January 9th Commentary by Tony Aguilar

America shows its imperialistic nature 

Historically the acquisition of Greenland has been a topic of discussion since the 19th century. Past Secretaries of State William Seward and James Byrnes advocated the acquisition of Greenland. While it is geographically part of North America it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  The idea of using military force, however, is a new idea forged by the Trump administration. The 1951 Greenland agreement allows the US to build and maintain military bases. Danish leadership has been vocal about continuing to use Greenland as a military outpost. While the administration claims it is needed for national security, it is more likely because of its natural resources which includes gold, uranium and significant amounts of oil and gas.

The resurrection of a robust Monroe Doctrine, which was declared over by the Obama administration, was originally meant to dissuade Europe from interfering in the backyard of America, has now been expanded to include Europe itself. As a result, it has caused a lot of nations to rethink their defensive capabilities.

The United States military is the most powerful armed force in the world. Nonetheless, it is also true that it has rarely won a war without allies. It would be hard to imagine that nations would align themselves with the US if it attacked Mexico, Greenland or Canada.

The administration out of ignorance or callousness is oblivious to allies perceiving the United States as a threat to their democracy. Significant populations of nations including Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, South Africa, Kenya and Spain now consider the United States as a threat. While Canada is a non-nuclear state, it is now engaging in discussions about building nuclear weapons.

Nations which now share intelligence with America, whether through Five Eyes or other coalitions, will most likely become more judicious about the information they share.

From a geopolitical perspective, nations will seek stronger ties with nations such as China in addition to creating other regional alliances. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has long voiced a desire for a European Union becoming independent of the US, and Australin Prime Minster Anthony Albanese have both visited China. While their visits don't necessarily signal a change of alignment, it does give rise to the idea that nations will seek options as the United States is becoming more belligerent and less reliable.

Europe in particular will be faced with a stark choice. Will they stand idly by as America threatens to take over an autonomous nation or will they take a bold stand.

While the hubris of Trump is admired by some, the United States aided and abetted by Marco Rubio and an unhinged Stephen Miller are making the US less safe.

The president is now a lame duck who doesn’t have to be concerned about reelection. Nonetheless, 2026 is shaping up to have more implications than originally thought. A victory by the democrats will make this new foreign policy a lot more difficult to implement. It will provide a system of accountability that republicans have been reluctant to utilize to this point.

There is great apprehension amongst the nations of the world as the president shows his imperialistic characteristics.   Some such as author Terrence Petty believes the nation is heading towards the German idea of Gleichschaltung which means “bringing into line.” One of its aspects was the purging of civil servants who were insufficiently loyal to the Fuhrer.

The next nine months will be critical for the US and the western hemisphere. If the present administration acts on its threat, it will indeed be the end of the present world order which while imperfect has managed to avoid world wars for over seventy years.

The only time NATO invoked Article 5, was on September 11th, 2001, on behalf of the United States. How ironic would it be that the second time would be against the nation that most of the world rallied around.

January 6th Commentary by Tony Aguilar

What's next for Sudan?

The present conflict which started in 2023, is between the Sudanese Armed Forces of Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces of Muhammad Dagalo, also known as Hemedti. The two leaders of these factions were actually allies in overthrowing Sudan’s President, Omer Al-Bashir in 2019.

Unfortunately, as they engage in a power struggle for control of the nation, both men have caused great harm and destruction. Both are guilty of committing atrocities.

Several organizations and nations have deemed the situation a genocide, including the United States which declared it a genocide in January 2025 and has placed sanctions on Sudan. The International Criminal Court, however, has not made a formal declaration of genocide. Nonetheless, the ICC had issued arrest warrants for the arrest of the former president on charges of genocide, and crimes against humanity.

There is precedent for international action in lieu of the ICC’s formal declaration. In 1999, President Bill Clinton authorized missile strikes in Yugoslavia to stop President Slobadan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing of Albanians. While this was a NATO operation, it was done without the support of the international community, the United Nation’s Security Council or the US Congress although the US Senate voted to approve the operation, but not the House of Representatives.

This is not to suggest that missile strikes should be authorized but rather that the international community can and should be doing more to resolve this humanitarian crisis. From the American perspective, the shutting down of USAID, has resulted in millions of Sudanese facing starvation.

There is a coalition of nations that was formed in 2021 to support a democratic transition. Known as the Quad, the coalition originally consisted of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the United States and the United Kingdom which was replaced by Egypt in 2025. The problem with the Quad is that various members have their own vested interest in the conflict. For example, the United Arab Emirates supports the Rapid Support Services who have helped UAE fight in Yemen. Saudi Arabia supports the Sudanese Armed Forces. This conflict of interest between the nations only exacerbates an already tragic situation. Both the RSF and the SAF have resisted direct talks about resolving the war.

If the Quad is to be successful, it must first convince the two factions, whether by incentives or the threat of arrest and subsequent conviction, to come to the table to negotiate an end to the war. Second, Sudan’s military leadership must be subordinate to civilian leadership. There is no doubt that colonization was the genesis of many problems faced by Sudan and should not be minimized. The British divided the nation into an Arab Muslim north and Black African south thereby creating many of the tense rivalries which exist today.

Sudan has been in the throes of civil war longer than not and international involvement has in some sense exacerbated the situation. Despite that reality, if the crisis in Sudan is to be ended, the international community must remain involved. In addition, it is time for major media organizations to make this the major humanitarian story that it is.

January 3rd Commentary by Tony Aguilar

Is this the new gunboat diplomacy?

The regional reaction from nations has been mixed. Brazil’s President Lulu stated that America “cross unacceptable line.”

The question is why did this attack take place? The administration has gone to great lengths to gas light the American people. We have heard various reasons including narco-terrorism. This had no currency given the fact that Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras Juan Hernandez who was serving a forty-year term for trafficking drugs to the US. The recent National Security Strategy laid out America’s intent to invoke a more muscular version of the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially made the United States responsible for what happens in the western hemisphere. In other words, the US will once again engage in gunboat diplomacy. The administration has stated that they consider the present government illegitimate. The problem is that this could apply to a number of nations.

The most believable reason for this attack, that has been consistently denied by the administration, is regime change. This has also been the most plausible reason for the attacks on boats as well.

In regard to oil, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, made the absurd claim that because America helped build the Venezuelan oil industry, their oil belongs to the US. This is simply rhetoric that does not have legal standing. Venezuela did not steal oil. They had nationalized its own assets which had been taken over by companies such as Exxon/Mobil which has received compensation. Russia also has invested billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil projects as well. China has provided loans to Venezuela in exchange for oil.

How is Venezuela a threat to the United States?

Venezuela has several allies who the administration views as enemies. This includes Cuba as well as Russia who has provided military equipment to the nation. The Cuban connection is what motivated Secretary of State Marco Rubio to advocate for the removal of Maduro. There is also evidence of Hezbollah, which has been expanding its presence in Latin America.

There is no doubt that Maduro is a bad guy who stole an election and has caused great harm to the Venezuelan people. He has ruled over a nation that is effectively a failed state. The overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan people are glad that he’s gone although they may disagree with how this was done. The problem is that while Maduro may be gone, the regime itself remains. The Vice-President of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez, who as of this writing is in Russia, remains in office as well as their Interior Secretary Diosdado Cabello, who some say may be more influential than Maduro.

The question is who will govern Venezuela. The late Colin Powell coined the phrase “if you break it, you own it” which will be apropos to the situation. While Maria Machado, the right-wing leader who Trump dismissed as not being respected enough to run the nation,    may be the beneficiary of the removal of Maduro, she may have to answer for why she would be willing to allow American oil companies to once again expropriate Venezuelan assets.

As President Trump rambled during his press conference, the one thing that stood out was “we shall run the country. " He also reiterated the lie that Venezuela stole American oil.

The bottom line is that at the end of the day this was about regime change for the purpose of reclamation. The Venezuelan diaspora is no doubt overjoyed that a dictator has been removed. Nonetheless, will the diaspora still be overjoyed when they realize that their resources have once again been expropriated with no benefit for Venezuela.

January 1st Commentary by Tony Aguilar

America In Review

This is in addition to what seems to be a revenge tour by the president as he tried to have his perceived enemies such as Letitia James, James Comey and John Bolton arrested and convicted.

Congress has seemingly abdicated its article one powers as defined in the constitution effectively giving the president carte blanche on many issues. This congress has been the least productive in over 50 years.

It is also a time however, when a significant segment of the population has decided they will not tolerate his narcissism nor his tendency towards authoritarianism.

There are many descriptions that describe the past year. They include profiles in courage and profiles in cowardice. 2025 can also be defined as the year of the shrinking congress and the year of incompetence. Most of all it has been a year of chaos and an administration which has seemingly gone rogue.

The economy, from a statistical perspective, is doing fairly well as it was under Biden. During Q3, GDP grew 4.3%. Investment, especially in AI, has been robust, predictions of a recession has not panned out and inflation has decreased. Nonetheless, the job market has softened, unemployment has increased and affordability remains a source of anxiety for Americans. It has been made worse for millions of Americans who have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act as congress has failed to continue the subsidies. Bankruptcies have increased and the farming sector is taking a huge hit because of the tariffs.

When it comes to affordability, the administration is experiencing the same thing that the Biden administration experienced. By not acknowledging the reality of the cost of living they have ignored the mistakes made by the Biden administration.

As 2025 began, with the election of Donald Trump, nations around the world braced for what was going to be a year of chaos and controversy. The administration’s contempt for its allies was in full view as the president stated a desire to annex Canada, Greenland and to take back the Panama Canal.

Nations, especially in Europe, immediately began feeling the effects of a second Trump presidency. The speech in February by Vice President JD Vance, at the 61st Munich Security Conference, excoriated European leaders. This was tantamount to a first shot over the bow about how this administration felt about Europe. The administration’s December National Security Strategy 2025 was condescending and patronizing in tone towards Europe.

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continued, the year will be remembered for what seemed like a staged attack on the president of Ukraine by President Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the oval office.   When it came to Ukraine, the president once again seemed to adopt the views of the Kremlin, as he laid out the red carpet for Putin during the so-called summit in Alaska. As the administration has consistently tried to get Ukraine to succumb to the demands of President Putin, Europeans have stood by President Zelenskyy.

The ending of US AID was a blow to America’s ability to use soft power. While the program had its problems, including corruption, ending this program has resulted in the preventable deaths of six hundred thousand people according to epidemiologist Brooke Nichols.

This year saw a detour from a campaign commitment to avoid unnecessary wars when the administration began blowing up alleged drug boats from Venezuela despite the lack of evidence being provided to the public. Many commentators have said the act violates international law and may also violate US law. Many commentators have said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is the guiding force behind this policy.

As the year ends, the US with the tacit approval of the president of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu, launched a missile attack in Nigeria.

On the domestic front, tariffs became a central component of the nation’s domestic and foreign policy. In what was called Independence Day, tariffs were imposed on over 180 nations in what seemed like a haphazard manner.

The deployment of the National Guard in cities with Democrat mayors, to supposedly combat crime, was heavily criticized. While the militarization of law enforcement is potentially a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, it came to a head when President Trump told a gathering of military leaders to view the deployment as “training grounds for our military.”

Deportation has become a rallying cry in America. This strategy, which many say has been orchestrated by Deputy Press Secretary Steven Miller, has prompted a tremendous pushback. Americans have been fighting back against ICE agents in a variety of ways. Using the legal system, community organizing strategies, as well as state officials limiting local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with ICE agents, every day Americans are finding ways of thwarting the sometimes-illegal deportation of undocumented immigrants. Immigration also became highly racialized with the Trump administration. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, was interpreted as permission for racial profiling.  Further proof was provided by the administration with the fast tracking of white Afrikaner’s refugee status. The lies about how the Black government of South Africa was committing genocide against the white population simply added fuel to the fire.

One of the most egregious actions in 2025, was the pardoning of the January 6th rioters.

2025 also gave rise to what can be called profiles in cowardice. From the capitulation by law firms such as Paul, Weiss, who made deals to provide free legal work for Trump supported causes prompted criticism. Their decision to bend the knee was made more egregious when other law firms sued the administration and won. Universities such as Columbia University, Brown, Northwestern and the University of Virginia were seemingly willing to give up their independence, as others such as Dartmouth and MIT fought back.

Given the administration’s obsession with the media, it is no surprise that reporters have been deemed “enemies of the people” by this administration. Starting before the election, media outlets such as the Washington Post and the LA Times pulled their endorsement of then Vice-President Kamala Harris. While their billionaire owners Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon Shiong tried to rationalize their decision, their capitulation was seen as another example of a nation heading towards authoritarianism.

Other media organizations such as ABC and CBS seemingly bent the knee. Nonetheless, as networks executives bent the knee, late night talk show hosts such as Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert held their own as they continued to excoriate the president during their monologues. The public backlash in the form of subscription cancellation after Kimmel was removed from the air, was another example of an electorate displaying more backbone than billionaire owners. The Ellison families attempt to buy Warner Bros. with a commitment to the president that changes will come to CNN, is another example of how media is slowly becoming an authoritarian tool of the world’s richest people.

While some of the wealthiest people displayed profiles in cowardice and a propensity to grovel, it has been matched by grass roots resistance. Two nation-wide “no kings day marches” drew five million and seven million people respectively.

As the administration sought to end DEI programs, the administration decided to replace DEI with incompetence or people who have been accused of sexual abuse such as Pete Hegseth and vaccine denier Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This is on top of the White House Border Czar Tom Homan, being accused of taking a bribe of $50,000.

2026 will be an interesting year as well. As Trump, is a lame duck president he will face several challenges. More republicans will not only retire, but with the exception of Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader John Thune, will be reticent about supporting a president whose popularity continues to slide. The special elections from November are a sign of things to come. Most analysts predict that democrats will retake the House of Representatives although retaking the senate will be more difficult. As a result, there will be a plethora of congressional hearings which may lead to several attempts at impeachment of cabinet officials.

The world has many hot spots, including Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Venezuela, and Congo/Rwanda.  Tariffs will once again take center stage as companies will begin to pass along the extra cost they have incurred.  Deportations will continue as a point of contention as Stephen Miller will look to get more extreme even as the resistance to such measures grows.

America will celebrate its 250th birthday in 2026. The nation described by John Winthrop as “a city on a hill” is at a critical inflection point. It will have to decide if it wants to remain a republic or is it willing to go the way of nations such as Hungary and Turkey. The obvious attempt to control every aspect of American life by this administration will most likely become more of an albatross around the administration. America is indeed living in interesting times, but the American people will have the last say beginning in 2026.

December 26th Commentary by Tony Aguilar 

A Nation In a Bad Mood

Americans are in a bad mood over perceptions about the economy, anger over the administration’s deportations, a potential war in Venezuela as well as Nigeria, that people feel is unnecessary, as well as increasing health care costs because of Republican’s refusal to continue subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration is under water when it comes to all of these issues. In the latest right track/wrong track poll, sixty percent of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. Add in the Epstein scandal and you have an electorate ready to respond negatively. Bankruptcies have increased by 11%. Farm bankruptcies have increased as well.

 Yet the administration seems to be unable to understand the difficulties Americans are going through. When it comes to affordability, Trump himself called it a hoax. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessont, has told ABC News ” In case you don’t know it, I’m actually a soybean farmer, so I have felt this pain too;” This comment is from a man who is worth approximately six hundred million dollars.

Despite this reality, 80% of republicans still support the President.

The 2026 mid-terms will provide the most obvious way for Americans to voice their displeasure about the present administration. Despite what may be a perfect time to take back control, democrats cannot simply depend on the anger of the public to put them back in charge of the House of Representatives. They must provide a positive reason to vote for them as well. Second, they must engage in a massive turnout campaign. While Trump himself has hemorrhaged the Latino and Black voters he gained during the last election, they are not a guaranteed to turnout for democrats.

The 2026 midterm election is turning out to be the most consequential election. Trump is a lame duck president. Despite constitutional clarity, some of his allies have tried to muddy the waters. Attorney Alan Dershowitz stated that “it’s not clear if a president can become a third term president and is not clear if it’s permissible” while former advisor Steve Bannon predicted Trump will serve a third term.

JD Vance understands his boss is a lame duck, as he was endorsed by Erika Kirk, President of Turning Point USA. The midterm elections will be consequential for two reasons. The first is that if Democrats win, they will create a sense of accountability that republicans, with exception, have been unable or unwilling to provide. This accountability will include potential impeachments of several cabinet members. Many commentators have concluded that republicans have forfeited their article one responsibility over areas such as tariffs, and the bombing of Venezuelan boats.

The second reason involves the 2028 presidential election. On January 6th, 2029, the US Senate will certify the results of the election. The Vice President, in this case JD Vance, will preside over the certification process. While the certification is actually ceremonial, eight republican senators and one hundred thirty-nine republican house members voted not to certify the 2020 election. Even today those nominated by the Trump administration refuse to state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. They will obfuscate the issue by saying “he was certified” or that “he was declared the winner.”

There is reason to be concerned about how the 2029 certification process will occur. In 2021, former Vice President Mike Pence, was under tremendous pressure to question the certification process, which he had no constitutional authority to do. To his credit, Pence showed integrity in refusing to do so. Vance, unfortunately, does not seem to have the same integrity.

Americans have short memories. Despite the riots of January 6th, by Trump supporters and the president’s refusal to call out the national guard to protect congress, America subsequently voted him back into office.

The 2026, midterm election will be the first step toward accountability of the executive branch of the government. Hopefully it will not be too late.

December 23rd Commentary by Tony Aguilar 

National Security Strategy 2025

On December 4th, the Trump administration laid out its 2025 National Security Strategy. Having a strategic plan for security whether economically or otherwise is actually a good thing. For the most part, this is less a strategy and more of a wish list with congratulatory statements meant to appease the commander in chief. In reading it, the hyperbole would make you think that the United States still believes it is in a good position to continue calling the shots. It starts out with the dubious claim that “over the past nine months, we have brought our nation and the world back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster.”

There is no doubt that America is still the most powerful nation, economically, militarily and culturally, but this is no longer a unipolar world as it was after the Cold War. China will soon be the world’s largest economy and has shown its willingness to stand up to the United States. This was proven to be the case as the administration capitulated when it came to China as it threatened to withhold certain rare earth elements.

There are aspects of the National Security Strategy that would be the goal of any sovereign nation. Protect the American people from terrorism, be prepared for war if needed, maintain a vibrant economy and lead the world in cutting edge technology are areas in which American’s can agree.

Unfortunately, some of the stated goals are contradictory and have been betrayed by the administration’s own actions. When it states that it has unsurpassed soft power, one has to question the termination of USAID. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health has reported that the shutdown has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people.

Some of the agenda goals, however, such as to “deny non-hemispheric competitors, the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own control, strategically vital assets in our hemisphere” might be problematic given China’s recent excursion into Latin America and the Caribbean. China is now the regions second largest trading partner. The administration’s critique of past administration’s decision of “encouraging American business to invest in China and outsourcing our manufacturing to China would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called rules based international order” is not entirely wrong. Nonetheless, If past administrations got it wrong about China, then the present administration has gotten it wrong about Russia.

When it comes to the western hemisphere, America’s military escalation against Venezuela, along with what some call interference by the United States in Honduras’s election, nations of Latin America would be right to be leery of what is being referred to as the Trump collorary.

Expecting other nations to assist them in preventing other nations from access to the western hemisphere, might be wishful thinking given the administration’s sometimes erratic behavior. Even nations such as Brazil, which is part of BRICS, has chosen to expand its options.

It is right to think of Africa from the perspective of investment. Unfortunately, disinviting the largest African economy, namely South Africa, to the upcoming G20 summit based on a false charge of genocide, and persecution takes away any credibility that goal might have had.

The term that has garnered a lot of attention from European capitals is civilization erasure. The term is geared towards Europe because of a belief that their immigration policies will lead to its ultimate decay. It reeks of Vice President JD Vance’s Munich Security Council speech, where he excoriated the leaders of Europe. The reaction to his speech was regarded by some as “ideological warfare.” He also intimated that America’s support would be contingent upon its support of free speech and political legitimacy. This is coming from the man who said, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer."  Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has referred to Europe as “freeloading” and “pathetic. ” The critique by Vance and others is not about free speech, but rather a refusal by European governments to endorse right wing parties such as the AFD in Germany. In fact, when it comes to free speech, America's ranking for free speech has gone from 3rd to 9th according to the Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University.

The patronizing and condescending approach to Europe is highly problematic. Even worse is the reason. As has become commonplace with the present administration, the problem is consistently laid at the feet of immigrants. The statement that Europe will not be the same in twenty years may be true, but it will not be because of immigration. The thought behind civilization erasure, intimates that Europe may not be a reliable partner, if it continues its present migratory trajectory.

Europe is not in danger of this so-called civilization erasure. This is simply a function of the American administration’s obsession with immigrants as it attempts to purify the American population.

It is perhaps time for Europe to end its sycophantic approach to this administration. While Europe needs and enjoys access to America’s thirty trillion-dollar economy, America also needs Europe’s twenty trillion-dollar economy and its supply chains.

The response to the National Security Strategy has ranged from Germany’s Chancellor Frederick Merz who said that some parts are “unacceptable to us from a European perspective. ”He went on to say “America first is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interest. You need partners in the world and one of those partners can be Europe.”

It is time for Europe to heed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for independence from America. It should develop its own army that is not based on US technology. Germany has already began this process by changing its constitution to increase its defense spending. London’s member of Parliament, Seema Malhotra said “the prospect of United States interfering in the Democratic politics of Europe is I believe chilling.               But sometimes what is not said, is as important as what is said. In this case, the absence of a condemnation of Russia is extraordinary though not surprising.”

The idea of “ending the perception and preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetual expanding alliance” reeks of a desire to please the Kremlin. To do this the administration would have to convince Europe that Russia is not a threat but a potential partner. Given the administration’s affinity for Russia this is not a surprise. Given its history, it is a naive belief that Russia will not be a perennial threat to Europe.

Any reading of history would show that Russia over the last one hundred years has initiated a number of wars. Catherine the Great is alleged to have said “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

Europe does need to be more self-sufficient, not to be a reliable partner to the US, but in response to the fact that America itself is becoming a less reliable partner.

Whether because of strategic differences or the whims of a chaotic White House, it is time for Europe to seriously rethink what its relationship to America should be.

Becoming autarkic as it pertains to the US is not a realistic goal for Europe, at least in the short term. It is reasonable to expect Europe to become more self-sufficient while looking at other potential partners.

Even America’s closest neighbor, Canada’s Prime Minister Carney said “The world is changing, our adversaries are increasingly emboldened. International institutions and norms that have kept Canada secure are now being called into question, and the United States’ priorities, our ally – or United States priorities, once closely aligned with our own, are beginning to shift. ”

Artur Wilczynski, senior fellow at the University of Ottawa stated, “I think the United States has very clearly, and the president has very clearly indicated his desire to make Canada the 51st state. To believe they will not overtly or covertly try to achieve those outcomes would be irresponsible for Canada.”

More nations now view the US as a threat to their democracy. The reality is that many nations while not ignoring the US are beginning to look at other options.

Where the study is correct is that Europe may be different twenty years from now. The reason, however, is not necessarily because of immigration, but what may be an increased belief that the US is becoming a threat. Europe may be different because of its attitude towards America.

The National Security Strategy is an obvious but flawed attempt at maintaining American hegemony.

Given America’s saber rattling in recent months with Canada, Panama, Greenland, and now Venezuela, America may find itself isolated. They may find that as it promotes its National Security Strategy, the allies needed to bring this into reality may be reticent.

December 19th, 2026  Commentary by Tony Aguilar 

What is generally not known is that Mrs. Parks was not the first who refused to give her seat to a white passenger, and neither was Claudette Colvin, the 15-year-old, whose arrest was not taken up because she was pregnant. Colvin’s arrest was followed six months later by the arrest of an 18-year-old Mary Louise Smith. Prior to all three, one of the first was actually Viola White, who in 1944, was arrested and beaten for refusing to give up her seat.

What is also generally unknown is that the organization that first called for a bus boycott in Montgomery was the Women’s Political Council, an all-Black female organization, formed in 1946, to combat racism.

Montgomery was also not the only place where Blacks were forced to sit in the back of the bus.

Booker Spicely, then a private in the United States Army, had boarded a bus and subsequently refused to give up his seat to white soldiers. Spicely was subsequently shot to death by the driver of the bus, who was ultimately acquitted by an all-white jury on the grounds of self-defense.

As many people know, the march gave rise to the leadership of Martin Luther King, who was selected as a spokesperson because he was new to the area. What is interesting is that Dr. King’s predecessor at Dexter Baptist Church, Dr. Vernon Johns, had previously sat in the whites-only section of the bus and was ordered off.

The Montgomery bus boycott was a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights movement. What may not be appreciated, however, is that the Montgomery boycott was a culmination of decades of pent-up anger over the indignity experienced by the Black community.

The lessons learned from the Montgomery boycott showed economics can be effective, as seen in the present boycott of Target, spearheaded by Pastor Jamal Bryant. The boycott, which was started because Target had reversed its commitment to DEI, has resulted in a loss of over twelve billion dollars in market value. It worked when an estimated 1.7 million people ended their Disney subscriptions to protest Jimmy Kimmel being removed from the air.

The oft-quoted “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” is true, but as history shows, someone is needed to bend it in the right direction. Protests must have a demand. While they can lead to informing the public about an issue, protests without a demand are many times wasted energy. Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand.” They may be euphoric in the short term, but it often leads to frustration. Another lesson is to understand your leverage. Black passengers accounted for over 70% of the ridership in Montgomery. They understood that withholding their patronage would have a devastating effect on the bus company.

In their initial meeting with Montgomery city officials, the Women’s Political Council had several demands. They included an end to the requirement for Black passengers to pay their fare in the front yet enter from the rear. Second, they wanted buses to stop at every corner in Black communities. Third, they called for the hiring of Black drivers.

People must be prepared to take the next step. When city officials refused those demands, the boycott began. The late Robert F. Kennedy said, “Progress is a nice word, but change is its motivator and change has its enemies.”

Protests must be sustainable. The Montgomery boycott lasted 381 days, from December 5th, 1955, to December 20th, 1956.

While primary leadership is crucial, secondary and tertiary leadership are critical as well. It needs people who are willing to help with turning others out, copying and distributing flyers are just as critical.

Last, people must be willing to sacrifice for a larger cause. Black citizens were willing to give up the convenience of public transportation for over a year. Many were fired from their jobs. Rosa Parks and her husband had great difficulty finding work, which led them to move to Detroit. Because the bus ride was only ten cents, Black taxi drivers charged their passengers ten cents as well. As a result, they incurred fines from the city, which fined them for charging less than the required forty-five cents.

While the boycott was ultimately successful, it had consequences. In February 1956, over 80 leaders of the boycott were indicted, including King, who was convicted and ordered to pay a fine or serve time in jail. King, along with E.D. Nixon, had their homes bombed. Even Rev. Robert Graetz, a Lutheran pastor who was the only white clergyman to support the boycott, had his home bombed.

While it also played a significant role, what is also generally unknown is the lawsuit filed on February 1st, 1956, against the city by plaintiffs Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Jeanetta Reese, Claudette Colvin, and Mary Louise Smith.

In June 1956, a federal court ruled under Browder vs. Gayle that the idea of bus segregation was unconstitutional. Despite the win, Montgomery maintained its segregationist policies, which led to the continuing of the boycott until the Supreme Court finally upheld the ruling.

The Montgomery boycott and the lawsuit were a seminal time in America. Fighting for a just cause can be tiring, but as one elderly woman said, “My soul has been tired for a long time; now my feet are tired, and my soul is resting.” There were many sung and unsung heroes of the Montgomery Boycott. It would behoove the nation not to forget them especially, their tactics, tenacity and a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, especially now..

Commentary by Tony Aguilar  

Eugenics The Name Has Changed But The Goal Remains 

It would be a mistake to think that eugenics has disappeared from the American mindset. It has simply morphed. The term, created by Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, was “an inaccurate theory that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations.” David Starr Jordan, founding president of Stanford University, and proponent of eugenics said “ indiscriminate charity has been a fruitful cause of the survival of the unfit.  To kill the strong and feed the weak is to provide for a progeny of weakness. ” The English philosopher and creator of the Father Brown mysteries, GK Chesterton, however, critiqued the assumptions made by people who supported eugenics as he believed people are not so “stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs and also so clever that they can manage each other’s.” 

With the atrocities associated with eugenics, especially from the Nazi’s, but also within America, it has been discredited as pseudo-science. Today, no serious scientist or medical professional would define themselves as an eugenicist.

During the 1940s, in America, it was heralded as an excepted methodology, even as it led to thousands of women being forcefully sterilized. At the height of its prominence, eugenics had its champions ranging from the Rockefeller Foundation, Margaret Sanger, Teddy Roosevelt, as well as Helen Keller who said,     “Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and the world … the world is already flooded with unhappy,  unhealthy, mentally unsound persons that should never have been born. ”

While Eduard Pernkopf’s Atlas, the controversial book which detailed the anatomy is still used by surgeons today it is a source of ethical debate. Pernkopf, was an avowed Nazi and advocate of eugenics, who along with his colleagues, used the bodies of executed political prisoners to create his so-called Atlas.

Despite its demise, we would be remiss if we didn’t admit that some aspects and supporters of eugenics exist today, albeit under different names. Recognizing its toxicity, Frederick Osborn, one of the founding members of the American Eugenics Society, in 1968 said that “eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.” In other words, the name is taboo, while several of its practices remains. Examples of this include forced sterilization of California inmates until the early 2000s.

While the idea of eugenics was once a state responsibility, it has been handed over to the marketplace. In his article in the financial times, Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek’s Bastards, raises the question of libertarian eugenics. In his article he writes, “By delegitimizing mainstream expertise, dismantling vaccine mandates and curbing the authority of public health agencies, it transfers responsibility for health and survival to private individuals…the predictable outcome is that those with resources and education will thrive while those without will fall further behind.”

Private organizations such as Elon Musk’s Neurolink Prime project, while providing promise to paraplegics, have raised ethical questions, given his belief in human enhancement.

If eugenics is the belief that you can improve the population through selective breeding, it can potentially be done through policy. It should be remembered that eugenics is the means to an end which is to improve the population. This led to the pseudo-scientific response of eugenics. This desire is what led to various legislative acts such as the immigration act of 1924, prohibition of interracial marriage and other marriage restrictions. Its most extreme form was during the holocaust.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, denies having eugenicist tendencies, yet his statements and writings over the years makes it difficult to dismiss that accusation.

During his confirmation hearing, Kennedy, sounding like a modern-day proponent of the Tuskegee experiment, made the following statement “we should not be giving Black people the same vaccine schedule that’s given to whites, because their immune system is better than ours” This absurdity could obviously lead to the Black population being deprived of preventative vaccines. About children getting vaccines he said, “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country,” Under the Kennedy reign, America is in danger of losing its measles elimination status if the measles outbreak continues into 2026.

In addition, his decision to appoint David Geier, who had been “disciplined for administering puberty-blocking drugs to autistic children without proper oversight” is a source of controversy.

While he is not alone in some of his disproven theories, the fact that he is in a position to make policy based on debunked science is a dangerous sign. Unfortunately, he is not the only one. During an interview on CNBC, Howard Lutnick, Secretary of the Treasury, said “we’re the only country that let other people just come in without vetting them and deciding whether they’re really going to help the economy of America, Why should we take people who are below average? it just doesn’t make any sense.”

Eugenics has been discredited but its goal remains.