Break It Down!

In the United States, Atlantic Hurricane Season officially runs from June 1^st to November 30^th. We are about to wrap up the second month. Storms, of course, can occur outside the parameters of these six months. They may also emanate from the Pacific, in which case they are called a typhoon if it hovers over the Northwest Pacific Ocean (Usually East Asia). If it happens elsewhere in the region, it’s called a cyclone. 

The United States relies on several federal agencies for weather forecasting, research, emergency and notifications. The two most prominent are the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These agencies are funded by the federal government through annual appropriations approved by Congress.

During President Trump’s first term (2017–2021), there were a variety of budget proposals and discussions about federal agency funding, including NOAA and the NWS. Some administration budget blueprints proposed reductions to NOAA’s budget, which sparked discussions and concern among scientists, meteorologists, and members of the public. However, in Trump’s first term, Congress did not enact the most dramatic of these proposed cuts, and both NOAA and the NWS continued to operate with full federal funding.

Welcome to term number two, and a whole new ballgame, as it relates to the administration defunding federal agencies…including NOAA and the NWS. Earlier this year, DOGE, the so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency, brainchild of Trump and Elon Musk, precipitated early retirements and short staffing at the NWS. Moreover, in addition many of the weather service’s most experienced leaders, people with decades of experience in the particular weather vulnerabilities in local areas, are leaving the organization. These scientists and experts have been critical in devising strategies, means, and methods to protect people and property. 

Then, there’s NOAA, which oversees the weather service. There, all probationary employees were dismissed earlier this year. That means, among other things, there is no backfill; no incoming fresh talent to replace the old guard. Even if the weather service were to reinitiate hiring, it may have trouble attracting talented people. What scientist worth his or her salt would want to work at an agency where science is not valued, and where you could suddenly be dismissed without warning, or reason?

Various media outlets have cautioned since the beginning of hurricane season that massive staffing cuts at NOAA from firing probationary employees, DOGE buyouts, and early retirements have left at least eight of the 122 NWS Offices unable to operate around the clock. Due to this loss of staff, regular twice-per-day upper air balloon soundings, which are typically the most important ingredient in making reliable model weather forecasts, have been lost from about 18% of the nation’s upper air stations. Some locations have been reduced to once-per-day launches, and a number are doing no launches at all.

The Washington Post reported that for the month ending May 26, 17% of all U.S. balloon launches that should have occurred have not, most, due to NOAA staffing losses. While preliminary data suggest that lack of balloon data did not have a significant detrimental impact on the Texas flood forecasts, it is a certainty that this level of data loss will cause significant degradation for some forecasts of extreme weather events – potentially including hurricanes making initial landfall along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

In fact, NOAA’s just-released 2026 budget plan would close all NOAA labs, including the National Severe Storms Laboratory (which was founded in 1964), and others with very similar long histories of innovation and accomplishment.  This includes the two labs most instrumental in improving hurricane forecasts, the AOML and GFDL.

The justification? Project 2025 (remember that one) described NOAA’s primary research branch, which operates all these labs – the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research – as “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism.” Not big fans of science?

Meteorologist Michael Lowey wrote, “One of the primary tools we use to predict flash floods like the ones in Central Texas comes from the Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System, a project of the National Severe Storms Laboratory or NSSL in Norman Oklahoma. I’ve zero doubt weather service forecasters were leveraging that tool that evening to issue flash flood warnings. The NSSL and associated projects like this one are slated for elimination in NOAA’s proposed 2026 budget, which would be detrimental to our ability to forecast these types of deadly floods in the future.”

During the spring, when DOGE was endeavoring to insinuate its way into the innermost inner workings of the federal government, three things were abundantly clear:

1. Trump 2.0 was serious about the mission, not only of removing the guardrails that prevented him from dismantling the federal government in his first term, but also about executing the job.
2. With Musk and DOGE acting as the metaphorical chainsaw, Team Trump sat to systematically undo most things government was charged to do, from healthcare, to education, to airline safety, to weather.
3. After dismantling governmental structures, and firing professional leadership, replace scientists and experts with his preferred oligarchs, and his and their friends.

Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick’s scope of responsibility includes overseeing the mechanisms used to monitor and predict the weather. Before assuming the role, Lutnick ran a financial firm, which he left in the control of his adult sons. The company stands to benefit if Trump follows through on a decade-long Republican effort to privatize government weather forecasting.

But wait. Lutnick is not alone in that regard. Trump’s pick to lead NOAA, Neil Jacobs, was the chief atmospheric scientist for Panasonic Weather Solutions, and has been a proponent of privatization. And…Trump’s nominee for another top NOAA position Taylor Jordan, is a lobbyist with a roster of weather-related clients.

It doesn’t end there. Mr. DOGE himself, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man spent more than $270 million to help get Trump elected. He owns controlling interests in SpaceX and its satellite subsidiary Starlink. Both are regulated by NOAA’s Office of Space Commerce, which lost about one-third of its staff in February layoffs executed by DOGE, which Musk helped create. That turned down the heat in what had been a contentious relationship between Musk and NOAA leadership.

In most other times and spaces in the last hundred years, there would be at least some palpable concern being expressed about conflict of interest, as well as ensuring that some measure of governmental levers remained in the hands of serious professionals. However, with every aspect of the federal government in the hands of one party; Trump’s Party, to be clear, those aren’t even fleeting notions. And if they were, Trump would have the violator fired, or at the very least, subjected to a primary. And, if I must say so, it looks like it’s destined to get worse, before it gets better. 

As for the season, with only a third of the six months elapsed, we have plenty of time to find out what follows. “It’s Hurricane Season: What Now!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the link below:

(In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used).

Cuts to NOAA increase the risk of deadly weather tragedies

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/as-trump-slashed-weather-agency-his-appointees-have-ties-to-companies-that-stand-to-benefit-from-privatizing-forecasts

It’s Hurricane Season: What Now

The Epstein Chronicles: The Ultimate Trumpian Subject Changer 

Jeffrey Epstein is a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, who was a figure connected with many prominent individuals. He became the subject of intense media scrutiny. Among the individuals associated with him was Donald J. Trump, the 45th and 47^th President of the United States. In recent weeks, Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, has once again become a focus heightened attention.

For more than two decades, conservative leaning politicians and media have tried to link Epstein to various Democratic politicians. After he died in prison, theories quickly emerged and were propagated, suggesting he’d been murdered at the hands of some liberal cabal. Even though the official record stated he had committed suicide, the rumors and theories persisted. Those outlets, and eventually content creators were spurred on by the scurrilous claims and assertions of conservative politicians, a group which Donald Trump would eventually append himself. Conservatives spent years fostering, repeating, and spreading the notion that Epstein kept a list of clients which he cultivated to introduce underaged (teenage) girls to, for the purpose of conducting sexually predatory acts.

In February, Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, turbocharged speculation regarding the so-called list when announcing the pending release of records related to the Epstein case. However, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, “In a recent memo following what authorities described as an “exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,” the FBI and DOJ said, “While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” In short, no secret file, and no homicide.”

As you might imagine, given the historical record that includes Trump and Epstein making laudatory comments about each other, on one hand, and MAGAWorld being continuously primed to seek and destroy what it views as a Democrat-infested pedophile ring, on the other hand, there were quite a few people who had numerous questions for Donald Trump.   

And that is the point where the rhetorical prestidigitation began. Whenever questions regarding his relationship with Epstein have arisen, Trump, unable to manifest the powers of a Genie, and just vaporize or disappear, has frequently defaulted to techniques designed to change or redirect the subject. Not having the ability to shapeshift, he opts to shift the subject.

Trump and Epstein were both well-known figures in elite social circles in New York and Florida in the 1980s and 1990s. Media reports and publicity photos reflect their attendance together at parties and events. Moreover, Trump himself was quoted in a 2002 New York Magazine profile describing Epstein as a “terrific guy.” 

As Epstein’s crimes gained public attention in the late 2000s and again after his 2019 arrest, Trump was repeatedly asked about his prior association with Epstein. And, naturally, his characterization became less generous; not so flattering. In fact, Trump began to just change the subject and start one of his infamous riffs on some totally unrelated topic, usually designed to blame of denigrate someone, or something else.

Recent faves include:

Barack Obama – Trump’s personal nemesis 1

In response to questions about his ties to Epstein, over the weekend, Trump pivoted to call for the arrest and prosecution of Obama, claiming Tulsi Gabbard “unequivocally exposed” evidence he plotted to conduct the “highest level Election Fraud.” He even showed an AI depiction on his social media platform of Obama being arrested, while he looked on smiling approvingly. Obama released a statement yesterday noting that the findings of the commission he formed were affirmed in a 2020 report by s bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio, Trump’s current Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, U.S. Archivist, and Head of USAID…though at last count, the latter may have been dissolved.

The Washington Commanders

In a classic Epstein sidestep, Trump demanded that the Commanders ownership change the team’s name back to Redskins. In a mind-numbing case of WTF, he maintained there is a big clamoring to change the name back to Redskins, and that changing the name from Redskins offended millions of Native Americans. In reality, it was the name Redskins that offended Native Americans. But hey, the guy obviously loves “alternative” facts.

The Cleveland Indians

As with the Redskins, Trump prefers the Native American moniker. Again, he claimed, without evidence, that our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Guardians President of Baseball Operations, Chris Antonetti said in response, the team is “excited about the future” as they continue to build their brand as the Guardians.

Coca-Cola

Trump claimed on his social media feed that he has persuaded Coca-Cola to use real cane sugar in its U.S. cola. In its rendering of the story Coca-Cola said it will expand its U.S. offerings, launching a beverage that uses cane sugar, instead of high fructose corn syrup. Just in case you’re reading for comprehension, there is a difference. I’ll leave it there.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Trump Administration did release the extensive FBI Files this week. Oh wait, not the Epstein Files. Psych! On Monday, the FBI records related to the investigation of the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. (Codename: MURKIN) were released. Notably, these records were released against the wishes of the King Family. But they, undoubtedly, were not his intended audience. 

On Monday, Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s Press Secretary, defending her Principal, DJT, Sr., noted, the President is the creator and leader of the Make America Great Again Movement, and he and he alone gets to set the agenda for MAGA. Her point was, to those reporters asking questions about those among MAGANation who were upset because suddenly, there was no story, according to Pam Bondi, when MAGA had been expecting a news Tsunami, MAGANation will just have to settle down. Trump has spoken.

When asked about Epstein, Donald Trump defaults to change the subject mode. He has repeatedly shifted the subject to a variety of alternative topics—his own distance from Epstein, the actions of others, media bias, or general statements about law and order and victim support. These maneuvers serve to minimize his association and redirect public attention. 

Usually, by understanding the ways in which subjects are changed in response to uncomfortable questions, observers and interviewers can develop more robust strategies for uncovering substantive answers and holding those in power to account. However, to put Mrs. Leavitt’s comments in plain English, that does not apply to Donald Trump. He has no intention of answering your question. Despite the persistence of the commoners, Trump’s Little Helpers are at the ready. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has already shut down the House until after Labor Day, ensuring there will be np sneaky little votes to force a House investigation of the Epstein matter before September. Take that MAGA. “The Epstein Chronicles: The Ultimate Trumpian Subject-Changer!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the link below:

(In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used).

The Epstein Chronicles: The Ultimate Trumpian Subject-Changer

“Break It Down”

In the unpredictable theater of global politics, few relationships have been as scrutinized as that between past and current President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, Trump’s approach to Putin was marked by a distinct tone of admiration and an apparent willingness to give the Russian leader the benefit of the doubt, even amidst controversy and criticism from both allies and opponents at home. Yet now, there appears to be a marked shift—Trump openly casting Putin as a “bad guy” in his public statements. What underlies this change, and what might it mean?

From the earliest days of his first term in office, Trump often praised Putin’s strongman image, calling him a “leader” and suggesting that U.S.-Russia relations could be improved through the inestimable power of his own personal rapport. Trump, after all, fancies himself as the king of dealmakers. Conversely, critics argued this stance was overly deferential, especially considering allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections and aggressive foreign policies. Trump, however, frequently brushed aside such concerns, insisting that engagement—rather than confrontation—was the more pragmatic path.

Observers are left to wonder: What prompts Trump, now that he is on the Oval Office again, to distance himself, at least rhetorically, from his previous position? Several possible explanations present themselves:

• Political Strategy: With upcoming elections or shifting public moods, Trump may see value in appearing tougher on Russia to counter critics who have long accused him of being soft on authoritarian leaders.
• Changing Global Dynamics: As international condemnation of Russian actions intensifies, particularly in relation to conflicts and human rights concerns, maintaining a friendly tone toward Putin could be increasingly costly, politically and diplomatically.
• Reframing the Narrative: By taking a more critical stance now, Trump may aim to reframe his legacy, positioning himself as a pragmatic leader willing to adapt to changing realities.
• Pressure from Allies: Domestic and international allies, especially those in NATO, have grown more unified in their criticism of Russian policy. Trump’s shift may reflect a response to these allied pressures.
• An unexpected epiphany. Unlikely as it may seem, Trump finally came to his senses, and finally understands, that like his predecessors, Putin was playing, and winning a sophisticated game of misdirection, and like the Russian’s critics alleged, he had no intention of ending his war against Ukraine.

This rhetorical pivot has not gone unnoticed. Supporters may interpret it as a sign of growth or wisdom, while detractors could see it as opportunistic or inauthentic. Pundits and analysts, meanwhile, are left parsing Trump’s true intentions: Is the shift a genuine reassessment, or merely a calculated move for political advantage? As is often the case with Trump, he acts as if he believes reality bends to his rhetoric. Quite possibly, that is because, for his supporters, it pretty much does. In this case, he now pretends he never trusted Putin, as he asserts his disappointment in Putin’s continued bombing of Ukraine. He does this, even though, during his first term in office, he once said he trusted Putin over and above his own intelligence agencies.

While rhetoric alone does not determine policy, it often signals possible directions for future engagement. If Trump continues this trajectory, it could influence the tone of dialogue between the two nations and shape broader geopolitical strategies. It may also alter the expectations of allies and rivals alike, recalibrating the chessboard of international relations. In fact, while the national media in America is atwitter at Trump’s newfound bluster, at least when it comes to Putin and Russia, reaction in the Kremlin is one of umbrage. Analysts there have gone from pro-Trump to belittling the American President, and calling for nuclear reprisal, should Trump move forward with elevating the U.S. supply of offensive armaments to Ukraine. 

Political postures are rarely static, and the relationship between Trump and Putin is no exception. Whether this change in tone is a fleeting maneuver or the start of a lasting realignment remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that when high-profile leaders revise their public stances, the world takes notice—ever wary of what such shifts might portend for the global order. Meanwhile, when asked directly, whether Ukraine should attack Moscow directly, which it is alleged Trump asked about, Trump responded, no. It remains to be seen, whether this sudden hutzpah, as it relates to the head Muscovite is a fleeting mirage, or a spine induced growth spurt. My money is on the former.  “Sudden Shifts: Trump’s Changing Rhetoric On Putin!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/15/politics/trump-putin-rewrite-history-analysis

Sudden Shifts: Trump’s Changing Rhetoric on Putin

In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used.

“Break It Down!”

To say that the mere mention of “the Justice Department’s Epstein file” sends shivers down the spine of internet sleuths, political junkies, and late-night talk show hosts alike would be an understatement. Having laid down that marker, let’s go no further without remembering that that some of the brightest and most heralded luminaries of Team Trump promised to deliver the goods, so to speak, regarding the infamous Epstein File. Moreover, MAGA minds also contended Epstein did not commit suicide, as authorities stated at the time of his death.

For years, rumors of an Epstein “client list” have circulated online. As Trump’s most recent presidential campaign unfolded throughout 2024, the Big Guy himself intimated that were he to be returned to office by American voters, he might release a list of individuals associated with Epstein. (See legerdemain, political hucksterism, and Kool-Aid (as in “Don’t drink it)).

In February, Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, fueled speculation regarding the so-called list when announcing the release of records related to the Epstein case. Unfortunately, for eagerly awaiting Trump sleuths, and their voracious appetite for new salacious, juicy weaponizable Democratic/liberal fodder, much of what was later distributed had been in the public domain for years.

In June, former DOGE impresario, and until recently, Trump pal, Elon Musk said the government had not released records related to the case because Trump “is in the Epstein files.” Of course, Trump dismissed the claim. Nevertheless, the assertion added jet fuel to the interest level in the government’s records. 

Context

Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender who died in a New York jail in 2019. At the time, he was awaiting additional sex trafficking charges. A noted successful financier, he was known to host high-profile guests on his private island of Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. That is where many of his alleged crimes are said to have occurred.

What To Know

In a recent memo following what authorities described as an “exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,” the FBI and DOJ said, “While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” In short, no secret file, and no homicide.

That was followed by Trump writing on Truth Social: “The FBI, under the direction of Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, is back to the basics: Locking up criminals, and cleaning up America’s streets.

We have the Greatest Law Enforcement professionals in the World, but ‘Politics’ and Corrupt Leadership often prevented them from doing their job. That is no longer the case, and now, they have been unleashed to do their jobs, and they are doing just that. Keep it up—MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!”

This seemingly sudden about-face has roiled MAGAWorld. Trump supporters have taken the almost unheard of step of criticizing President Donald Trump following the review and assessment by the FBI and Department of Justice that found “no incriminating “client list” related to Jeffrey Epstein.

After praising FBI Director Kash Pate and Deputy Director Dan Bongino in a Truth Social post, Trump took major incoming, receiving pointed pushback from people from whom he normally receives unconditional, unyielding support.

A few examples of reactions from the MAGA faithful include:

Andrea Lizebeth wrote on Truth Social: “Trump I have been extremely loyal to you! I’m very pleased with almost everything you’re doing, but I absolutely draw the line on this one! If you are … brave, big heart, and will stand ten toes down for what’s right, then bring the truth to light!!! Release the info no matter what!!! 

If you don’t stop/expose what happened on that island and what is a huge problem in our country for these children then who will?! Somebody is being blackmailed!!! God put you in your position for a reason!!! If you do what’s right your supporters will always stand by you!!!”

Belinda Chartrand, another Truth Social user, who describes herself as a “wife, mother and patriot,” wrote: “I appreciate the hard work being done, but America deserves to see the Epstein list—and we need to see more arrests! No child should ever have to endure the kind of trauma these young girls suffered.

I don’t care if the names on the list are Democrats or Republicans, CEOs, or pastors. If they abused children, they belong in prison. As someone who has survived this kind of trauma, I can tell you these kids will carry the weight of it for the rest of their lives—it touches every single part of who they are, and they will never fully recover.”

A user named Katie, who used a profile picture/graphic that said, “We the people love Trump,” wrote: “We The People do not believe the latest Epstein excuses by the FBI and it’s insulting to your base of MAGA supporters!!! We KNOW it is not true!!!

When will you, Mr. President, demand accountability from the FBI? The children, sir?? Do it for them!! Heads need to roll for what these people did to the children!!”

The account “MAGA God Bless America” wrote: “No one of big significance has been arrested! Yes, they’ve done great things but the elite still skate.”

The account “Patriot4Life” wrote: “We thought no one was above the law. I guess we were wrong!”

What Happens Next

Trump, and numerous people vigorously trying out to be his top surrogates, stoked this fire, and they are now faced with the unenviable task of dousing the flames and crushing the embers. It is reasonable to presume, the skepticism, which TrumpWorld actively supercharged, will not be quickly or easily expunged.

Frankly, the question that MAGA’s finest should be asking themselves is, have they been played? The faux list, and the supposed suicide machination look/sound a lot like tried and true bromides to gin up the base with hate for good old-fashioned imaginary Democratic foils; something I’ve coined as DDS, or Democrat Derangement Syndrome. From afar, it sure looks like MAGA got took, hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, and run amok by their besties. Footnote: Without Vaseline.

Trump and his A-Team will likely face continued scrutiny over promises made but not delivered. But seriously, what are they gonna do about it? “Hold Up, Wait A Minute: What Had Happened Was…”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.newsweek.com/maga-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-list-2095868

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-supporters-angry-justice-departments-epstein-memo/story?id=123567461

Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used in composing this post.

Break It Down

The NAACP, aka, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is the nation’s premier, largest, and oldest civil rights organization, founded in 1909. Last month, CEO Derrick Johnson announced that this year, for the first time in the organization’s 116-year history, the NAACP will not invite Donald Trump, the sitting President, to its convention.

In the wake of the Trump Administration’s high energy, broadscale anti-DEI, anti-CRT, and anti-affirmative action campaigns, this deviation from historical norms has barely scratched the surface of the daily news. Instead, naming a former Fox & Friends Co-host Defense Secretary, replacing C.Q. Brown as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a less qualified service member, removing the head of the Library of Congress with one of his former attorneys, and attacking the National Museum of African American History and Culture as “divisive,” are among the issues that have dominated the media landscape.

Johnson cited the reason for not inviting Trump, as his attacks on American Democracy: 

“The President has signed unconstitutional executive orders to oppress voters and undo federal civil rights protections; he has illegally turned the military on our communities, and he continually undermines every pillar of our democracy to make himself more powerful and to personally benefit from the U.S. government.  

This year’s NAACP convention will be held in a couple of weeks in Charlotte. The theme is “The Fierce Urgency of Now,” which echo’s the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and reflects current political divisions and threats to civil rights. Not extending Trump an invitation is yet another flashpoint between the Trump administration and the NAACP, which is conducting legal battles, including those against efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and changes to voting regulations.

In response to Derrick Johnson, and the NAACP, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson said the “The NAACP isn’t advancing anything but hate and division, while the President is focused on uniting our country, improving our economy, securing our borders, and establishing peace across the globe.” I suppose this is where I note, Mr. Fields obviously spoke that last point before Trump boasted of having obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But I digress.

The NAACP has invited sitting presidents to its conventions since 1909, when it was founded. The historical tapestry includes all presidents, irrespective of political party. Johnson noted, “There is a rich history of both Republicans and Democrats attending our convention – from Harry S. Truman to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and beyond. This administration does not respect the Constitution or the rule of law.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. Fields was not alone in his dismissiveness of the NAACP. To the extent voices on the right addressed the matter, they seemed all-in on attacking the organization for divisiveness. But hold up; wait a minute. A key aspect of the discussion has been repeatedly overlooked. Mr. Trump actually has a record. As the phrase goes, this is not his first rodeo.

In 2016, when, he was merely a candidate, of course, he was still extended the courtesy of an invitation. Don’t be shocked, but, he declined to address the NAACP Convention as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. After being elected, President Trump declined to speak at the convention in 2017. In 2018? Yep, declined again. In 2019, he refused to address the convention, he said, because of changes in the date and format of the appearance. Trump said the organization wanted a question-and-answer session, instead of a speech, which he had agreed to deliver. It was probably just as well. Convention delegated unanimously voted to call for Trump’s impeachment. I didn’t find any record of a 2020 snub. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and blame that one on Covid and the shutdown. And no, I’m not going to suggest he created the pandemic, so he wouldn’t have to attend the convention. 

In the past, Republican presidents have attended the conventions, recognizing their role in shaping national conversations on race and civil rights. While at the 2006 convention, President George W. Bush lamented that the Republican Party had let go of its ties to the Black community. “For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party,” he said to applause.

“That history has prevented us from working together when we agree on great goals. That’s not good for our country … I want to change the relationship,” he added.

And in 1981, President Ronald Reagan rebuked racial bigotry as fundamentally un-American, saying in his convention address: “A few isolated groups in the backwater of American life still hold perverted notions of what America is all about,” adding that “this country, because of what it stands for, will not stand for your conduct.” 

Whatever dude!

So as not to put too fine a point on the matter, perhaps we should re-evaluate the current situation. All things considered, maybe the organization simply shouldn’t have bothered to request the honor of someone’s presence, who clearly has no interest in, or intention to attend your event. “The NAACP Didn’t Invite Trump To Its Convention: Don’t Bury The Lede!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/17/naacp-trump-invite-president/?=undefined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP

The NAACP Didn’t Invite Trump To Its Convention: Don’t Bury The Lede