One of the most challenging aspects of the Trump administration is that it often throws out too much information to process. Not long ago, the president noted that the Declaration of Independence could have captured national attention for months. Now, similar stories come from the Trump White House two or three times a week, making it all blend together.
If you contrast these kinds of narratives with the trade war with China and Trump’s assertions, it’s interesting to see his recent ideas. He mentioned movie tariffs and reopening Alcatraz – both seem like distractions. This suggests something deeper at play, far beyond any mere call to arms, like Steve Bannon’s intense claims.
Let’s break down the ideas themselves. Trump recently announced on Truth Social that Alcatraz would reopen, due to a supposed need for more prison space.
Think about this for a moment. If a legitimate government finds a necessity for more prisons, they’d typically handle it in a structured manner through official protocols. Instead, it looks like Trump just had a sudden thought one Sunday and issued orders about reopening facilities.
How can we say this? Because it’s not a sound idea at all.
Alcatraz was too expensive to operate and was closed back in 1963. It’s not practical ever since. And it’s also costly to renovate. Presently, it’s a museum run by the National Park Service. The place is only 22 acres and cannot genuinely be expanded. If a new prison is necessary for high-risk offenders, Alcatraz should not be on the list.
Shortly after this, Trump announced he would impose a 100% tariff on foreign films – claiming something like “Bluey movies threaten national security.” This seems to stem from a muddled understanding of a conversation he had with John Voight, which likely wasn’t well thought through. Again, it’s evident that such plans are outlandish and potentially harmful.
This approach is impractical and you really can’t grasp how films are produced. What qualifies as a “foreign film?” Many are produced in various locations, both inside and outside the U.S. And what about content designed for streaming platforms? How do you apply tariffs? Is it based on the production cost or ticket sales?
Beyond the logistical issues, imposing taxes on foreign films could potentially violate the First Amendment. If a constitutionally-questionable 2% tax is scrutinized, how could a 100% tax on films be constitutional? Trump’s “order” seems to lean towards imposing this tariff as a limitation based on content “messaging and propaganda.”
Moreover, the notion of taxing films raises a troubling precedent that could lead to taxation on various services. The U.S. is a major exporter of services. If Trump had merely discussed this for five minutes with someone knowledgeable, this proposal probably wouldn’t exist. But that’s not how his administration operates.
The damage from age manifests in various ways. Joe Biden has shown some struggles in his speech. Meanwhile, Trump seems to have lost any inhibitions he previously exercised. Alcatraz and these film tariffs are just recent manifestations of that decline.
Just the month before, he impulsively sparked a trade war, attempting to punish China for perceived slights. Abrego Garcia appeared repeatedly on panels where he boasted about “MS-13” tattoos on his knuckles. It’s apparent that Trump’s judgment will likely continue to deteriorate in the coming years.
And there are no checks in place. Trump is surrounded by sycophants who seem more interested in their positions than the well-being of the country. This is a troubling reality for Republicans in Congress.
People recognize that Trump poses a threat, but little has been done to mitigate the potential fallout. Ignoring him is a risky strategy that may lead to greater issues down the road.
