Special Edition: Russia Is Eating Itself: The Slow Collapse of Putin's War State

Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 with the apparent expectation that it would be quick, decisive, and largely invisible to the Russian public. 

More than four years later, it has been none of those things. 

Donald Trump, is not far outside of this club.

What has emerged instead is a portrait of a regime slowly consuming itself: generals killed by car bombs in Moscow suburbs, a president hiding in bunkers along the Black Sea coast while state media runs pre-recorded footage to maintain the illusion of normalcy, and a security apparatus so fractured its chiefs are openly blaming each other in Kremlin meetings. The numbers below tell part of the story. The rest is told by the silence of Russian elites who have quietly stopped saying "we" when they talk about the war, and started saying "his."

 

MILITARY CASUALTIES

CSIS estimates Russian forces suffered nearly 1.2 million battlefield casualties, including killed, wounded, and missing, between February 2022 and December 2025, with roughly 415,000 in 2025 alone, at an average of nearly 35,000 per month. To put that in historical context, Russia has suffered roughly five times as many fatalities in Ukraine as in all Russian and Soviet wars combined between the end of World War II and the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Center for Strategic and International StudiesCenter for Strategic and International Studies

Russia's rate of advance since January 2024 has averaged between 15 and 70 meters per day in its most prominent offensives, slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century. Center for Strategic and International Studies

---

GENERALS KILLED

The deaths of 15 Russian generals have been officially confirmed. In December 2024, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Troops, was killed by a bomb in Moscow. In April 2025, Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik, a senior officer in the General Staff's Main Operational Directorate, was killed by a car bomb in a Moscow suburb. In December 2025, Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov, head of the Operational Training Directorate of the Russian General Staff, was killed in Moscow by another car bomb. In July 2025, a strike on the headquarters of the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade killed at least six officers, including the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Zona Media

---

PUTIN IN BUNKERS / HEIGHTENED SECURITY

The Kremlin has dramatically increased personal security around Putin, installing surveillance systems in the homes of close staffers, prompted by a wave of assassinations of top Russian military figures and fears of a coup. Cooks, bodyguards and photographers who work with the president are banned from traveling on public transport. Visitors to the Kremlin must be screened twice, and those working close to Putin can only use phones without internet access. CNN

Putin and his family have stopped visiting their residences in the Moscow region and in northwestern Valdai. He is now spending extended periods in bunkers, including in the Krasnodar area in southern Russia, while state media uses pre-recorded footage to project normality. i24NEWS

He has not visited a military facility in 2026 so far, despite regular trips in 2025. CNN

Intelligence reports indicate Putin fears not so much Ukrainian attacks as a conspiracy by Russian political elites. Sergei Shoigu, the former Defense Minister and current Security Council Secretary, is specifically associated with the risk of a coup attempt. UNN

At the Kremlin's May 9 Victory Day parade this year, no members of the State Duma were invited to Red Square, reportedly to reduce the number of people in close proximity to Putin. The Federal Protective Service has been given broad powers over information policy, personally approving any media appearances involving the president. Surveillance tools once used for criminal investigations have been redirected to monitor government officials. Militarnyi

---

INTERNAL SECURITY AGENCY CONFLICT

After the assassination of Sarvarov in December 2025, tensions between security agencies exploded during a meeting where Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov sharply criticized the FSB for failing to detect assassination plots. FSB Director Bortnikov responded by criticizing the Defense Ministry for lacking its own protection unit. Head of the National Guard Zolotov refused to allocate his agency's resources to protect Defense Ministry officers. Militarnyi

A former Kremlin insider noted that "a very big battle for power is going on" and that "the FSB and the administration are very much in conflict." HotAir

---

THE ECONOMIST: PUTIN LOSING HIS GRIP

An anonymous former senior Russian government official writing in The Economist described how senior officials, regional governors and businessmen have stopped using the first-person plural when talking about state actions. As recently as last spring, everything was "we" and "ours." Now they describe what is happening as "his" story, not "ours." His decisions are described as "strange." Even stranger, the author notes, is the fact that he decides anything at all. Substack

The author frames it as a political "zugzwang," the chess term for a position where every available move worsens your situation. He identifies four converging factors: the rising cost of a war designed to be invisible to most Russians; a new demand for rules among elites cut off from London courts and offshore vehicles; roughly 5 trillion rubles in private assets confiscated over three years, the largest redistribution of property since the 1990s privatizations; and a geopolitical climate that is eroding the specific asymmetries Russia historically exploited. Hvylya

The future, he writes, is no longer discussed as something Putin will decide, but as something that will unfold independently of him, and possibly already without him. Substack

---

ECONOMIC DETERIORATION

Russia's GDP contracted 1.8% in the first two months of 2026. Putin acknowledged the issue in a government meeting on economic affairs in mid-April. HotAir

Russia's economy shrank 0.3% between January and March 2026, the first contraction since early 2023. The public deficit ballooned to $60 billion in the same period, exceeding the full-year target. Inflation remains stuck near 6% under an interest rate of 14.5%. Euronews

Oil and gas revenues in 2025 came in at 8.7 trillion rubles, well below the planned 10.9 trillion. To compensate, the government has raised VAT from 20% to 22% starting January 2026, and utility bills are projected to jump another 13% in 2026, the highest increase since the war began. The Moscow Times

When ordinary Russians were asked in BBC interviews what they hoped for in 2026, a striking number answered with a single word: peace. Several said they no longer plan their lives months or years ahead. One summed up the mood: "Five years? If I look ahead 10 days, it's good." EUvsDisinfo

An anonymous former senior Russian official, writing recently in The Economist, reached for a chess metaphor to describe where Putin now stands: zugzwang, the position where every available move only worsens your situation. The war was supposed to preserve his power. Instead it has become the engine of its erosion. What comes next, no one inside Russia appears to know, including the people closest to him. That uncertainty, more than any battlefield statistic, may be the most significant development of the entire conflict.

I wish us all well...

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

How Republicans Inherited Booming Economies—Then Burned Them Down

The Pattern Is Now a Crisis

For decades, a troubling pattern has played out in American politics:

• A Democrat takes office during or after a Republican-triggered crisis, rebuilds the economy, restores international credibility, and delivers growth.

• Then a Republican wins power, slashes taxes for the rich, deregulates recklessly, and leaves chaos in their wake.

It happened with Clinton and Bush.
It happened with Obama and Trump 45.
And now, with Trump 47, it's happening again—only faster and more destructively than ever.

This isn't a partisan opinion. It's a historical trend backed by economic data, job reports, deficit figures, and market behavior. But what once looked like coincidence or misfortune has now hardened into a deliberate playbook. And the stakes have never been higher.

The Hand-Off: Boom to Bust, Over and Over Again

• Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a record budget surplus and a roaring economy. Bush delivered a recession, two endless wars, and the Great Recession.

• Barack Obama rebuilt from that ruin—saving the auto industry, stabilizing banks, and creating over 11 million jobs. He handed Trump 45 a solid recovery.

• Donald Trump destabilized everything. COVID denial, race-baiting, supply chain ignorance, trade war blunders. He handed Joe Biden a nation in triage.

• Biden, with competent governance, led one of the fastest economic recoveries in modern history—low unemployment, tamed inflation, and record investment in infrastructure and clean energy.

• And now? Trump 47 returned to power—and within months, he’s crashed markets, killed regulatory protections, destabilized alliances, gutted healthcare reforms, and unleashed Project 2025’s authoritarian agenda.

This is no longer a cycle. It’s a deliberate pattern of destruction and looting—and we must stop pretending otherwise.

---

How Republicans Will Try to Rewrite This (And How We Respond)

The GOP knows this record is damning. So here's how they’ll try to spin it—and what we say in return:

---

1. Blame Biden for Trump’s Wreckage

• Their Line: “The economy was already wrecked under Biden.”

• Reality: Biden handed Trump low inflation, rising wages, and record employment.

• Your Response: “Everything was trending up until Trump took the wheel—again. This crash has a driver.”

---

2. Distract With Culture Wars

• Their Line: “It’s not the economy, it’s the woke mob!”

• Reality: They’re picking fights with books, immigrants, and trans kids while billionaires plunder.

• Your Response: “Culture wars don’t pay your rent. The only thing Republicans are protecting is wealth at the top.”

---

3. Promise More Trickle-Down Nonsense

• Their Line: “Just wait! Tax cuts for the rich will help you soon.”

• Reality: Forty years of this scam has only widened the wealth gap.

• Your Response: “We’ve heard this con before. If trickle-down worked, we’d all be rich by now.”

---

4. Use the Stock Market as a Smokescreen

• Their Line: “The Dow is doing great, so quit whining.”

• Reality: Wall Street ≠ Main Street. One can rise while the other starves.

• Your Response: “The stock market isn't your grocery bill, your mortgage, or your health insurance.”

---

5. Lie Fast and Lie Loud

• Their Line: Anything. Everything. All at once.

• Reality: Flooding the zone with chaos keeps people numb.

• Your Response: “The timeline doesn’t lie. Facts don’t change because someone yells louder.”

---

So What Do We Do?

We draw the line. Reclaim the narrative. Name the sabotage. Here’s how:

1. Keep it simple:
   “Democrats build. Republicans loot. It’s happened three times in a row.”

2. Make it personal:
   “Are your wages rising? Is your healthcare safe? Are your kids secure?” If not—ask who changed the course.

3. Don’t bite on distractions:
   When they say “woke,” respond with “broke.”

4. Show receipts:
   Post the job numbers. Show the deficits. Name the policies that changed.

5. Talk about what matters:
   Your freedom. Your future. Your paycheck. Your rights.

---

The Bottom Line

We don’t have to wonder anymore what happens when Republicans inherit strong economies—they wreck them.
We don’t have to speculate how Trump governs—he’s showing us in real time.
And we don’t have to be polite about it. The cost of silence is collapse.

This time, we say it clearly: Trump didn’t inherit a broken system—he broke it. Again. And this time, the damage might be permanent. Unless we stop him.

---

Share the pattern. Fight the lie. Don’t let history repeat—again.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Undocumented Workers Are Funding Your Retirement—And Getting Screwed

 Watch “I wasn’t aware of that” on YouTube: 

​Against all MaGA/Trumpian toxic conservative disinformation, in 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed $96.7 billion into Social Security & Medicare, and they'll receive nothing. Really, just kinda screwing ourselves there. 

Same as we've done with migrant farmworkers?

Exactly—history repeating itself. Just like with farmworkers in the recent past, there’s a push to get undocumented workers out, only to realize too late that they were essential all along. The same thing would happen if they were removed from industries like construction, food service, and elder care. 

It's like shooting yourself in the foot and then wondering why you can’t walk.

​In 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed significantly to U.S. social programs:​

• Social Security: $25.7 billion​ 

• Medicare: $6.4 billion​

These contributions are part of the approximately $96.7 billion in total taxes paid by undocumented immigrants that year.

Despite these substantial payments, undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible to receive benefits from these programs. ​

These figures underscore the significant role undocumented immigrants play in supporting U.S. social insurance programs.

Yeah, it's a pretty ironic situation—undocumented workers pump billions into programs they can’t even benefit from, essentially subsidizing Social Security and Medicare for everyone else. If anything, the system relies on their contributions, but they’re demonized instead of acknowledged for it.

Is there a counter to that, because one assumes rationally speaking, there just isn't a reasonable counter to that

It’s really hard to argue against the fact that undocumented immigrants contribute billions to Social Security and Medicare without getting benefits in return. But the usual counterarguments tend to be emotional, ideological, or based on broader concerns rather than directly addressing this specific point. Here are the most common ones:

1. "They still use public services."

   • Some argue that undocumented immigrants use emergency healthcare, public schools, and infrastructure without paying their "fair share." However, studies show they pay into taxes at local, state, and federal levels while receiving fewer benefits than citizens.

2. "They drive down wages."

   • Critics claim undocumented workers undercut wages by accepting lower pay, making it harder for legal residents to compete. However, economists are divided on this, with some finding minimal impact on wages and others noting that undocumented labor fills jobs that many Americans avoid.

3. "They're here illegally—tax contributions don't justify breaking the law."

   • This is more of a moral/legal argument than an economic one. The idea is that even if they contribute, it doesn’t excuse their undocumented status. But this ignores the reality that many industries (agriculture, construction, hospitality) depend on undocumented labor.

4. "They send money abroad instead of reinvesting in the U.S."

   • Some critics point out that undocumented workers send remittances to their home countries, which doesn't help the U.S. economy. But this ignores the fact that they still spend money on rent, food, transportation, and taxes—stimulating local economies.

5. "They take jobs from Americans."

   • This claim assumes a zero-sum job market, which isn't how economies work. In many cases, undocumented workers take low-wage, physically demanding jobs that have persistent labor shortages, rather than positions most Americans are competing for.

The reality is that undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, and removing them would likely create serious financial strain on Social Security, Medicare, and multiple industries. The counterarguments tend to focus on legal or emotional perspectives rather than the hard numbers.

So, there it is. What is our mistake then in all this? Listening to Donald Trump, apparently. Electing him as POTUS45, realizing he's an autocrat destructive to America and democracy, and then, re-electing him to continue his damage to our country, now that he's more astute at our destruction.

When WILL we ever learn? Probably when we realize just how important education is and holding people in power to account.

Yeah, better be soon. Real soon...

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The War on Fair Taxes: How the Wealthy Rig the System at the Expense of Our Citizens

​As of March 2025, with Donald Trump serving as the 47th President of the United States, his administration has implemented policies that significantly impacted taxation and damaged our government and our most necessary social programs like social security, a: U.S. Federal Safety Net for Retirement, Disability, and Survivor Benefits.

Or skip all this for another more sane direction...Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder - "The Imperialism Has no Clothes: JD Vance in Greenland" His latest essay

One more...

‘Never been done’: Why Republicans might approve a budget whose numbers don’t match up

​Tax Policies:

• Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts: The administration has prioritized extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions from 2017. This extension is projected to decrease federal tax revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. While proponents argue this could lead to a 1.1% increase in long-run GDP, critics highlight concerns about escalating deficits and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the wealthiest Americans. ​Tax Foundation

• Corporate Tax Rate Reduction: Proposals have been made to further reduce the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to potentially 20% or even 15%, aiming to stimulate economic growth. However, such reductions may exacerbate income inequality and increase the federal deficit. ​Doeren Mayhew

Impact on Social Programs:

• Budget Cuts to Social Safety Nets: The administration's budget proposals have included significant cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts are intended to offset revenue losses from tax reductions but have raised concerns about increased hardship for low-income individuals and families. ​The New Yorker

• Social Security and Medicare: While President Trump has pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare, budgetary pressures from reduced tax revenues have led to discussions about potential reforms or cuts to these programs. Critics argue that the administration's involvement with initiatives like Project 2025, which aims at federal government reform, contradicts promises to safeguard these entitlements. ​The New Yorker

Economic Implications:

• Deficit and Debt Concerns: The combination of tax cuts and increased spending has contributed to a significant rise in the federal deficit, which has increased by 248% since the implementation of the 2017 tax cuts. This trajectory raises concerns about the sustainability of fiscal policies and potential long-term economic consequences. ​Axios

• Income Inequality: Analyses indicate that the benefits of the tax cuts have disproportionately favored the wealthiest individuals and corporations, potentially exacerbating income and wealth disparities in the United States. ​

President Trump's policies as of 2025 reflect a continuation and expansion of earlier tax reforms, emphasizing reductions that primarily benefit higher-income groups and corporations. These policies have significant implications for federal revenue, social programs, and economic inequality, prompting ongoing debate about their long-term impact on American society.

The toxic Christian right?

The Christian nationalist right has played a significant role in supporting Trump and shaping his policies, particularly those related to taxation, social programs, and government priorities. Their influence is rooted in a broader ideological goal of reshaping the U.S. government to align with their vision of a Christian-based nation.

How the Christian Nationalist Right Supports Trump’s Economic Agenda

1. Belief in Limited Government & Free Market Capitalism

   • Many Christian nationalists align with libertarian and conservative economic principles, advocating for lower taxes and deregulation.

   • They support Trump’s tax cuts and reductions in social welfare, believing government assistance should be replaced by church-based charity and private sector solutions.

2. Tying Capitalism to Christian Morality

   • Christian nationalist leaders often argue that wealth is a sign of divine blessing and that government redistribution (e.g., welfare, progressive taxation) is anti-Christian.

   • This belief justifies cutting social programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, while keeping tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

3. Backing Project 2025 & Government Restructuring

   • The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump term, is heavily influenced by Christian nationalist ideology.

   • It includes gutting federal agencies, reducing the administrative state, and cutting safety nets, all while increasing executive power.

   • Many of its architects, like Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, are Christian nationalists who advocate for a government centered on their interpretation of Christian values.

4. Culture War as a Distraction from Economic Policy

   • While pushing tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for social programs, Christian nationalist leaders focus public attention on issues like abortion bans, LGBTQ+ rights, and "anti-woke" policies.

   • This strategy diverts working-class and middle-class conservatives from noticing policies that economically harm them.

5. Strong Ties to Megachurches & Prosperity Gospel

   • Many evangelical megachurch pastors, such as Paula White and Franklin Graham, support Trump’s economic policies because they align with prosperity gospel teachings—the idea that wealth and success are signs of God's favor.

   • They push their followers to support Trump, portraying government assistance as a hindrance to self-reliance and faith-based solutions.

The Bigger Picture: Reshaping America

Christian nationalists view Trump as a vehicle to reshape the U.S. government into one that favors Christian dominance, enforces conservative social policies, and limits federal intervention in economic inequality. Their support helps justify tax cuts for the rich, reduced social programs, and deregulation, under the guise of religious and moral principles.

Doesn't it really come down to political priorities, power dynamics, and how narratives are shaped in public discourse?

1. Corporate Influence & Lobbying – Wealthy individuals and corporations spend vast amounts of money lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to ensure tax policies favor them. They have a direct hand in shaping laws that keep their tax rates low while cutting public benefits.

2. Trickle-Down Economics Myth – Since the Reagan era, there's been a persistent belief that lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy leads to economic growth that benefits everyone. Despite repeated failures, this idea keeps being pushed to justify tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest.

3. Deficit Scaremongering – When it comes to social programs like Social Security, Medicare, or infrastructure, politicians (usually on the right) suddenly become fiscal hawks, warning that the government can’t afford them. Yet, they have no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, which also increase deficits.

4. Media Framing – Corporate-owned media often downplays wealth inequality and shifts blame for economic problems onto the poor, immigrants, or government inefficiency—rather than on tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

5. Historical Context – During the mid-20th century, when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher (up to 90% under Eisenhower), the U.S. experienced economic stability, a thriving middle class, and major infrastructure projects. But since the neoliberal shift in the 1980s, tax cuts for the rich have contributed to skyrocketing inequality.

6. Manufactured Resentment – Some political forces work to pit middle-class and working-class Americans against each other, making them think that their tax dollars are being wasted on “undeserving” people rather than questioning why billionaires and corporations are dodging taxes.

Ultimately, the struggle isn’t just about taxation—it’s about power. The wealthy and corporations have the influence to shape policies that benefit them, while everyday people are told they need to sacrifice. But history shows that when the rich paid their fair share, society was much more stable

Right now, the imbalance in tax policy and spending priorities is a result of both political parties, though in different ways. Here’s a breakdown of who holds power and who enables this system:

1. Republican Party (GOP)

• The GOP has long pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that it spurs economic growth (the trickle-down economics argument).

• Under Trump (2017), Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%—a massive giveaway to the wealthy while ballooning the deficit.

• Republicans also frequently call for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets, claiming that the country can’t afford them—yet they never say the same about tax cuts for the rich or military spending.

• Project 2025 (pushed by the Heritage Foundation) outlines an extreme agenda that includes privatizing Social Security, gutting social programs, and expanding corporate power even further.

2. Democratic Party

• Democrats typically oppose direct cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not all of them are willing to push for higher taxes on the wealthy.

• Under Biden, there have been proposals to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations, but corporate-friendly Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin (WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) helped block major tax hikes.

• Many establishment Democrats take corporate donations and don’t push hard enough for reforms. They sometimes offer compromises rather than fighting aggressively for economic justice.

3. Corporate Lobbying & The Billionaire Class

• Big corporations (Amazon, Google, Exxon, etc.) and billionaires (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Charles Koch, etc.) fund political campaigns and lobby against tax increases.

• The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (2010) allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, meaning politicians are often more accountable to their donors than voters.

• Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity (backed by the Koch network) push for corporate-friendly policies and dismantling social programs.

4. Media & Misinformation

• Right-wing media (Fox News, The Daily Wire, etc.) convinces working-class people that tax cuts for the rich are good and that social programs are bad.

• Corporate-owned mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) rarely challenges the status quo because their owners benefit from the system.

So, Who is Allowing This?

• Republicans push for tax cuts and social program cuts directly.

• Corporate Democrats don’t fight hard enough to reverse it.

• Lobbyists and billionaires buy influence to keep tax policies in their favor.

• Media distracts people from the real issue.

What Can Be Done?

• Elect leaders who support taxing the wealthy and corporations fairly.

• Push for campaign finance reform (to reduce billionaire influence).

• Demand protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare, and safety nets.

• Fight against corporate-controlled think tanks and misinformation.

The good news? When people push back (like with recent strikes, protests, and voter initiatives), change can happen. The real question is: will enough people wake up to it before more damage is done?

Getting back to this mire of Church and State and who are the problematic individuals skewing America towards foolish beliefs and actions. Here are some key Christian nationalist leaders who have influenced Trump’s policies, particularly in taxation, social programs, and government restructuring:

1. Russell Vought – Architect of Government Cuts (Project 2025)

• Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump

• Played a major role in cutting social programs like Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), and housing assistance

• Now leads The Center for Renewing America, which pushes Christian nationalist policies, including shrinking the federal government and cutting safety nets

• Influence on Trump: Helped write Project 2025, which includes mass firings of civil servants and replacing them with Christian nationalist loyalists

2. Stephen Miller – Driving Cuts to Social Safety Nets

• Trump’s top policy advisor, known for shaping immigration and economic policies

• Pushed to reduce government spending on “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) while expanding tax cuts for corporations

• Helped craft policies that redirected government resources toward Christian nationalist priorities, like religious freedom exemptions for businesses

3. Paula White – Megachurch Pastor & “Prosperity Gospel” Influence

• Trump’s spiritual advisor, led White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative

• Promotes Prosperity Gospel, which teaches that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, justifying tax cuts for the rich

• Preached that government aid weakens faith, aligning with Trump’s efforts to cut social welfare

• Her influence helped Trump push policies that benefit corporate donors and megachurches, like tax breaks for religious institutions

4. Ralph Drollinger – Influencing Republican Lawmakers

• Runs Capitol Ministries, a Christian nationalist Bible study attended by Trump officials like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Betsy DeVos

• Advocates for eliminating social programs, arguing that the Bible opposes welfare

• Encourages Republican lawmakers to replace government safety nets with faith-based charity, helping justify Trump’s economic policies

5. Betsy DeVos – Pushing Religious Control Over Public Funding

• Trump’s Secretary of Education, known for trying to defund public education in favor of private Christian schools

• Part of Christian nationalist efforts to redirect government funds to religious institutions

• Worked to weaken worker protections and unions, aligning with Trump’s pro-corporate tax policies

6. Tony Perkins – Policy Influence Through the Family Research Council

• Leader of Family Research Council, a major Christian nationalist lobbying group

• Pushed for tax benefits for religious groups, aligning with Trump’s tax cuts

• Supports cutting social programs, arguing that government aid promotes “dependency” instead of Christian charity

7. The Heritage Foundation – Policy Arm of Christian Nationalism

• Think tank behind Project 2025, which outlines drastic changes to government under Trump

• Advocates for cutting taxes on the wealthy and eliminating social safety nets

• Supports Christian nationalist policies like mandatory Bible classes in schools and limiting LGBTQ+ rights

---

How This All Connects to Trump’s Policies

• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy → Justified by Prosperity Gospel & free-market Christian ideology

• Cutting Social Programs → Based on belief that churches should provide charity, not government

• Deregulation & Corporate Favoritism → Backed by megachurches and religious groups benefiting from tax breaks

• Expanding Religious Influence in Government → Using tax policy and executive power to redirect public funds toward Christian institutions

Stephen Miller, however, is not a Christian nationalist in the religious sense, but works closely with them and advances their policies because they align with his broader authoritarian, nationalist agenda.

Stephen Miller’s Role in Christian Nationalist Policies

• Miller is a hardline far-right nationalist, known primarily for anti-immigration policies like the Muslim ban and family separations.

• He collaborates with Christian nationalist groups because their vision of a hierarchical, theocratic government aligns with his goal of consolidating power.

• He supports cutting social safety nets because a weaker government benefits authoritarian control—fewer government services mean more economic desperation, which can be manipulated for political gain.

• While not religious himself, he weaponizes religious rhetoric (e.g., “protecting Christian values”) to push policies that benefit the wealthy and corporate elites.

So, while Miller isn't a true Christian nationalist, he's one of their most effective enablers, helping implement their agenda through economic and governmental restructuring.

Stephen Miller has long been associated with far-right, white nationalist, and eugenics-adjacent beliefs, though he avoids openly embracing the term "eugenics." His policies and rhetoric reflect a worldview that prioritizes racial hierarchy, demographic control, and exclusionary nationalism, often aligning with historical eugenics movements.

Miller’s Eugenics-Adjacent Beliefs & Policies

1. Hardline Immigration Policies Rooted in Racial Purity Ideology

• Miller designed Trump’s immigration policies to heavily restrict non-white immigration, reflecting beliefs similar to early 20th-century eugenics laws.

• He was the architect of the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the push to end birthright citizenship—all of which disproportionately targeted people of color.

• His policies echo the 1924 Immigration Act, which was influenced by eugenicists and sought to preserve the racial makeup of the U.S. by limiting immigration from non-Northern European countries.

2. Connections to White Nationalists & Eugenicists

• Leaked emails (2019) show Miller regularly cited and promoted white nationalist sources like VDARE and American Renaissance, which advocate for white racial superiority and demographic control.

• He pushed “great replacement” conspiracy theories, warning that immigration would “replace” white Americans—a claim often linked to eugenics-based fears of racial decline.

• Promoted The Camp of the Saints, a racist novel that portrays non-white immigrants as an invading force, mirroring eugenics-era fears of racial dilution.

3. Public Health & Eugenics Thinking

• During the COVID-19 pandemic, Miller’s faction opposed protections for marginalized communities, reinforcing a survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

• He supported policies that let the virus disproportionately kill disabled people, the elderly, and minorities, which aligns with past eugenicist views on “weeding out the weak.”

• Trump’s administration sabotaged asylum-seekers' medical screenings and proposed denying visas based on medical conditions, echoing past eugenics-based immigration policies.

4. Support for Christian Nationalist Demographic Goals

• While not religious himself, Miller works with Christian nationalists who advocate for higher birth rates among white Christians and restrictions on abortion and contraception.

• This aligns with historical eugenics movements that sought to increase white birthrates while limiting non-white reproduction.

• Groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 promote these demographic goals, which Miller supports through policy implementation.

Conclusion: Miller’s Eugenics-Driven Policy Influence

Stephen Miller isn’t a scientist pushing for sterilization programs, but his actions, rhetoric, and policy decisions align with historical eugenicist and white nationalist goals. He frames his policies in terms of national security and economic interests, but their impact is clear: restricting non-white populations, promoting racial purity, and reinforcing social hierarchies.

Let's be clear.

Isn't this all Donald Trump's doing.

The statement "This is all Donald Trump's doing" isn't entirely a lie, but it oversimplifies a much more complex situation. While Trump certainly played a central role in shaping and implementing policies during his presidency, especially in areas like immigration, tax cuts, and deregulation, many of the actions and ideologies associated with his administration were influenced by a range of people, organizations, and historical trends.

Here’s why it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s "all Trump’s doing":

1. The Role of Advisers & Political Networks

• Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, and other figures shaped Trump’s policies, often working behind the scenes or directly advising him on key issues.

• Miller, for instance, is a primary architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, but he also aligns with far-right and eugenics-adjacent ideologies, which Trump endorsed but did not fully craft himself.

• Think tanks and groups like the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council helped craft policies that Trump endorsed, but the foundations of those ideas existed before he took office.

2. The Influence of GOP Ideology & Historical Context

• Trump did not create the political ideologies of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, or anti-immigration stances. These ideas were long-standing Republican positions that Trump capitalized on.

• Christian nationalist groups existed and pushed these agendas before Trump, even in earlier Republican administrations. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s tax proposals had been in play for years.

3. Institutional Support

• Trump’s policies were supported and often pushed forward by Republican-controlled Congresses, especially early in his presidency. The tax cuts for corporations and cuts to social programs were pushed by Congress members aligned with Trump’s economic vision, but it wasn’t solely his agenda.

• Executive orders, which Trump issued frequently, were crafted with input from a wide range of advisers, but many stemmed from ideologies and agendas within the Republican establishment.

4. The Role of Political Activism

• Christian nationalist activists, evangelical groups, and far-right networks were pushing their vision of America as a Christian nation and restrictionist immigration policies long before Trump took office. Trump amplified their voices, but the foundational goals of these groups didn’t start with him.

Conclusion: Trump as the Figurehead, Not the Sole Author

While Trump was incredibly influential in pushing these agendas and gave a platform to these ideas, it would be misleading to say that everything—especially in terms of policy ideology—was entirely his doing. He was a vehicle for these forces rather than the sole originator.

Trump's current administration has faced rational and reasonable criticism for its rapid and amateurish policy implementations, leading to unintended consequences. For instance, the swift deportation of migrants resulted in logistical challenges, such as the return of Venezuelan women to Texas due to inadequate facilities in El Salvador. ​WSJ

Additionally, incidents like the "Chatgate" scandal, where confidential military plans were accidentally exposed, have raised concerns about the administration's competence in handling sensitive information. ​news

Furthermore, may observers, both domestic and international, have expressed alarm over actions perceived as steps toward authoritarianism, including undermining judicial independence and suppressing dissenting voices. ​The Guardian

In summary, while President Trump has secured a significant portion of public approval, his administration's policies and actions have sparked debate regarding their effectiveness and alignment with democratic principles.​

Finally, Donald Trump's childish beliefs in how the economy works have and continue to be damaging to the American economy and international relations. 

Tariffs were one of the most notable aspects of Donald Trump's economic policy during his presidency, and they remain a key topic in evaluating his impact on the U.S. economy and global trade. Here’s a breakdown of how tariffs were used and their effects:

1. The Trade War with China

• Trump’s Imposition of Tariffs on China: In 2018, Trump launched a trade war with China by imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. His goal was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China and address intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices.

• Retaliation: China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods, particularly agricultural products, which hurt American farmers. This caused significant disruption in global supply chains, especially in industries like technology, electronics, and steel.

• Phase One Deal: In January 2020, Trump signed a "Phase One" trade deal with China, where China agreed to buy more American goods. However, the tariffs largely remained in place.

2. Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum

• National Security Argument: Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing that foreign-made metals threatened U.S. national security. The tariffs were set at 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.

• Impact on Industry: While this benefited some domestic steel manufacturers, it led to higher prices for manufacturers that relied on foreign metal, including carmakers and electronics companies.

• Global Response: Several countries, including the EU, Canada, and Mexico, retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. These tariffs led to trade tensions but also created uncertainty for industries in the U.S. reliant on foreign materials.

3. The Impact on American Consumers

• Increased Prices: The tariffs generally led to higher prices for goods like electronics, clothing, and machinery. This had a direct impact on American consumers, especially lower- and middle-class households, which bore the brunt of rising prices on everyday items.

• Economic Disruption: Although Trump's administration claimed the tariffs were needed to protect U.S. jobs, economists suggested that the costs outweighed the benefits. In particular, industries dependent on global supply chains were adversely affected by the uncertainty created by the tariffs.

4. Trump's Justification for Tariffs

• America First: Trump argued that the tariffs were a way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and shift away from the globalist trade agreements that he believed harmed American workers.

• Trade Balance: The tariffs were also meant to reduce the trade deficit, particularly with China, and force foreign governments to open their markets more to American products.

5. Long-Term Effects

• Global Relations: The tariffs contributed to a decline in U.S. relationships with several major trading partners. Countries like the EU and China felt that the tariffs were economically harmful and politically motivated, leading to retaliatory measures.

• Industry Shifts: While some U.S. industries benefited from reduced competition (such as steel producers), other industries struggled with the added cost of imports.

• Consumer Costs: Many economists argue that the tariffs did little to reduce trade deficits or protect jobs, and instead raised prices for American consumers.

6. Legacy and Ongoing Debate

• Trump's tariffs remain a point of debate. Some argue that they were a necessary tool for reshaping trade relationships and protecting U.S. industry, while others contend they damaged the U.S. economy and exacerbated the economic strain on working-class Americans.

Overall, Donald Trump's presidency, particularly his second term as POTUS47 starting in 2025, is marked by a continuation of his “America First” agenda, focusing on nationalism, economic protectionism, and law and order. While his policies and leadership have drawn strong support from his base, they have also sparked significant controversy, both domestically and internationally.

Key Aspects of Trump's Presidency:

1. Economic Policies: Trump's economic approach was centered around reducing the trade deficit, protecting American jobs, and boosting domestic manufacturing. This included implementing tariffs on imports, especially from China, and prioritizing policies that favored U.S. businesses. However, these actions led to trade wars and higher consumer prices, and while some sectors benefitted, others, like agriculture, suffered.

2. Immigration and Border Security: Trump's administration focused heavily on immigration reform, including building a border wall, implementing strict immigration laws, and taking a tough stance on undocumented migrants. These policies were divisive, with his supporters arguing they were necessary for national security, while critics viewed them as inhumane and discriminatory.

3. Foreign Policy and International Relations: Trump’s approach to foreign policy emphasized national sovereignty and America’s interests over multilateral agreements. His decisions to pull out of global pacts like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, as well as his isolationist stance on international diplomacy, alienated many traditional U.S. allies. However, his policies did strengthen ties with right-wing and populist leaders.

4. Authoritarian Tendencies: Critics of Trump argue that his leadership style and certain actions, like undermining judicial independence and press freedoms, reflected a shift toward authoritarianism. His handling of protests, attacks on the media, and attempts to suppress dissent caused concern about the future of democratic norms in the U.S.

5. Public Support and Controversy: Trump's approval ratings, while higher among his base, have been polarized. His statements and actions on issues like race, gender, and immigration fueled division in the country. His supporters view him as a champion of American values and working-class interests, while detractors accuse him of exacerbating cultural divisions and undermining democratic institutions.

6. Social and Cultural Issues: Trump’s rhetoric on issues like LGBTQ rights, abortion, and reproductive freedoms often aligned with conservative Christian values, garnering support from the Christian nationalist right. His administration took steps to limit rights on these fronts, creating significant social tension.

7. The Role of the Christian Nationalist Right: Trump’s popularity among the Christian nationalist right can be attributed to his support for conservative social policies and his alignment with evangelical values. This group supported his stance on issues like abortion and religious freedom, making him a key figure in their political efforts.

8. Election and Second Term: Trump’s victory in the 2024 election (POTUS47) was highly contested, with his rhetoric and policies continuing to appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. However, his second term has been marked by continuing polarization, with some Americans questioning his fitness for office and the direction of his policies.

Summary:

Trump's presidency has been one of extreme contrasts and an ongoing nightmare for MOST American citizens and many others: minorities, immigrants, and even undocumented or illegal citizens. 

"A country is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens," often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi.

While Trump's policies were allegedly designed to revive American industry, secure borders, and prioritize U.S. interests, on the other hand, they have often and purposely led to economic disruptions, political instability, and divisions within the country. His leadership was shaped by populism and nationalism, with a strong base of support from his followers but harsh opposition from many others, especially in terms of his handling of social issues, global diplomacy, and domestic governance.

In conclusion, there is little confusion in that Donald Trump was quite obviously and objectively not only not the "best choice" for POTUS47, but the worst as a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser and career criminal. His presidency represents a divisive and polarizing period in American history, with lasting impacts on both domestic policy and international relations that may well take decades to heal from, both domestically and with our international security concerns and relationships.

Finally...

Russia benefited from a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy, a weakened NATO, and a less aggressive stance under Trump, allowing the Kremlin to expand its influence on the global stage. On the other hand, Trump's actions created both domestic challenges for the U.S. and increased global uncertainty, ultimately making Russia the bigger benefactor in the long run.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT