Editorial Roundup: United States
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
May 31
The Washington Post says Trump, MAGA have a two-tiered justice system
A jury convicted Scott Jenkins, the disgraced ex-sheriff of Culpeper County in Virginia, of taking more than $75,000 in bribes in exchange for deputizing rich businessmen so they could get out of speeding tickets and carry guns without permits. Two undercover FBI agents who gave him envelopes of cash after he gave them badges testified at his trial. Luckily for Jenkins, he has long been an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump. On Monday, the day before he was due to report for his 10-year prison sentence, Trump pardoned him.
“No MAGA left behind,” tweeted Ed Martin, Trump’s new pardon attorney at the Justice Department, about Jenkins.
The spree continued Wednesday, as Trump pardoned 17 more people and commuted sentences for eight others. Many of these beneficiaries appeared to be supporters — or targets of political corruption probes. Michael Grimm, who served seven months in prison after pleading guilty to tax fraud, became the eighth former Republican congressman to be pardoned by Trump. Michael Harris (a.k.a. Harry-O), the Death Row Records co-founder who was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, endorsed Trump in October. He’s now free from what had been a potential life sentence. Imaad Zuberi, a major donor convicted of obstructing an investigation into Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee, got a commutation.
“ Freedom for Captives! ” Martin tweeted Wednesday.
This surge in pardons undermines the rule of law, nullifies the judgment of juries and sends a loud message that America has a two-tier system of justice — in which the politically connected are held to lower standards than everyone else. Even though many of those Trump pardoned had previously apologized for their criminal conduct, the president now says they were railroaded by the Justice Department.
Under the Constitution, the president’s ability to pardon federal crimes is absolute; no court can stop it. Trump used the power aggressively during his first term, but he has quadrupled down in his second, because he says he believes that the justice system was weaponized against him and that these beneficiaries have experienced something similar. Former president Joe Biden’s self-interested pardons of his own son and siblings gave Trump greater leeway by making it harder for Democrats to decry what, in all cases, have been plain abuses of the pardon prerogative.
Trump’s most egregious pardons remain the roughly 1,500 he issued on his first day back in office this year to nearly everyone involved in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. This included many who violently assaulted law enforcement officers.
The acts of clemency this week that received the most attention were for Julie and Todd Chrisley, who were convicted of conspiring to defraud community banks in the Atlanta area out of more than $30 million by submitting bogus loan documents to fund the luxury lifestyle they flaunted on their reality TV show. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the Chrisleys’ convictions.
But Savannah Chrisley, the couple’s daughter, befriended the president’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump and got a prime-time speaking slot at last summer’s Republican National Convention, where she suggested that her parents were targeted in Fulton County, Georgia, because of their support for the GOP standard-bearer. Trump was facing local charges for election interferencein Fulton County, and her implication was that the cases were related. In fact, the person who brought the case against the Chrisleys was a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney. Notably, Trump did not pardon the family’s accountant, Peter Tarantino, who was convicted alongside the Chrisleys, which indicates that the president doesn’t actually think the underlying case was flawed.
To be sure, Trump is not the first president to abuse the clemency power. Bill Clinton, on his final day in office, infamously pardoned Marc Rich, whose ex-wife was a major Democratic fundraiser. But Trump’s way of going about it is uniquely blatant.
On Tuesday, Kenneth P. Vogel of the New York Times reported that Trump’s pardon last month of nursing home executive Paul Walczak came less than three weeks after Walczak’s mother attended a $1-million-a-head Trump fundraiser. His official pardon application even cited his mom’s pro-Trump activities. These had nothing to do with the tax crimes for which Walczak was convicted, which included defrauding his own employees. But the timing of Trump’s pardon spared Walczak from paying $4.4 million in restitution and going to prison for 18 months.
The judge had said when he handed down Walczak’s sentence that the rich do not get “a get-out-of-jail-free card.” Alas, apparently some do. The regrettable message here is that Trump is open for business and that, for Trump donors with loved ones in trouble, the potential return on investment is high.
ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/31/trump-pardons-maga-supporters/
___
May 29
The New York Times says Putin wins if Trump walks away from Ukraine
For all the disarray and unfairness of President Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine, he is right about a few big things. He is right that the war’s continuing human carnage is a tragedy, given the unlikelihood of a military breakthrough for either side after more than three years of fighting. He is right that ending the war could open the way to economic development in both Ukraine and Russia and help the global economy, too. And he is right to be frustrated with President Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and recent acceleration of bombing in Ukraine.
But Mr. Trump would be profoundly wrong to walk away from cease-fire talks, as he keeps threatening to do.
An American withdrawal would only encourage a new military push by Mr. Putin, who has staked his authoritarian rule on bringing Ukraine to heel and seizing its territory. Nor would Ukraine surrender. It has developed ways to hold back Russian forces, including through a domestic defense industry that may produce a few million drones this year. Other European powers, including Britain, Germany and France, will also continue to support Ukraine.
Rather than walk away, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to increase the pressure on Russia and Ukraine to agree to a deal. In the past few days, he has even shown signs of doing so (hard as it is to know when his words reflect his intentions). He said on Wednesday that he was “not happy” with Mr. Putin’s recent attacks on Ukraine and said on Monday that he was “absolutely” considering new economic sanctions on Russia.
Both sides have reasons to consider a truce. Ukraine has continued to lose territory, while Russia’s progress has been extremely costly in terms of casualties and destroyed equipment. Over the past year, Russia has gained only about 0.6 percent of Ukraine’s territory, and hundreds of thousands of its soldiers have been wounded or killed, The Washington Post reported. That is not a sustainable ratio.
The outlines of a likely deal are clear enough. Russia would keep territory that it controls in Ukraine’s east and south, including the Crimean Peninsula. It would also receive promises from the West to lift economic sanctions and not to admit Ukraine to NATO. For Ukraine, the West could commit to military and economic support if Russia attacks again and, more immediately, to integrate Ukraine even more closely into the European economy. Ukraine’s resilient, talented population would then have an opportunity to thrive.
These trade-offs would not be pleasant. Mr. Putin’s attack on a democratic neighbor would be rewarded with the acquisition of territory. Yet battlefield results dictate their own reality. Once Western European nations and the United States decided not to send their citizens to fight for Ukraine — an understandable choice — Russia was guaranteed to make gains against its much smaller neighbor. Even so, Ukraine’s resolve has been heroic, and it has prevented Mr. Putin from the sweeping victory most military analysts predicted when the invasion began in February 2022.
We have many objections to Mr. Trump’s Ukraine policy. He has echoed Mr. Putin’s lie that Ukraine started the war, and Mr. Trump humiliated President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in the Oval Office. “The policy since the beginning of the Trump administration has been to put pressure on the victim, Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia,” Bridget Brink, who resigned as U.S. ambassador to Kyiv last month, recently wrote. Ultimately, though, Mr. Trump does not appear to be a committed Putin ally. He just does not seem to care much what happens in Ukraine. He wants the United States to stop paying for billions of dollars’ worth of military aid. Above all, he wants to look personally strong and successful.
Events have presented him with a chance to achieve that outcome. The key step is to demonstrate resolve against Mr. Putin. After more than a quarter-century in power, the Russian leader has come to believe, with some cause, that he can outfox or outlast American presidents. And Mr. Trump has been, by far, the friendliest president toward him. Absent a show of strength from the United States now, Mr. Putin will rationally assume weakness. He will assume that a more expansive victory awaits him in Ukraine.
From the outset, the Russian president has believed that the world’s democracies were too soft to stay committed to Ukraine. He has staked the outcome of his war on driving a wedge between the United States and Europe — and America losing interest. Neither should happen. On the contrary, Mr. Trump has ways to ratchet up the cost of continued fighting for Russia and support Ukraine.
He has already won Ukraine’s agreement to mine its mineral resources, and he can accelerate the delivery of promised American military supplies. He can impose new sanctions on Russia, as he has threatened. Several Republican senators — including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Charles Grassley of Iowa — support new sanctions. “Putin, in my view, is playing us all,” Mr. Graham said recently. Another option is to persuade the European Union to give Ukraine about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. Germany announced new support for Ukraine this week. “Nothing less than the peaceful order of our entire continent is at stake,” Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said.
Whatever the specifics, the goal should be to make Mr. Putin understand that Mr. Trump and European leaders will not abandon Ukraine. The war will remain a slog in which Russia gains small amounts of territory at a very high price.
Mr. Trump likes to cite the ancient military principle of peace through strength. Ronald Reagan popularized the idea in modern times, and he used it to great effect against the Soviet empire that shaped Mr. Putin’s approach to power. Mr. Trump now has an opportunity to display strength and push Russia and Ukraine toward a settlement that would allow him to claim success and, far more important, end this gruesome war.
It would not be the outright defeat that Russia deserves. It would not be a victory, however. Mr. Putin set out to conquer Ukraine and install a puppet government, and he has failed. Instead, Ukraine’s young democracy has survived and sent a message to other would-be conquerors: Wars of aggression rarely result in the thorough victories that aggressors like to imagine.
ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/opinion/trump-ukraine-russia-ceasefire.html
___
June 1
The Wall Street Journal on the effects of Trump’s tariffs on steel users, including auto makers
The best that can be said about President Trump’s blessing of Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel is that it blocks Cleveland-Cliffs’ political power play to buy U.S. Steel instead. The worst to be said is that the purchase has become another opening to make U.S. companies less competitive with higher tariff walls on foreign steel.
Mr. Trump on Friday held a rally in Pennsylvania to take credit for the Nippon Steel takeover he is finally approving. He announced a consolation prize to United Steelworkers boss David McCall, who had opposed the deal: Doubling steel tariffs to 50%.
The President boasted about Nippon Steel’s commitment to invest $14 billion in U.S. Steel, including $2.2 billion in Pittsburgh’s Mon Valley plant. But the Japanese company had agreed to most of its commitments when it sought approval from the Biden Administration. President Biden still blocked the deal as a favor to Mr. McCall and Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves.
They want to create a steel cartel with more leverage to raise prices. Nippon Steel had outbid Cleveland-Cliffs in 2023. Acquiring U.S. Steel would have given Cleveland-Cliffs control over 100% of U.S. blast furnace production, iron ore reserves, electrical steel production, and two-thirds of automotive steel production.
Republicans prevailed on Mr. Trump to approve the Nippon deal, which was supported by rank-and-file workers. Last month Cleveland-Cliffs announced it will lay off 1,000 workers, idle plants in Pennsylvania and Illinois and scrap plans to build a new plant in West Virginia in order to pare its financial losses and pay off debt.
Enter Mr. Trump’s new tariff lifeline by doubling his Section 232 steel tariffs to 50%. Higher tariff walls may help Cleveland-Cliffs stanch its red ink, but they are unlikely to save or create jobs. They will raise costs for steel consumers including auto-makers and machinery manufacturers and could boomerang.
His first-term steel and aluminum tariffs caused prices to rise for a period, but higher prices hurt customers and caused demand to fall. A Federal Reserve Board of Governors study estimated the tariffs cost 75,000 manufacturing jobs. Employment in fabricated metals manufacturing is still some 33,000 lower than when the tariffs took effect.
Mr. Goncalves noted in a recent quarterly earnings call that Mr. Trump’s auto and steel tariffs on Canada “impacted our clients” who sell products in the U.S. “That was not part of our plan. Absolutely not. Nobody saw that coming,” he said, adding he wouldn’t have bought Canadian steelmaker Stelco “if I knew that Canada would not be treated like a friend.”
___
June 1
The Guardian on Trump and children
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children,” Nelson Mandela observed 30 years ago. Though the ugly heart of the Trump administration has hardly been hidden, there is an especially grotesque contrast between its vaunted family values and its treatment of the young.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump declared: “I want a baby boom.” JD Vance, his vice-president, says he wants “more happy children in our country”. Maga pro-natalists are pushing incentives for families to have more children.
Yet Bruce Lesley, president of the advocacy organisation First Focus on Children, says that we may never have seen an administration “so laser-focused on targeting the nation’s children for harm”. Its dismantling of the Department of Education is on hold thanks to a judge. But it has already slashed staff at agencies overseeing key services such as child protection and the enforcement of child support payments. Mr Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget sacrifices the interests of babies for those of billionaires, slashing foundational programmes that provide healthcare and food to more than two-fifths of American children.
One detail is telling: it would also deny the child tax credit to families with mixed immigration status. Mr Trump’s vision of the nation is the antithesis of Mr Mandela’s inclusivity. Unaccompanied migrant children as young as four are facing immigration hearings without lawyers. That’s unlikely to concern him: as many as 1,360 children separated from their parents at the border in his first term have never been reunited with them.
An estimated 5.6 million US-citizen children live with at least one undocumented parent. Almost 4% are at risk of being left with no parent in their home in the event of mass deportation. Mr Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship makes explicit the belief that these children are not truly American either. They are what the historian Prof Mae Ngai has called “alien citizens”, whose standing is deemed suspect – if not denied – due to their race. Young US citizens have been deported alongside parents who say they were given no option to leave their children, one of whom had late-stage cancer. In another case, a two-year-old was sent to foster care when her parents were deported: this time, her mother was reportedly given no option to take her.
The immigration crackdown will further encourage employers short of workers to turn to children – often those born to migrants – for badly paid, dirty and dangerous jobs. “Why do we say we need to import foreigners, even import them illegally, when teenagers used to work at these resorts?” asked Florida’s governor, Ron deSantis. Child labour laws are already too frequently ignored, yet Republicans have loosened them further in 16 states in the last few years, and sought to do so in many more.
Florida’s House of Representatives recently approved legislation allowing children as young as 14 to work overnight without breaks. Yet the state Senate chose not to move the bill – and overall more states strengthened than diluted labour protections last year. For now at least, the administration appears to have reversed course on eliminating the Head Start early education programme. Mr Trump and his allies are exposing their grim vision of a nation in which only some children deserve to be treated with care and basic respect. Others must continue to fight to protect the most vulnerable.
___
June 1
The Dallas Morning News says Trump must see that standing with Ukraine is to protect democracy
In a recent talk in Dallas, the former world chess champion turned democracy activist Garry Kasparov asked the audience to try to think of a single time President Donald Trump stood up to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin — to try to name any instance when Putin didn’t get what he wanted while Trump folded American, and democratic, interests.
Is it any surprise then that Putin, once again, appears to be getting exactly what he wants, a brutal escalation of his murderous attack on Ukraine with naught but a little tough talk from our president?
After a phone call to Putin that was supposed to be part of a peace negotiation, the Russian president unleashed a destructive and deadly barrage against civilian targets in Ukraine, the worst of the war. Trump responded that he was “very disappointed” and that Putin was “playing with fire.”
“What Vladimir Putin doesn’t realize is that if it weren’t for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened in Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.
That pregnant turn of phrase has led to speculation about what exactly Trump has done for Russia and why.
The president is now cornered diplomatically. Will he back up his tough talk, or will he walk away and look weak?
We have long urged the president to see what we can all plainly see: Russia under Putin is a threat to the international order and to democratic nations around the world. It is bent on destroying a free nation and subjugating its people. Who will be next if Ukraine falls?
European nations, particularly Germany, have tried to step into the gap of American support. That needs to change. Trump needs to see that some wars are worth fighting, and this is one. The Ukrainian people are not just in this struggle for themselves. They stand as a bulwark for all free people.
If Trump would stand with them, he would demonstrate that he is willing to stand for democracy in Europe and for a world order where might doesn’t make right.
What’s more, he would establish himself as a man not beholden to a tyrant.
ONLINE: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2025/05/30/will-trump-fold-for-putin-again/