What Motivates the President?

I am generally not one to believe in conspiracies.  I am also not naïve enough to believe they do not exist.  However, I am one who often asks “What if…” and then try to answer that question in some logical fashion using scientific fact, or evidence that leads to the truth.  I would imagine my thoughts come from a critical thinking skill I had to develop while being a classroom teacher and coach for many years. 
 
I have always thought actions of individuals should be honorable, without deceit, or without an ulterior purpose.  However, my mindset has changed.  I shifted my thoughts after an “off the cuff” conversation with an assistant superintendent of schools, and another from a former President of the United States.
 
While serving on a school committee, combing through candidates who had applied for the principalship at my school, an assistant superintendent of the district and I sat next to each other, discussing the topic at hand.  During one such meeting, the assistant superintendent looked at his watch and said he had to return to district office for another meeting.  I casually asked, what’s going on at district that is more important than the task at hand?  The answer startled me…it seems the district meeting was to determine (in the assistant superintendent’s own words) who the next “asshole” was going to be.
  
I asked why…what was the purpose of that meeting?  The explanation was simple and after I heard the explanation, things I had asked “What if” about became clear.  It seems the district strategy was to have an assistant superintendent create a “firestorm” that would draw the attention of the faculty of a very large school district, drawing the attention to that firestorm, so the district office could quietly achieve goals that may be interpreted as controversial.  I thought to myself that was one hell of a strategy.

With that in mind, I have now always looked past the “firestorm” and tried to ferret out the real reason for what was taking place.

The former President of the United States (who shall remain nameless because I do not want people to believe of my support for him) offered this quote and it struck a chord with me.  The quote was, “You can’t question a man’s judgment, but you can question his motivation”. 
 
To me, these two items can summarily put things into some sort of perspective regarding the current state of affairs with our national government.

So, while the attention of the voters in the United States is centered on what President Trump has, or is doing, and we can only surmise he has been called an “asshole” among various other names, what work is the government doing that goes unnoticed by the public?

Obviously, the purging of “illegal” immigrants is taking front stage along with the deployment of the National Guard to act as a police force in certain cities.  But what is going on behind the scenes…the scenes that no one notices because their attention is on deportation, the National Guard and President Trump?

And, using the quote from a former President, “…you can question his motivation”, what is the true objective of our government’s action? 
 
The Constitution of the United States created three separate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances to prevent one branch of the government from becoming all too powerful.  The Constitution also describes or enumerates powers to each branch of the government.  Obviously, the job of Congress is to create meaningful laws for the nation; the job of the President is to enforce those laws, and the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws to determine Constitutionality.

And just to provide clarity, any power not listed in the Constitution remains with, or is given to the states.

So why have I offered this commentary?  I have not arrived at any conclusion, just questions that can only be answered in a truthful manner by those who are in the know, otherwise known as the architects of Project 2025.

Questions like...

Why is deportation so important when the cause of the situation is a broken immigration policy, that did have a comprehensive bill before Congress (co-authored by Senator Lankford, who is considered to be one of the most conservative members of the Senate) yet killed by Presidential candidate Trump in January of 2024.  And, even after ALL undocumented citizens are deported…or when the present regime is gone from office, what will be the immigration policy of the United States, because there is no attempt at the present time to rectify the situation.

Why is the President of the United States hellbent on waging war on certain cities of the United States?  According to the local and state government officials, the President’s description of his “hellhole cities” is inaccurate.  The President has gone as far as to indicate he may invoke the “Insurrection Act”.  For the readers who may not know, the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the following:

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the US Armed Forces and the National Guard

1. when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state 

1. to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law or
2. to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights 

 
There is provision that provides a constitutional exception to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.  And, for even more clarity, “insurrection” is defined by the New Oxford Dictionary as “a violent uprising against an authority or government”.  

So, I must ask…what criteria is the President using to determine if any of the provisions of the Insurrection Act has been violated?  What is the President’s motivation?  And more importantly, what about the attack on the Capitol building on January 6th?  Wasn’t that an example of the definition of “insurrection”?

Why is this administration blowing up foreign boats in international waters claiming the boats were loaded with drugs from a Venezuelan cartel and carrying members of the notorious Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, without offering any kind of proof. Without any type of evidence, the President could be considered a “war criminal”. 

At the United Nations, Colombian President Gustavo Petro has requested a criminal investigation into U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration officials regarding several U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean in September and October 2025. Petro and other critics have condemned the attacks as unlawful and accused the Trump administration of killing poor civilians under the guise of attacking drug traffickers.  Petro did state that citizens on one of the boats destroyed were Colombian citizens and not members of the Tren de Arugua gang.

However,  The Trump administration claims it has the right to conduct the strikes, arguing it is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. It cites the drug gangs as "nonstate armed groups" and "designated terrorist organizations". It should be noted, the Biden administration labelled Tren de Aragua as a transnational criminal organization.  The U.S. government has also designated the Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. As it is, Tren de Arugua Gang members have been arrested in Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas and California. 
 
But the question that arises from this situation is centered around Trump’s assertion of “armed conflict”, which would indicate war.  If this is the case, and I don’t doubt it at all, why hasn’t the President gone to Congress and asked for a declaration of war on the designated terrorist groups, in particular, Tren de Arugua?  That is a Constitutional requirement of the President.
 
All of this takes me back to my assertion the only truth to be had is from the architects of Project 2025.
 
From Forbes:
 
Project 2025 proposes a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch, including eliminating some agencies entirely—like the Departments of Education and Homeland Security—and broadly replacing career civil servants with political appointees. The agenda is focused on strengthening the nuclear family and makes a number of recommendations that are broadly in line with policies Trump had already been pushing before the election, such as eliminating climate change and transgender rights efforts, barring the teaching of “critical race theory” and pulling out of international organizations that don’t serve the administration’s interests. It also went beyond Trump’s proposals, with calls to outlaw pornography, abolish all student loan forgiveness, impose baseline tax rates, overhauling the Federal Reserve through methods like taking away the government’s control over the nation’s money or returning to the gold standard, and using the Comstock Act to ban the mailing of abortion pills.

Trump disavowed Project 2025 and denied having any connection to it during the election, though he has a number of ties to the Heritage Foundation. Trump has praised the Heritage Foundation’s work in the past, and the organization has boasted that Trump followed many of its policy recommendations during his first presidential term. A majority of the policies he’s enacted have overlapped with policy suggestions made in Project 2025, including dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs; restricting immigration; pulling back federal spending and regulations; rescinding climate change mitigation policies; removing the U.S. from international organizations; sanctioning countries that don’t follow his immigration directives; thinning the ranks of career civil servants; dismantling transgender rights initiatives; suspending refugee admissions; vowing to use the death penalty and restoring members of the military who refused to follow COVID-19 vaccine mandates. 

He has not taken some of the more controversial steps proposed by Project 2025, but has also gone further than the policy agenda in other respects, like his executive order—now blocked in court—getting rid of birthright citizenship. 

So, what has the President done?  He has hired the following contributors of Project 2025.

Russell Vought: Trump nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget—his previous role in Trump’s first term.   Vought authored Project 2025’s chapter on the Executive Office of the President of the United States and reportedly spearheaded the project’s playbook for Trump’s first 180 days.
 
Peter Navarro: Trump’s former trade advisor—who recently got out of prison for being held in contempt—was named to serve as senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, which does not require Senate confirmation. Navarro authored a Project 2025 chapter on “the case for fair trade” that advocated for more restrictions on trade like the tariffs Trump has already proposed.
 
Paul Atkins: Trump’s pick to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, is listed as a contributor to Project 2025’s section on Federal Regulatory Agencies, which calls for broad reforms at the SEC that gets rid of regulations that the authors believe are “impediments” to companies’ success and opposing social justice, sustainability, diversity and other similar campaigns in the business world.
 
Brendan Carr: Trump’s pick to chair the Federal Communications Commission—who already served there as one of five lower-ranking commissioners and thus didn’t need Senate confirmation—authored Project 2025’s chapter on the FCC, in which he proposed reining in big tech and putting a bigger focus on national security.

Tom Homan: Trump’s “border czar,” who did not need Senate confirmation, returned to the Trump administration after previously serving as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and is listed as a contributor to Project 2025 and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, authoring a number of articles for the organization on immigration policy.  
 
Additionally, Homan has been the center of controversy when it was discovered he allegedly took a fifty-thousand-dollar bribe.  The FBI set up the sting after receiving information from an informant in an unrelated case that Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for promises of future government contracts if Donald Trump won the election.  The investigation into this crime has been dropped by the DOJ.

John Ratcliffe: Ratcliffe was confirmed as CIA director after the official previously served as Trump’s director of national intelligence; he’s credited as a contributor to Project 2025, with the agenda’s chapter on the intelligence community citing an interview with Ratcliffe about working in the first administration.

Monica Crowley: Crowley served as assistant secretary of the Treasury during Trump’s first term and contributed to Project 2025’s section on the Treasury Department, though she’s now serving as assistant secretary of state, with Trump saying her role will include serving as the administration’s representative for events like the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028.
 
Michael Anton: Trump picked Anton to be director of policy planning at the State Department, after Anton—formerly the spokesperson at the National Security Council—was listed as a contributor to Project 2025’s chapter on the Executive Office of the President.

And then there is Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy and the United States homeland security advisor since 2025.  Project 2025’s website also previously listed America First Legal, an organization run by incoming Trump policy chief Stephen Miller, as one of the groups involved with the project, but the group later removed its name from Project 2025’s website after Trump started criticizing the effort.  Miller also denied having anything to do with Project 2025.
 
So, my thoughts about all of this may very well be, President Trump is the center of attention by his conduct, but the real work of the government is being done by those in the shadows, namely his Project 2025 cronies.  While the attention of the public is on the President, the great division between the two parties in the political arena, the division and anger of the public as each side continually demonize the other…what is the motivation to allow this to happen?  Is the end game to center all of the governmental power in the executive branch, thereby dismantling the three separate, but equal branches of government?  Words and deeds seem to lead thoughts in that direction.  May heaven help us all if that were to happen.  That is the main reason this nation was formed…to get away from a strong, central figure at the head of a government, because tyranny will then promote itself, and only an uprising from the population will counter such a movement.
 
Jefferson thought so.  In the Declaration of Independence he wrote, “it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" a government that becomes destructive of their rights.
 
Let us hope it does not come to that.