Misalignment of U.S. Fiscal Policy and the Federal Debt

In September, 2026, U.S. President Trump announced his intent to have the U.S. Government send $5000 to every American, which would cost that government about a trillion dollars, in the event that Trump’s Republican group retains control of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in 2027 after the upcoming “midterm” election. The attempt to sway the electorates to vote for Republican federal representatives and senators paid no heed to the $40.2 trillion debt of the U.S. Government. Even characterizing the proposed payments as “dividends” ignored the fact that the money would have to be paid for, either by federal taxes, tariffs, or issuing more Treasury bonds (i.e., federal debt). It was not as if the payments would go out from money that the government already had. Such electioneering so misaligned from prudent fiscal policy amid such a high public debt raises the question of whether a government “of the People” can govern responsibly rather than merely in line with instant gratification.

At his Republican “Midterm” convention in September, 2026, President Trump said, “If we win, we’re going to get you $5,000. So that’s it. Very simple.”[1] Actually, it is not so simple. Republican candidates for Congressional office had good reason to “sidestep the idea.”[2] Firstly, financing the “dividends” by issuing additional Treasury bonds would add $1 trillion to the extant $40.2 trillion federal debt, unless additional taxes would be enacted to pay for the $5000 checks to every American. The yields on Treasury bonds were already rising, making it more expensive for people and businesses, as well as the U.S. Government, to borrow money, and putting downward pressure on the stock market, making it more difficult for corporations to raise capital. Although the Federal Reserve raising interest rates and the relatively high inflation were factors behind the increasing bond yields, the fact that the public was holding about $32 trillion of the U.S. Government’s debt suggests that yields had to rise in order for so much debt to attract bond holders, for as bond prices decline, bond yields rise. So although AP News reported at the time that the rise in bond yields “has accelerated recently because inflation has remained stubbornly high for years,” the need of the U.S. Treasury department to attract investors as the amount of outstanding Treasuries bloats should not be ignored.[3] Even the media was slighting the economic headwind from the $40.2 trillion public federal debt.

The problem of bloated public debt—not counting those of the member states!—had also been absent during the 2024 presidential election campaign “season” in 2023. Neither of the main candidates for the office meant to safeguard the viability of the U.S. Government needed to respond to concerns raised by the electorates in the member-states, which indicates that perhaps a government “by the people” can sidestep, or even be inherently inclined to obviate hard fiscal-policy choices even amid a public debt that is greater than the annual economic output. Neither Trump nor Harris were pressured by voters or journalists to address whether, or how, to reduce the massive debt-load; hence Trump, once elected, felt free of political constraint to urge Congress to extend his tax cuts rather than to raise taxes and dedicate the proceeds to reducing the debt. Even as California produced a balanced budget in 2026, the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2026 reached about $2 trillion as of August, 2026 according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s $2 trillion added to the U.S. Government’s debt in that fiscal year alone. The fiscal imbalance is starling, hence so too is the proposal of $5,000 for every American. 

While it may be tempting to blame the president exclusively, such blame in a government “by the People” ultimately accrues to the citizenry itself. Jefferson and Adams agreed not on much, but that a viable republic really needs an educated and virtuous citizenry was assumed by both men, and thus this article of faith can be said to be nonpartisan, and thus patriotic in nature. Virtuous people take heed of being too much in debt as a instance of public irresponsibility, whereas profligate, selfish people are happy to send the bill to future generations without heeding even baleful economic indicators such as rising debt yields.  

---

1. Mike Catalini, “Trump Pushes His $5000 ‘Dividend’ Pledge If GOP Wins Midterms,” APnews.com, September 18, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Stan Choe, “Wall Street Drifts Lower as Bond Yields Rise and Oil Prices Swing,” APnews.com, September 18, 2026.

Freedom Blocked at the “Freedom 250” Grand Prix

The Indy Car Series event, held on August 23, 2026 in Washington, D.C. to celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence by delegates from the British colonies then officially in rebellion, ironically gave people visiting or living in the federal capitol a visceral experience of freedom blocked by governmental police and military authority. For not only the Mall, but also the entire route of the race was blocked by military and local police during the race such that public viewing was blocked. Entire city blocks separated the route from where tourists and local residents alike could drive and walk. Whether the federal government excessively pushed security at the expense of Americans being able to view the race without the luck of a lottery draw in advance for a ticket to be able to see the race at the Mall (roughly, between the Capitol building and the Washington Monument) is one question; the irony of being in such a visual, even overwhelming, militaristic police-city during a celebration of political freedom is more definite.

The public could not access the race route, or even get close enough to see the cars passing. That the entire race course, rather than just the designated fan areas on or near the Mall, was blocked raises the obvious question of why even to have a race if people are blocked from watching it. To be sure, free general-admission tickets were issued by lottery in advance but this process did not allow people in the city on the day of the race to spontaneously see the race, and the fact that a lottery had to be resorted to means that the demand for tickets exceeded the supply, which in turn may have been artificially restricted by security proponents in the government. Around the route, even surrounding streets were blocked off even from foot traffic. Even some museums near the Mall required a Grand Prix ticket for entry. High temporary fences along the Mall between it and the museums kept even people going to the latter to even glimpse the race.

To be sure, blocking visuals of the viewing stands, where ticketed seats were not free, could be justified on security grounds because President Trump was present there, but that rationale does not justify blocking the entire route, especially given the legitimate countervailing public interest to attend a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, a strong public interest existed but was wholly denied.

The sheer mass of local police, including their cars with emergency lights on, and the militias from the member states, including formidable military trucks, was arguably visually so oppressive as to be a turn-off to freedom-loving Americans. In other words, even if access to the route but not the viewing stands were possible, the experience of so many uniformed people with guns could be enough for a preference to leave the city that day.

Moreover, seeing so much military and police could prompt people to wonder just how much freedom still existed in the United States. The visuals could perhaps be likened to how daily life in Berlin in Nazi Germany may have looked. The presence of the military may have been especially startling to Americans not used to how much Washington, D.C. had changed since the twentieth century.

On the governmental side, the penchant for security can take on a life of its own, such that proponents unknowingly lapse in the sort of healthy judgment that is capable of balancing security interests with others. Such balance goes by the wayside as a republic transitions itself into a police state, and the change can be so gradual that reversal is almost impossible. Like a frog in a pot of water that is gradually being heated, citizens of a republic may not notice even that a transition has been underway. To be sure, American tourists in Washington on August 23, 2026 may have been stunned by the fresh sight of so many military troops, trucks, police employees, and police cars so concentrated blocks from the route and even farther into the city itself.

History may record the transition from the Roman republic to the Roman Empire as sudden, but in the daily life of the Romans, the increased visuals of weaponized troops may have been gradual. Perhaps some educated tourists in Washington during the race may have thought of what Rome may have been like when gladiator contests were going on in the coliseum—celebrations of Roman political power accompanied by a formidable military presence in the vicinity, given the typical attendance of the emperor at the games. Americans could benefit from the insight that even if their empire is a “city on a hill,” as President Reagan referred to the U.S., it is not immune from the rise and fall of empires that has gone on throughout history. A domestic presence of military forces even in the midst of a lot of local police present may be an indication that a republic is in transition to something else, and this transition could be part of the more general decline of empires.

The U.S. Supreme Court Clipping Judicial Overreach

The separation of powers that characterizes governments in the United States assumes that each branch will act to further its own interests, given the salience of self-interest (and self-preservation) in human nature. It is assumed that the checks and balances between legislative, judicial, and executive branches will keep any one branch from dominating the other two, and, moreover, the government itself from becoming tyrannical at the expense of the liberty of the citizenry. It is not assumed or relied upon that a branch will prune itself without external pressure from one of the other branches. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court may have done so in ruling on June 27, 2025 to limit “the ability of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide.”[1] I contend that any real wing-clipping by 6 of the 9 justices is illusory rather than indicative of the federal judiciary unilaterally restricting itself.

“With their decision, the justices appeared to upend the ability of single federal judges to freeze policies across the country,” according to The New York Times.[2] The appearance is belied by the fact that the ruling would not go into effect for 30 days and “the justices laid out a potential path for challengers, saying that district court judges could consider whether to take up class-action suits seeking to bar enforcement of the executive order on a statewide, regional or even national basis.”[3] The latter basis would essentially enable a district-court federal judge to block an executive order from going into effect anywhere in the United States.  Groups that had challenged the executive order at issue—invalidating birth-right citizenship for children of illegal immigrants—quickly filed class-action suits in Maryland and New Hampshire, with others expected in the following week—well within the 30 days. As for the validity of the executive order itself, the court would decide that in a case scheduled in the court’s next term.

It is interesting that the justices “split along ideological lines” on a matter of judicial process rather than on the substance of the executive order.[4] Perhaps political ideology has more of an imprint on judicial rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court than most people realize. After all, Justice Sandra Day O’Conner wrote the majority opinion for Bush v. Gore (2000) before oral arguments were heard. Might it be that the conservative justices on the bench wanted President Trump to see a win for him even though the national judicial block of his executive order would likely continue uninterrupted? That president had been very critical of Justice Amy Barrett for another ruling, and she wrote the majority opinion on the case on whether district federal judges could block an executive order nationally. Indeed, the president declared himself the winner from the ruling even though the six conservative justices left open a way for district court judges to be able to continue wielding nationwide injunctions to block the president’s policies issued as executive orders.

---

1. Abbie Vansickle, “Justices Put Limit on Judges’ Power, In Win for Trump,” The New York Times, June 28, 2025.
2. Ibid., italics added.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.