted that “a more ripe and rank case of dishonor was never perpetrated upon a more helpless people.”3
Justice, however, cannot be defined solely by the existence or interpretation of laws. True justice rests on the application of laws grounded in fundamental human rights, protections for the vulnerable, and basic ethical principles. Justice is also relative: global conceptions of justice may differ significantly from local, national, or regional understandings, though all should consider the rule of law, human rights, and ethics.
Legal frameworks may even vary within a single nation. In the United States, for example, some states permit the use of marijuana while others prohibit it. Abortion laws also diverge dramatically: in certain states, patients and doctors may face criminal penalties, while in others the same actions are entirely legal. It remains a basic problem in all societies and/or nations where fundamental differences cannot simply be governed by democratic processes, but by fundamental human rights, moral understanding and the acceptance of individual decisions driven by religious or ethical beliefs such as the much-discussed issues of abortion, euthanasia or assisted reproduction. However, how can justice exist when identical actions are treated as crimes in one jurisdiction and lawful behavior in another? If morality breaks down, justice is reduced to the mere enforcement of statutes, meaning governments and courts can interpret laws in ways that enable injustice. This dynamic was evident in the Third Reich, where crimes against humanity were normalized and supported by a majority that followed a regime from democratic beginnings into profound inhumanity.
Today, we are witnessing a similar erosion of humanity in the United States under the second Trump administration (2025–). Disturbingly, many of the same tactics and communication strategies used in early Nazi Germany in the 1930s or in the Soviet Union under Stalin in 1927-1929 reappear, shaping public perception and guiding supporters toward dismantling the foundations of justice.
These tactics to solidify political power include:
- Creating an internal enemy by identifying groups of citizens as inferior and blaming them for societal problems. This offers followers a sense of righteousness while directing their resentment toward designated targets.
- Instilling fear to cultivate a desire for radical change.
- Spreading falsehoods and distorting facts to construct an alternative reality that fuels outrage. Repeating falsehoods becomes a primary propaganda tactic, eroding shared truth and weakening societal resilience.
- Attacking the free press as fake news, portraying journalists as partisan actors spreading misinformation, thereby sowing confusion and strengthening alternative narratives.
- Undermining courts and legal institutions by accusing them of corruption or illegitimacy whenever legal processes conflict with the interests of those in power.
- Attacking intellectuals and experts to neutralize dissent and suppress independent thought.
- Dismantling governmental and non-governmental organizations that do not align with political objectives.
- Promoting youth organizations or political groups within schools and universities to shape a new ideological order from the ground up.
- Manipulating electoral systems to suppress opposition and lay the groundwork for rigged or meaningless elections.
The political machinery has used these tactics to define its political ambitions and policy implementations. First used by Donald Trump and his early pundits, they were mostly repeated by his supporters and were not questioned, although basic common sense, ethical understanding and general politeness should have given restraint. Moral behavior that had been cultivated for decades was thrown overboard.
Why have the democratic institutions not withstood the move to injustice? Perhaps we find the reason in a highly polarized society, where 40-45% are core followers and 10-20% are swing voters which guarantees historically a marginal majority for either party manifesting a “dictatorship” of the majority. Coupled with a charismatic populistic leader who promises change to his followers, with a disdain for human rights, with a dislike for authorities outside his own control and with vengeance against anybody who stands against him, the society split into two camps: the supporters and the political enemy who needed to be “destroyed”. The longstanding American tradition to have a “President for all Americans” after each election is history.
The actions after the inauguration followed the playbook for creating a Trump First and America First country by expanding the conservative MAGA base and eroding the elements in all areas of society which were considered political enemies. A defining moment was the pardoning of those lawfully convicted for offenses related to the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation granting “full, complete and unconditional” pardons to most individuals convicted of offenses connected to the events at or near the U.S. Capitol, commuting the sentences of fourteen others to time served, directing the immediate release of imprisoned defendants covered by the order, and instructing the Attorney General to seek dismissal with prejudice of pending indictments for January 6 conduct.4
America First Policy
An America First policy is not new. Beginning in the 19th century, there was a policy meant to declare neutrality in conflicts and call for an isolationist approach in international diplomacy. America, under Wilson and later under Roosevelt, was forced into WWI and WWII despite an isolationist balance in the developing conflicts.
“Trump’s vision of America First repeats the errors of U.S. foreign policy before World War II. Trump tells an American public tired of foreign wars that the price of globalism is too high and takes aim at the sinews that bind the U.S. to its allies.”5 He questioned the current order in regard to treaties, alliances, and influences often characterized as “worst ever”, “failed” policies of his predecessors, only to propose new schemes under the mantle of re-industrializing the United States, and create revenue streams, investments or purchases of American goods and resources.
A hot topic is NATO. This post-WWII alliance is a defensive military organization founded in 1949 to counteract any aggression by the Soviet Union, its allies or any aggressor against any member state. If any member of NATO is attacked by a foreign nation, it is considered an attack on all members. The Soviet Union created its own alliance, the Warsaw Pact in 1955.
NATO is a defense organization and naturally the member states budget accordingly. In contrast to the United States, the NATO member states have no obligations to the defense and non-defense of Asia, the Middle East or any hot zones in the world. A thorough analysis is needed before simply comparing military budgets of the member states. Another argument against simplified comparison is the fact that building up American defensive positions in Europe is to isolate early conflicts to the territories of Europe as a shield to the American continent. A good example is/was the current debate on Greenland. It was stipulated that ownership of Greenland was essential to American security, and therefore not automatically essential for the defense of the NATO partners. The presence of the United States in Greenland had been reduced over time to just a few hundred military personnel. Under the current treaties between Denmark and the USA, there were no restrictions to build up US bases or create new ones, as long as the sovereignty of Denmark was not questioned. So, why the call for taking over Greenland?
Especially in the Cold War era the threat of conventional warfare (i.e. number of tanks) by the Warsaw Pact partners under the leadership of the Soviet Union made it essential for the United States to build a strong block of NATO allies with the support of US bases that were installed accordingly. Many countries participate in the costs of US bases by providing land, infrastructure or ongoing costs.
The public debate about NATO funding6, however, was mostly reduced to the national defense budgets, as introduced by Barack Obama in 2014. He said that the United States has the world’s largest military and that while “we don’t expect every country to duplicate exactly what we do.”
But “we can’t have a situation in which the United States is consistently spending over three percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on defense – much of that focused on Europe, (and) potentially more, if we end up having ongoing crises within Europe – and Europe is spending, let’s say, one percent. The gap becomes too large…. We need to make sure that everybody is doing their fair share.”7
Trump can be credited in bringing the funding issue into focus again, but the style and communication was not conducive to a real debate on what the defense needs to be. More driven by the Ukraine war, the NATO nations declared that they will build up their military to 5% of the GNP over the next years. After years of believing that Russia could be best contained by integrating them by economic and political interdependence, Europe realized that Russia cannot be (a) trusted and (b) driven by economic realities. Trump, on the other hand, displayed a very simple view. Accusing the other NATO countries of not paying their share to NATO, the United States had an excuse to not be committed to NATO anymore. Of course, the members have paid NATO according to their obligations, but they have not spent as much of their GNP as the United States. The reasons are more complex than a simple percentage. “You don’t pay your bills, you get no protection. It’s very simple,” Trump said at a campaign event in Conway, South Carolina.8 “Hundreds of billions of dollars came into NATO, and that’s why they have money.” […] “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”
There were no hundreds of billions of dollars distributed to NATO. The only money given to NATO, as an organization, is the membership dues and the budgets for joint operations, a small fraction of the amount mentioned.
Since the creation of NATO, the only time Article 5 was formally invoked was on October 2, 2001, after the attack on the World Trade Center by al-Qaeda.
Under the America First policy, the US administration sees NATO as an extended arm of the US foreign policy, which they can call on if they so desire. In case of rebuttal, the USA is turning on the partnership.
Diplomacy under America First
“Diplomacy can be an action, a skill, or a job. The skill of diplomacy uses tact, like choosing words that are friendly and polite when writing to other countries. People doing diplomacy as a job find solutions to a common problem between countries or put their country in a better strategic position among other countries.”9 It is the art of negotiation for the benefit of advancing a country’s policies. However, unlike Henry Kissinger, who believed that diplomacy is the art of restraining power10, Trump uses diplomacy in creating conflicts to achieve a different outcome. Often statements were accompanied by false statements, insults and overreaching demands.
No other American president (a superlative Trump always likes) has ever talked about annexing Canada as the 51st state of the United States. Publicly calling the Prime Minister of Canada “Governor” cannot even be characterized as a joke. It is a trademark of Donald Trump to minimize and call out his critics as the “worst”, “criminal”, “stupid” and in any way underperforming, which certainly is the opposite of diplomacy.
Any politicians who are not fully on the Trump agenda receive the same treatment. Although, most were not threatened with annexing their sovereign state. Denmark was not that fortunate in the conflict arising from the US demanding the transfer of sovereignty of Greenland. Under the America First policy, American interests trump (no pun intended) all interests of foreign nations. This manifests itself in the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
“After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets in our Hemisphere. This ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine is a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests.”11 Again, this policy declaration is based on “common sense” and American “security interests” and not existing international laws based on the sovereignty of nations. The gunboat diplomacy is back.
Diplomacy, in the original definition, is dead under the Trump administration and the trust lost will be hard to recover even for future presidents.
International AID under America First
In early 2025, the Elon Musk-led DOGE department executed a program to fight government waste and reduce costs and manpower by re-organizing agencies. One of the first victims was USAID.
USAID was founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy in an effort to combine different aid programs with the focus to fight any influence the Soviet Union was gaining during the Cold War. The agency underwent many changes in reflection of the various US Presidents’ political agenda in concert with Congress, who at the end of the day decided about funding and programs, while the president set the priorities for foreign policy and humanitarian goals.
In early 2025, USAID was practically shut down, and funds were frozen by roughly 80-90%. The personnel were largely dismissed, with the remaining workforce being absorbed by the State Department.
[…] ”The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries. […] It is the policy of the United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”12
The shift in policy was unusual, as it not only changed the political focus of the program, but dismantled the agency at the same time without creating a vision for a new agency. It is not a surprising shift considering the America First mantra, since relationships with other nations are now all measured by how the US will benefit. There’s no longer any passion for humanitarian aid or health improvement programs. This leaves the door open for other powers like China to step in and broaden their influence, which USAID was meant to counteract.
Eradicating DEI Policies
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wrote: “Harvard is woke. The War Department is not.”13 In the latest attack on Harvard University, he severed all academic ties and claimed that “Too many of our officers came back looking too much like Harvard — heads full of globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks.” Subsequently, bans were also declared on Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton and MIT.14
The term “woke” emerged as slang to denote being “awake” or alert to racial injustice. However, in the 2010s conservative commentators started to use it sarcastically. By 2019, conservatives started using the term to disparage leftists and progressives, basically re-defining the term to be used for political attacks.
In the traditionally defined sense of the slogan, Hegseth was fighting the status of being “awake” to social justice by wanting the military, which has always been defined as a non-political institution, as blind to social injustice.
Of course, Pete Hegseth is not acting alone. Immediately after the Trump inauguration, the administration started to fight the existence of DEI programs, which have grown to be part of most institutions, companies and organizations. They were a reaction to society’s inability to create the civil laws of equality. DEI programs put in safeguards to enable groups of genders or races to have a better chance to participate in all levels of society.15
This attack was in line with the Trump administration actions against Harvard University in early 2025. “The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government […]16 And it must do so to the satisfaction of the government. This was an attempt to negate the university’s independence and move from their principle of critical and informed minds to “simple and politically accepted” minds.
Harvard was not alone. Over 50 universities came under fire for the same reason, although the attacks were often accompanied with accusations of antisemitism, radicalized students and faculty members undermining the political environment in the United States.
Universities were not the only targets. Law firms that previously engaged in legal matters against Trump came under scrutiny like Susman Godfrey LLC and Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In these cases, the Trump administration revoked the security clearance, thus preventing the firms and others from engaging in government contracts.
“Susman itself engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race. For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.”17
“Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies […]”.18
Again, the tactic was to redefine the status quo and then use that against political opponents in order to achieve an elevated outcome. It is unclear if it was used to reduce research payments to universities or fees charged by lawyers, or done by political belief, ignorance or vengeance. The effect, however, was the shuttering of DEI programs in many organizations jumping on the bandwagon.
Furthermore, the administration did not only use the existing civil rights laws to fight political enemies but also used them to whitewash history to “educate” the children in their view of the world.
“Imprinting anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies on our Nation’s children not only violates longstanding anti-discrimination civil rights law in many cases but usurps basic parental authority. […]”19 What are anti-American, subversive, harmful and false ideologies? Especially the term “anti-American” can, and has been, used in any way the ruling elite wanted it to be used. It is not grounded in laws, unless you define the US constitution as the guiding principle of being American. On the contrary, it can be said that this term can be used to define “enemies” despite the existing laws. Free speech is only for the ruling group but hardly for the opposing group.
The Executive order cited, however, gives a definition for “Patriotic” education:
[…] “Patriotic education” means a presentation of the history of America grounded in: (i) an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America’s founding and foundational principles; (ii) a clear examination of how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history; (iii) the concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified; and (iv) the concept that celebration of America’s greatness and history is proper.”20 Consequently, the teaching of the opposite of the said definitions like selective rights to vote prior to the 19th Amendment21, slavery or the open discrimination of races including the genocide on the Native Americans, illegal military actions, internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII to name a few would be considered un-patriotic and therefore banned from teaching curriculums or public education.22
Immigrants and undocumented aliens
President Ronald Reagan expressed his passion and his view on immigrants during his last days in the White House on January 19, 1989. “We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”23
36 years later, the courageous Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, asked the newly inaugurated President Trump for mercy for immigrants and refugees. “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war and persecution in their own lands, to find compassion and welcome here.”24
Later in the night, Trump commented that the “so-called Bishop, a Radical Left hard line Trump hater” had brought “her church into the World of Politics in a very ungracious way.”25 Trump had his 2020 campaign focused on Immigration, which was mostly targeted against undocumented (“illegal”) immigrants who have come into the United States over the years. These approximately 14 million unlawful residents, who in most cases paid taxes, are known and beloved members in their community. In Trump’s mind, however, they were criminals who needed to be deported. Being undocumented does not constitute a crime but is a civil violation in case of unlawful presence, or for unlawful entry is considered a misdemeanor, only the repeated offense is a felony.
In his rhetoric Trump goes much further. For him, and his political friends, illegal immigrants are criminals who are rapists, murderers, and gang-members. He has said that other countries have emptied their prisons and mental asylums by sending the inmates over the border. Any violent acts by an undocumented person were highlighted to prove the point.
The strategy was to create fear in Americans and create a part of the society that had fewer rights and needed to be removed. It also created a convenient difference to compare to former administrations that “let in” violent criminals. The facts don’t support the rhetoric by the administration. In the few studies about crimes and arrests of undocumented aliens vs US citizens, the US citizens commit more crimes by a factor of two.26
The Fifth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”27 The Constitution and further interpretations by the Supreme Court are largely ignored by the administration’s efforts to deport as many undocumented aliens as possible without due process, claiming that the laws of the United States are being executed. Not unlike the hunt of unwanted tribes, races or religious groups in other countries, the United States Government took to unlawful practices while using tactics and methods that are attacks on humanity. Any defensive actions by the targets were quickly characterized as attacks on the police, which allowed for immediate arrest and categorized as domestic terrorism. The tactics deployed were not regular police procedures, which are well documented in police, FBI or DHS manuals, but para-military war-like attacks on civilians at random. Everyone encountered and targeted was considered “guilty” or “non-citizen” or “obstructing the work of ICE” until proven otherwise.
In the ICE surge in Minnesota, starting in November 2025 and winding down in February 2026, the world could witness what can be considered an attack on humanity. Masked, unidentifiable and military equipped groups of ICE agents broadly targeted people that fit the racial profile or were thought to be present in areas or buildings like court houses, schools, or venues protesting the procedures with civil unrest. Unidentified Federal agents from Homeland Security would attack, supposedly un-documented persons, random by-standers or protesters with a violence we have not seen in a democratic society, without restraint, without compassion, without mercy and with intent for bodily harm.
On January 13th, on the way to a 39th appointment at her medical center, Aliya Rahman, a US citizen by birth, ran into a traffic jam caused by federal officers without any option to bypass the blockage. Shortly after, her car was surrounded by agents. In her testimony to the US Congress on February 3rd, she said “Agents on all sides of my vehicle yelled conflicting threats and instructions that I could not process. Then the glass of the passenger-side window flew across my face. I yelled, ‘I’m disabled,’ and an agent said, ‘Too late.’” […] “I was carried face down through the street by my cuffed arms and legs while yelling that I had a brain injury and was disabled.” […] “Shooting pain went through my head, neck, and wrists when I hit the ground face first and people leaned on my back.” […] “I was never read my rights. I was never told I was under arrest. I was never charged with a crime.”28 No federal agent or agency was ever charged for this incident. The government has claimed immunity under the Supremacy Clause and any evidence was removed from the premises and State authorities could not bring charges.
Renee Good, a US citizen and mother of three, was killed by a federal agent in cold blood. During an ICE operation in Minneapolis on January 7th, 2026, her vehicle was surrounded by several agents, shouting at her to exit her vehicle, which was partially blocking traffic. While one agent was filming the scene, he walked around her vehicle, positioning himself at the left front of her SUV. With agents yelling at her and grabbing the door, she tried to turn her vehicle and move forward to drive away. The filming agent – seeing that she was leaving the scene and turning her wheel away from him – fired a shot through the front windshield. As she was turning, he fired two more shots in the side window and hit Renee Good in the head. Subsequently, he walked away from the scene, got into another car and was driven away. Reaction from the administration was immediate: “Good was a domestic terrorist who weaponized her car, ran over the agent who shot her in self-defense” The videos did not prove those statements and no charges were brought against the ICE agent to date.
Alex Pretti, a US citizen and ICU nurse, was killed on January 24, 2024, by federal agents. The incident occurred during a protest against the federal enforcement operation, when Pretti, who was initially filming federal officers, helped another protester who was pepper sprayed. Two officers approached Pretti at the street curb when he was bending down to pick up the other protester. He was still holding his cell phone. The agents tried to spray him as well by bending down and spraying into his eyes. The agents then grabbed him from behind and tried to subdue him. When they noticed that he was carrying a gun, one agent managed to remove the gun and left the scene, while the other officer, hearing the word “gun”, subsequently opened fire and shot him in the back. It was reported that 10 shots were fired. Immediate reaction from the administration: “he was a domestic terrorist who came to inflict maximum pain to ICE agents. It was self-defense.”. Again, the videos released show the true picture of events. No agents were charged. The administration said that “the agents were under administrative leave”.
These events are horrific examples of how the Trump administration militarized federal agents with a mandate that does not compare to police enforcement actions of city, municipal, state or even federal levels. The training manuals actually state to refrain from force, if suspects – and in this case they were not suspects – ran or drove away. “Law enforcement officers should avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.”29
Morals in Decline
The examples discussed have shown that a democratic society with strong laws, sophisticated legal frameworks, and powerful political institutions can fail under an immoral leader who is determined to dominate the populus and with that the whole society. The tactics were not new as we discussed earlier and the policies implemented with the new administration coming to power in 2025 were outlined quite openly in conservative playbook “Project 2025”.30 Despite the opposition of the democratic elements in the American society, the legal framework was used to enable the administration to drive new policies with the help of the US Supreme Court, individual judges, the House of Representatives and the US Senate. The sheer existence of these old institutions did not prevent the destruction of moral standards. And let’s not forget that key legal institutions like the US Justice Department and the FBI became bad actors of the Trump administration.
Even more surprising is the fact that a large part of people shed their thin layer of moral standards and justified every step of the destructive forces. In many instances, we heard the repetition of these untrue “facts” over and over again. I would never have believed that American society that had fought so hard to build the greatest democracy in the world, would abandon the very principles they had fought for. I was proven wrong. That said, the tide is turning and the Trump administration might not count on a majority of votes to stabilize the current system anymore.
Former President Barack Obama said in his speech at the opening of the Obama Presidential Center: “And it’s why the exhibits here focus not just on policies, but on the shared values that make democracy possible. A belief in the intrinsic dignity and worth of all people, and that no one is above the law or beneath its protection. A belief in checks and balances in our government, and an accountability that comes with it, an independent judiciary and robust free press. A belief that our military and law enforcement owe allegiance not to any president or political party, but to the people and our Constitution.”31
Our Heroes
For decades and especially after 9/11 the public has learned to treat police officers, firemen/firewomen, veterans, coast guard personnel, nurses and all others who serve the public even if their own lives are in danger as heroes. And rightly so. In 2025, the public’s trust in our heroes is tainted. There’s a growing distrust of those who are meant to protect because the government has used existing laws to break laws, ignoring the dignity of their own citizens and disrespecting any ethical behavior that is the foundation of the society under the Constitution.
We still have many heroes in this country. And they deserve to be celebrated, but ethics in domestic and international relations are under attack. It cannot be that the claim of America First, National Security, and biased politics can destroy the very fabrics of the society that have been built with so many sacrifices. We have seen in history where this approach ends. The actors of today will be judged in the future.
Even more, we have to point out injustices, false accusations, violations of law, attacks on the dignity of men and women and thus find the hero in ourselves.
1↑ Schimmler, Bernd: Recht ohne Gerechtigkeit, Wissenschaftlicher Autoren-Verlag, Berlin 1985
2↑ United States v. Consolidated Wounded Knee Cases, January 1975.
3↑ United States v. Sioux Nations of Indians, 448 U.S. 371, 1980.
4↑ Federal Register, Proclamation 10887 on January 20, 2021.
5↑ Cyrus Veeser, History Shows How Dangerous ‘America First’ Really Is, Time Magazine, Sep 10, 2024
6↑ A good overview of NATO finances and funding is provided by Ian Davis, NATO’s direct funding arrangements: Who decides and who pays? Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 7 June 2024
7↑ NBC News, March 27, 2014
8↑ Donald Trump: Conway, South Carolina, February 10, 2024.
9↑ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy
10↑ Attributed to Henry Kissinger
11↑ The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, December 5, 2025
12↑ Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid. White House. 20. January 2025.
13↑ Pete Hegseth on X, Feb 6, 2026
14↑ announced Feb. 27, 2026
15↑ It is fair to say that some DEI programs led to new unwanted reversed discriminations as discussed in the 1978 Supreme Court decision “Regents of the University of California v. Bakke” which should be subject to debates and change
16↑ Letter sent to Harvard University by General Service Administration, Department of Health and Department of Education, April 11, 2025.
17↑ Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey, Executive Order of April 9, 2025
18↑ Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss, Executive Order 14237 of March 14, 2025
19↑ Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025.
20↑ Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, Executive Order 14190 of January 29, 2025.
21↑ Women were allowed to vote nationwide with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. August 18, 1920.
22↑ “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, which directed the federal government to remove or revise Smithsonian content deemed to promote “improper, divisive, or partisan ideology” Executive Order (March 27, 2025.
23↑ Remarks Service Prayer to the Nation, January 21, 2025 at the Presentation Ceremony for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, White House, January 19, 1989.
24↑ Service Prayer to the Nation, January 21, 2025
25↑ Trump Social from Jan 21/22, 2025.
26↑ Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate lower than US-born Citizen Rate. National Institute of Justice (DOJ), September 2024.
27↑ United States Constitution, 5th Amendment adopted as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.
28↑ Aliya Rahman did give public testimony before members of Congress in Washington, D.C. on February 3, 2026, describing her ICE detention in Minneapolis. Her testimony can be heard on https://www.facebook.com/reel/729694203353732.
29↑ Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Update to the Department Policy of the Use of Force (Feb. 6, 2023) [Policy Statement 044-05 (Revision 1)]
30↑ “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”, The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C. 2023.
31↑ Barack Obama, Speech given at the opening of the Obama Presidential Center, Chicago, 18 June 2026.