July 4th

America is so divided that it cannot even decide how best to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday.

Ten years ago Congress set up a bipartisan committee to organise America’s 250th birthday celebrations. The committee- which was called America 250—would have a budget of $100 million.

But almost as soon as he started his second term, Trump, decided to set up a rival organisation which he called Freedom 250. It was part of his anti-woke, anti-DEI and white nationalist campaign. Trump did not like the way America 250 told the American story. The bipartisan committee focused on the story of achievement but at the same time acknowledged failures and contradictions.

Freedom 250, on the other hand, presents  American history as an inspirational story of exceptionalism, patriotism and national greatness. Naturally, white men dominate.

The events that Freedom 250 organised were typically Trumpian: a NASCAR race in Washington; The UFC cage fight in front of the White House, athletic games, military displays and a “Great American State Fair” on the Mall which stretches from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. At midnight on July 4, Freedom 250 will set off “the largest firework display  in history.”

Trump’s plans have run into difficulties. The UFC fight was roundly condemned. The numbers attending the Great American State Fair are significantly lower than expected and a number of singers who were expected  to perform have backed out when they realised that the president was behind the event.

Trump says he is not concerned about the cancelled artistes. Instead of singers he intends to “give the longest speech I have ever given.”

Meanwhile, America 250 is struggling to pay the bills. Only $25 million of the promised $100 million has materialised. Much of it is believed to have been redirected on Trump’s orders to the Freedom 250 account. Democrat Congressman have pledged to investigate.

NATO

Trump flies from the July 4 celebrations to Ankara for what has been billed as “one of the most consequential NATO summits” in the alliance’s history.

Reports suggest that the American president intends to arrive with both guns blazing; one of them aimed at the defence spending of his allies and the other at their refusal to become involved in the Iran War. “They weren’t there for us!!!” Trump recently wrote on his Truth Social platform. In Trump’s playbook, alliances are reciprocal.

The president’s long-term aim is probably not all that different from that of the Europeans and Canadians. He envisages an alliance where the US remains the primary nuclear guarantor. America would also provide strategic lift, intelligence and high-end capabilities. The Europeans would pay for and field the bulk of the conventional forces in Europe so that the US can concentrate on China.

The two sides, however, may agree on the destination. The route, however, could be deeply divisive.

Previous presidents have looked upon NATO as a strategic asset. Not Trump. He is a transactional president. In the NATO world, if one country fails to meet its obligations–  as he perceives them—then America is entitled to scaled back its commitments.

Trump is adamant that NATO has let America down in Iran. From his point of view, the US went to war to protect Europe’s oil and when asked to help, Europe stepped aside. Of course, the rest of NATO see it somewhat differently. They point out that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty—the three musketeer one for all and all for one clause—does not apply because Iran did not attack America. America attacked Iran. And besides, the Europeans were not consulted about the war.

Trump succeeded in bullying the rest of NATO to spend more on defence. In ten years’ time Europe and Canada are expected to have a bigger defence budget than America’s. But that is not enough. The Europeans have failed  the loyalty test in the Strait of Hormuz. Whether  he chooses to retaliate—and how—should become clear in Ankara.

US Supreme Court

The US Supreme  Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by a 6-3 vote. But the reasoning behind that majority was less reassuring than the headline suggests.

The vote was 6-3 against ending birthright citizenship. The interesting thing was it was not 9-0 given that the language in the 14th Amendment could not have been clearer.

But as interesting, one justice, Brett Kavanaugh, declined to endorse birthright citizenship as a constitutional principle. He voted against Trump because statutory grounds were insufficient to dispose of the case.

Another reason to be concerned is that the division in the court just shows how far the debate over immigration and birthright citizenship has moved since the issue last came before the  Supreme Court more than a century ago. It is no longer confined to the fringes of conservative jurisprudence.

Having said all the above, the June 2 ruling is a landmark binding precedent. It will now be difficult to bring before the court, let alone expect the justices to reverse the decision. The other possible avenue—a constitutional amendment – is virtually unthinkable.

A generation ago, challenging birthright citizenship was largely confined to academic seminars and conservative think tanks. Today it has reached the Supreme Court, divided the justices and become a mainstream political issue. That, more than the immediate legal outcome, may prove to be the lasting significance of the case

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”