In February 2022, Will Selber, a current contributor to Bulwark, was a Squadron Commander leading 240 Airmen and civilians conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations in support of five separate combatant commands, one of which was in Ukraine.

In an essay published today in Bulwark’s Morning Shots, Selber outlines how his unit had front-row seats to Russia’s unprovoked invasion and provided crucial intelligence to Ukraine that enabled it to “parry blows from Putin’s forces.” Selber writes:

While I cannot comment on the nature of this support, I can say it was incredibly helpful to our Ukrainian allies. America’s intelligence community has played a pivotal role in finding and fixing Russian forces and helping our Ukrainian allies launch devastating attacks. Without America’s intelligence community, which correctly predicted the invasion, Kyiv may have fallen.

I think it can be argued forcefully that there are three primary reasons why Russia failed to take Kyiv in those early days: Russian military incompetence, Ukraine’s military effectiveness and resourcefulness, and American intelligence.

Yesterday, in the administration’s continuing shakedown of Ukraine, President Trump ordered a stop to all intelligence sharing. This halt, resembling a classic Mafia protection scheme,  deprives Kyiv of a key tool in fighting Russian forces and was announced by Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe on, where else, the Fox Network. This latest move follows the administration stopping all “military aid” last week, as the Wall Street Journal reported.

Losing military and intelligence aid will cripple Ukraine and lead to many deaths, both civilian and military.

For example, last night, a Russian missile slammed into a hotel in Kryvyi Rih, in central Ukraine, the hometown of President Zelensky, killing at least four people and injuring more than 30 others, Ukrainian authorities said. One of the dead was an infant.

“Just before the attack, volunteers from a humanitarian organization — citizens of Ukraine, the United States, and the United Kingdom — had checked into the hotel,” President Zelensky said in a statement. “They survived because they managed to get down from their rooms in time.”

Officials in Kyiv have warned that Ukraine’s air defense capabilities would be among the first elements of its security to be compromised without American assistance.

And that is precisely what happened here.

Jon Gundersen is a retired senior foreign service officer who, following Ukraine’s independence in December 1991, had the distinction of opening the American Embassy there on 22 January 1992. He has taught national security affairs at the National Defense University, the Joint Special Operations Command, and the Foreign Service Institute. I asked him his thoughts about the Trump Administration cutting off all military and intelligence aid to Ukraine. He wrote back to me:

“On February 24, 2022,  Putin’s Russia attacked Ukraine; the attack was illegal, unprovoked, and brutal. For over three years, Ukrainian forces have fought valiantly against a numerically superior foe. Yet, Ukrainian President Zelensky did not ask for  American or NATO boots on the ground, merely the means to fight the aggressor. For the past three years, Washington and its NATO allies have provided military equipment, humanitarian aid, and intelligence to Ukraine. It is the least we can do. Ukraine is fighting our fight on their soil to defend democracy. Now, the Trump Administration is cutting off military aid and needed intelligence. This will cost Ukraine dearly; lives will be lost. Cui Bono? Only Putin will benefit. This is a dark day for Ukraine and our democracy.”

“Observe how he has made a breast out of his back.
In life he wished to see too far ahead of him,
And now he must crab backwards round this track.”
Dante Alighieri, The Inferno (Canto XX, Circle Eight – The Fortune Tellers and Diviners)

Watching and, God help me, listening to Donald Trump’s address to the nation last night, I was reminded of Dante’s special place in hell for those eternally condemned to eat their words.

If you sat down to watch the event and were ready for an address documenting the State of the Union, you were out of luck. Not one word was said about that.

The speech, lasting one hour and forty minutes, was fact-free, lie-filled, and offered nothing but a cruel, transactional future for America.

I think it’s the gleeful cruelty that bothers me the most. For example, as Russell Vought, director of the Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget and an architect of Project 2025, said in a speech in 2023: “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want them to feel trauma.”

Score one for them. There’s trauma aplenty.

Even now, Vought refuses to label his targets as anything but bureaucrats and the bureaucracy; he never mentions “workers,” which would humanize them.

Watching USAID employees sobbing outside the building where many of them worked for decades, seeing them frantically collect their office belongings because they’d been given a grand total of 15 minutes to do so, realizing the vanishing national security benefits of USAID’s soft-power initiatives in health care and education around the world, and viewing the complete dismantling of the nation’s foreign policy built up since the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s — all of this is heartbreaking.

However, it was indisputably apparent last night that neither Donald Trump nor his co-conspirators on the right side of the Chamber, as well as in the gallery, could care any less about any “trauma” in the disappearing workforce. The joy they all took in Trump lauding Elon Musk’s wood-chipper approach to remaking government was palpable — and disgusting.

An interesting point came when Trump acknowledged and celebrated Elon Musk as the head of DOGE. Last week, the administration’s lawyers argued in Court that Musk was simply an advisor and that someone named Amy Gleason, who happened to be vacationing in Mexico at the time, was, in fact, running DOGE.

My mother always advised me to avoid lies, because, “Lies will come back to haunt you, Tommy.” However, does anyone believe there will be any haunting here? Mom was always right — but in this case…?

Last night, Trump bragged, “We have done more in 43 days than any other administration in four years, even eight years.”

Mr. Trump, for once, I agree with you.

Meanwhile, over at the IRS

This morning, ProPublica is out with a deeply-researched story on the huge staffing cuts about to fall on the IRS.

According to ProPublica’s story, the IRS is drafting plans to cut its 90,000-person workforce by as much as half through a mix of layoffs, attrition, and incentivized buyouts, according to two people familiar with the situation. Six thousand have already been fired.

A reduction in force of that magnitude would render the IRS “dysfunctional,” said John Koskinen, a former IRS commissioner.

As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, congress approved $80 billion in new IRS funding, intended to support the troubled IRS crackdown on tax cheats and provide better service to taxpayers. A 2021 Treasury report estimated the IRS could hire 86,852 full-time employees over the course of a decade with that $80 billion investment.

For some reason I’ve never fully understood, Republicans were apoplectic about all this. They insinuated the IRS would use this funding to go after “hard-working Americans.”

In reality, the Treasury Report showed the IRS had been severely understaffed for at least a decade, and tax cheats were scoring big. In 2022, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told lawmakers that staffing had shrunk to 1970s levels and that the IRS would need to hire 52,000 people over the next six years just to maintain current staffing levels to replace those who retire or otherwise leave.

So, following enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS began hiring.

However, since Donald Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s DOGE has had the tax agency in its crosshairs.

Perhaps a pertinent question is: What does this mean for tax revenue?

According to the ProPublica story:

Unlike with other federal agencies, cutting the IRS means the government collects less money and finds fewer tax abuses. Economic studies have shown that for every dollar spent by the IRS, the agency returns between $5 and $12, depending on how much income the taxpayer declared. A 2024 report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that the IRS found savings of $13,000 for every additional hour spent auditing the tax returns of very wealthy taxpayers — a return on investment that “would leave Wall Street hedge fund managers drooling,” in the words of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Now, the stated purpose of DOGE is to find “fraud, waste, and abuse.” If that is so, something is crazy here. If that is not so….?

The tariffs have landed

At 12:01 a.m. this morning, Donald Trump launched a gratuitous and unwarranted trade war as his tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China took effect.

The move imposes 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports, though Trump limited the levy to 10% on Canadian energy. He also doubled the tariff he imposed last month on Chinese products to 20%.

The three countries are our biggest trade partners, and all three immediately retaliated, which is what happens in a trade war.

China retaliated with tariffs of up to 15% on a wide array of U.S. agricultural exports. It also expanded the number of U.S. companies subject to export controls and other restrictions by about two dozen.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country would impose tariffs on more than $100 billion of American goods over the course of the next 21 days.

In announcing Canada’s retaliation, Trudeau said, “Today the United States launched a trade war against Canada, their closest partner and ally, their closest friend. At the same time, they are talking about working positively with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying, murderous dictator. Make that make sense,”

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said Mexico will respond to the new tariffs with its own retaliatory tariffs, which she will delay announcing until Sunday at a public event in Mexico City’s central plaza. She told the press Mexico has “a plan B, C,and D” to counter Trump’s war.

Here at home in the nation that started this stupidity, Americans are either mildly in favor or decidedly against the measures depending on how pollsters ask the question.

If the question contains the assertion that tariffs will cause prices to rise, only 30% express favor; if the question references bringing back jobs to America, 49% are all for them. Of course, that means 51% are not.

Although there are some who question the imposition of tariffs, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress are supportive and believe their constituents would be willing to suffer the pain of higher prices to enable the President to carry out his agenda, whatever that is.

Please forgive me for suggesting these going-along-with-the-program Republicans are going along with the program out of fear of another kind of retaliation — the kind Donald Trump dishes out to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

These tariffs will hurt the American economy and cause prices to rise. Also, because of deeply rooted globalization, the rest of the world will feel the pinch, too.

Michael Klein was Chief Economist in the Office of International Affairs during the Obama Administration.  He is an expert in tariffs and a Professor of Economics at Tufts University. Professor Klein is also Founder and Executive Editor of Econofact,  a web-based publication of the Fletcher School at Tufts that publishes economic analyses by leading economists across the country. I asked him for his thoughts on Trump’s tariffs. He wrote:

“Tariffs are like sales taxes that raise prices for all affected goods but, unlike sales taxes, only earn revenue from some of the goods whose prices have risen (those that are imported).  Tariffs also invite retaliation, as happened in the first Trump administration and as is happening now.  The net effect of these broad-based tariffs is clearly negative and will not bring back jobs – in fact, they imperil jobs in companies that import inputs.”

Is there ever a justification for tariffs?

Maurice Obstfeld is another tariff expert and the former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund. He is also a professor of economics at UC Berkeley and a member of the Council of Economic Advisors. In an Econofact Chat with Professor Klein, Professor Obstfeld answered that question by saying:

There are remedies in which tariffs can be available when there’s a disruptive import surge that swamps certain industries, causing high levels of unemployment and leaving little time for the firms and the workers to adjust. So, in the realm of trade policy, there’s a recognized but limited role for tariffs, but tariffs as an industrial policy to bring back manufacturing, tariffs as a tool to increase our trade surplus, these are all unlikely to work, and likely to be destructive, especially when they’re met with retaliation from our trade partners.

Which is precisely what is happening today.

In tonight’s address to a joint session of Congress, it will be interesting to hear Donald Trump boast about what a wonderful thing he did for America today by creating a trade war with our closest allies, our geographic brother and sister. Among the other things he’ll lie about, he’ll give himself a big pat on the back for showing those loser countries just who’s boss. He might mention there could be a smidgen of sacrifice Americans will have to make to bring our friends to heel. But not to worry. It won’t be long, and it won’t be much. Everything will be just hunky-doree when they bend the knee.

And in just a few minutes, a team of weighty pigs will fly past my second-floor windows on their way to the land of Oz.

A word about Econofact

Although I have absolutely nothing to do with it, I have come to appreciate Econofact. In the new world order, where “alternative facts”¹ are alive and well, it can be hard to find intelligent, non-partisan, factual analysis of major issues facing us all. Econofact does that at a high level. The authors may not tell you things you want to hear, but their facts are true and backed up by solid research.

In addition to publishing noted economist authors, founder Michael Klein conducts what he calls Econofact Chats with leading economic luminaries. They peel the onion of economic issues, as he and Maurice Obstfeld did in their chat about tariffs I cited above.

However, Econofact is a non-profit and depends on donations. In a world of worthy causes, Econofact deserves your consideration, especially now, as the Trump administration obfuscates facts. For example, yesterday, the Atlanta Fed revised its estimate for Q1 2025 GDP growth from an expected +2.9% to –2.8%, after which Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick talked about revising the analytical method of determining growth. He seems to think if the administration doesn’t like the numbers, it should change the way it calculates them.

Right now, Econofact, which is free, is asking for help by creating a Premium subscription for $50 annually.

In addition to other exclusive benefits, Premium Subscribers will have access to monthly “Ask Me Anything” Webinars featuring prominent economists and economic analysts. If you’re an economics nerd, this should appeal.

I strongly urge you to subscribe to Econofact, and, if possible, as a Premium subscriber.

_________________

¹ The term “alternative facts” made its way into the culture when KellyAnne Conway, Senior Policy Advisor in Donald Trump’s first term, coined it while standing on the White House lawn, answering a question with a completely untrue statement, but calling it true as an alternative fact.

September, 1970

Let me tell you a story.

We call it, “going back to the world.” Home in the USA. And I’ve arrived in one piece. My new orders direct me to report to the Army’s Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. I know the place well. It’s where I was trained and Commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant. Then, it was on to Airborne and Ranger schools, followed by a fun-filled couple of years in the highlands of Vietnam. Now, back in the world, I’m a Captain with a family and a new job, which is to help train the next bunch of happy warriors. So, Marilyn and I make the long drive from Massachusetts to Georgia and settle into the house at 3660 Plantation Road in the sun-baked city of Columbus. It’s a nice neighborhood.

A few months after moving in, a new civilian worker shows up at my office in the Infantry School. His name’s Bob. He’s a GS12 research analyst, and I have no idea why he’s here, but he has a disability that makes it hard for him to walk or move even moderately weighted stuff. He’s rented a house in Columbus and is trying to figure out how to move his junk in. Marilyn and I offer to help.

So, on a sunny Saturday morning in the deep south, we get into Marilyn’s red Corvair Corsa convertible with the turbocharged engine and dual carburetors, show up at Bob’s new place, and find a UHaul truck in his driveway packed with everything he owns. We get to work toting box after box into the house and putting it all where Bob wants it to go. It’s taken us all morning, but around noon, we’re done, and we sit down on Bob’s new furniture to celebrate the end of Bob’s beginning. Marilyn’s never met Bob, whom I’ve charitably described as being “a little strange.”  So, being a curious person, she nicely asks about his life. This goes on for a while until the big moment.

The big moment is when Bob says to Marilyn, “Wanna see my hair-trigger Colt 45s?”

It’s like an E. F. Hutton commercial. Everything stops. I freeze for a second and then say, “Bob, do you really have hair-trigger Colt 45s?” He says, “Sure do. Two of ’em. They’re pearl-handled, too. Want to see?”

He’s asking a guy who’s just finished two years dodging bullets and other bad things in a spot where serious people really wanted to kill him and his men. To say I have developed a healthy respect for any kind of gun is not giving that phrase the value it needs. Having seen up close what they can do, the accidents that can happen, actually did happen, makes me scared to death of them. I’m not scared when they’re in my hands, but in somebody else’s who might not know what he’s doing?

I’m not scared yet, though, because Bob has yet to produce the firepower, but my tension level rises like a Goddard Rocket.

I look Bob dead in the eye and say, “Bob, please don’t get the 45s. Leave em’ right where they are. Marilyn and I have to be going now. Hope you like your new place.” And with that, we leave.

We get back into the red Corvair Corsa convertible with the turbocharged engine and dual carburetors and drive home. When we get to the house on Plantation Road, I pay the babysitter and look at Tammy, the two-year-old daughter I’m just getting to know. And I think about the pearl-handled, hair-trigger Colt 45s in Bob’s house.

February, 2025 

In 1970, slightly more than 50% of Americans, mostly men, owned a firearm. Bob was one of them, and he owned two (that I knew of). Since then, although the population has grown, the percentage of ownership has declined to about 40%. Still, Small Arms Survey researchers conclude there are now more than 400 million handguns and rifles in the country. Three percent of gun owners, super owners, own more than 50% of all firearms in the U.S. For the other 97%, the average ownership is three firearms, mostly handguns.

Femicide, abusive men killing their intimate partners, is five times more likely if the abuser has a handgun and lives with the victim. Research shows the number one contributing factor to femicide is unemployment. Potential femicide victims who do not live with their abuser and own a handgun are significantly less likely to be killed by their abuser.

In 70% of workplace shooting deaths, the perpetrator used a handgun. Despite the nation’s number of handguns doubling since the mid-1990s, workplace shootings have declined significantly since then, but the 70% figure still holds. In the last 50 years, there have been 50 workplace mass shootings with an average death count of six per event. According to Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who study mass shootings for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice: 

The perpetrators were almost exclusively men (94 percent) with an average age of 38 (the youngest was 19, the oldest was 66). More than three-quarters (77 percent) were blue-collar workers, and 53 percent had experienced a recent or traumatic change in work status before the shooting.

A University of Washington 2022 study discovered six million Americans carry a loaded handgun daily; nine million do so at least once a month.

In mass public shootings, the weapon du jour is the assault rifle. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15-style rifles exist in the U.S.

Regarding assault rifles, I know a thing or two. And I can say with complete certainty and a good deal of experiential credibility that there is not a single reason on God’s lovely earth why anyone other than police and my military brothers and sisters should have one, especially one with automatic fire capability. Anybody who tells you differently is chock full up to their eyeballs with what makes the grass grow green and tall.

The National Center for Health Statistics, a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, annually publishes National Vital Statistics Reports. One of those reports is about how we die. In Deaths: Final Data for 2019, (most recently analyzed data collection year), we note 38,355 deaths caused by firearms. Of those deaths, 23,941 were by suicide, 14,414 by homicide. Despite comprising 13.7% of the US population, non-Hispanic Black people were homicide victims in 57% of the cases.

Unfortunately, all the CDC can do is report the numbers. Why? Because a 1996 appropriations act contained something that has come to be known as the Dickey Amendment. That amendment prohibits the CDC from doing any research into gun violence. The amendment says federal funding cannot be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”

Until Donald Trump’s re-election, I believed that since more than 38,000 people die by gun violence per year, it wouldn’t be too much to ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to spend a few million of its $5 billion budget on research to analyze gun violence. Seemed a modest proposal to me. However, since Trump’s inauguration, that has become fairy-tale thinking. I now believe it likely Trump will prevent his unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., from reporting on deaths by firearms even if he wants to. Perhaps, if we ever again have an honest, thoughtful, Democracy-loving, compassionate person occupying the White House, this will change. At this point, a big “if.”

Now, I would not be an unhappy guy to wake up one morning to discover all firearms in the hands of civilians have gone *poof* in the night. We all know that will never happen. But as Peterson and Densley argue:

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensing, universal background checks, safe storage campaigns, and red-flag laws — measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Regarding Bob and his pearl-handled, hair-trigger Colt 45s? One evening in 1975, a bullet from one of them went straight through his head. Police labeled it an accident.

Knowing Bob, I did not believe that for one second.