Opinion: Donald Trump doesn't deserve to be celebrated on Presidents' Day
As a child, I was obsessed with presidents. When I was 6, my parents would summon me downstairs with the adults they were entertaining and have me rattle off all the presidents, in order and including their middle initials. I was proud to show off my knowledge of the presidents.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
Sensing the admiration I had for the presidency, my great-grandmother gave me her yellowed scrapbook of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She was a long-time Democratic delegate, attending conventions, so she had buttons and flyers, and newspaper articles about FDR. When her mother, my great-great grandmother, turned 100, I was given the letter she received from President Richard M. Nixon.
As a child, I would tell people I was going to be president of the United States. Well, that didn't happen, although I ended up working on Capitol Hill and did meet a couple of presidents along the way.
Today, for many of us, a somber reflection is settling over the nation. Historically, this day, Presidents' Day, has been a time to honor the legacies of our presidents, celebrating their contributions to the enduring principles of American democracy. Yet this year, the observance feels markedly different, casting a shadow over the traditions we once held dear. And that ominous shadow is Donald Trump, who is anything but a 'president.'
With his autocratic bent, today's holiday no longer stands as a tribute to the leaders who have shaped the country but instead serves as a stark reminder of what we have lost. Last year, when the United States still had a law-abiding, decent leader in President Joe Biden, we unknowingly celebrated our last true Presidents' Day. Now, under the rule of Trump, we look upon the holiday not with reverence but with mourning.
Established in 1885, Presidents' Day was originally designated to commemorate the birthday of George Washington, the nation's first president. Celebrated on February 22, Washington's actual birth date, it was the first federal holiday to honor an individual American.
In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act shifted the observance to the third Monday in February, a move intended to provide workers with more three-day weekends. This change also broadened the holiday's significance, leading many to use it as an occasion to honor all U.S. presidents and their contributions to the country.
Presidents' Day has served as a reminder of the indelible marks left by our nation's leaders. It was a moment to reflect on those who upheld democracy, safeguarded freedoms, and strengthened the republic. Washington, revered as the 'Father of Our Country,' set enduring precedents for the presidency through his commitment to republican ideals and his voluntary relinquishment of power.
Then there's Abraham Lincoln, who guided the nation through the Civil War, abolishing slavery and redefining the nation's moral compass. His legacy is immortalized in the Lincoln Memorial, a symbol of unity and freedom.
My great-grandmother loved Roosevelt. He was one of our greatest presidents — she always said the greatest. He led the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, expanding the role of the federal government to protect the welfare of its people. His leadership left an imprint so significant that his memorial in Washington, D.C. ,stands as a tribute to his contributions.
One Republican in the House recently introduced a bill to add Trump's face to Mount Rushmore. Trump wants his face on it. Mount Rushmore itself, a controversial monument to Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lincoln, represents the principles on which the nation was built to many. These presidents cemented America's place as a beacon of democracy.
But today, Presidents' Day feels hollow. Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has wasted no time in dismantling the pillars of democracy. The erosion of democratic norms has been swift and brutal. He has suggested outlawing political dissent and called for revoking the licenses of media outlets critical of his administration, undermining the foundational principle of free speech.
He has undertaken mass firings of federal employees, including about 17 independent inspectors general, removing critical watchdogs meant to uphold accountability in government. The firings have centralized power in a way that dangerously tips the balance away from the checks and balances that once defined American governance.
In addition to decimating institutional safeguards, Trump has targeted vulnerable communities with a vengeance. His administration has effectively erased protections for transgender Americans, stripping away rights and recognition, leaving them more vulnerable than ever.
He has openly criticized judges and called for their removal when rulings do not align with his agenda, threatening the independence of the judiciary. His attacks on the courts have only emboldened those who see the legal system as an obstacle to raw, unchecked power. Every move he has made in his short time back in office has been another step toward consolidating control, dismantling democracy, and reshaping America into something unrecognizable.
Then there is Trump. He is a monster. He's inherently selfish. He bullies. He threatens. He's hell-bent on revenge. He's corrupt. He's a criminal. He's been impeached twice. He's the antithesis of great. He thinks he belongs on Mount Rushmore…
I find myself today thinking of all the impressionable 6-year-old kids, who, like me, were fascinated by the presidency. Yes, I came of age with Richard Nixon, so my real-world example at the time was less than stellar. But kids today? God help them. Let's put it this way, only a deranged, bigoted, obtuse selfish fool would keep a scrapbook on Trump.
And so here we are, observing Presidents' Day this year. I do so with a profound sense of loss. My heart has always ached because somewhere along the way, I lost my great-grandmother's FDR scrapbook. I would give anything to be able to leaf through those pages today.
What was once a celebration of great leaders and their democratic legacies has now become a cold reminder of what could have been. Instead of electing Kamala Harris, a leader who would have upheld the values of the presidency, America chose a dictator. Things would be normal under a President Harris. We'd actually be celebrating today.
The holiday that once honored the champions of democracy is now an eerie echo of the past, a painful relic of a nation that once valued its leaders for their service to the people rather than their service to themselves. Presidents' Day will no longer be a day of tribute but a day of mourning, marking the moment when America turned away from its founding ideals and into the grip of authoritarianism.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
32 minutes ago
- E&E News
Lawmakers dive into nuclear power solutions for AI
Lawmakers on a House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee on Thursday discussed expanding nuclear energy to meet the growing power needs of artificial intelligence. The Energy Subcommittee hearing is one of several that House Republicans have convened in the past months on powering AI data centers. GOP members have repeatedly emphasized the need for expanded fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, which they deem more reliable than renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Nuclear energy has won bipartisan support in recent years, and members from both parties questioned nuclear industry executives on ways to speed up nuclear construction and bring about new advancements in nuclear technology. Advertisement Democrats, meanwhile, slammed President Donald Trump's budget request, which would cut the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy by around $408 million from its current funding levels of $1.7 billion. They also pointed to provisions within the GOP reconciliation megabill that would shorten the eligibility window for key nuclear tax incentives.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Predator Drones Are Being Flown Over Protesters In Los Angeles
As part of the massive deployment of federal law enforcement and even active duty troops to Los Angeles, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine Operations (AMO) department has been flying MQ-9 Predator B drones over the city. CBP has been flying these unmanned aircraft since 2005 in service of their mission of detecting illegal border crossings. Now, they are being used to conduct aerial surveillance of the protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. LA is a fair distance from the border, and the protestors are not crossing it anyway, meaning the drones are getting used outside of their main mission. This isn't the first time they've been pulled into domestic surveillance duty. During the protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd in 2020, CBP flew them over Minneapolis to keep eye on the protestors there. This drew swift criticism at the time, including by Democratic members of Congress, and Predators do not appear to have been used for this purpose again until now. That said, aerial surveillance of protests, notably by helicopters, is a common practice. The question now is whether unmanned platforms will start being used more regularly, particularly under an aggressive Trump administration. Read more: The Best-Looking Pickup Trucks Ever Sold, According To Our Readers The Predator B drones (which are called "Reapers" in their military variation) used by CBP are strictly surveillance aircraft; they are not armed with any ordnance. While they do have radar systems, those are mostly useful for detecting vehicles; what's relevant here is their electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, basically cameras capable of seeing into both visible and infrared spectrums. Eyes in the sky, in other words. The Department of Homeland Security has released some footage captured by the Predators on X, cut with some intimidating music in a clear effort to push a specific narrative (the post's text, "California politicians must call off their rioting mob," is not exactly subtle or, for that matter, accurate). Low-rent movie trailer music aside, the footage does demonstrate the drone's ability to capture wide-angle shots of the situation. For what it's worth, CBP told The War Zone that the drones are specifically "providing officer safety surveillance" and are "not engaged in the surveillance of First Amendment activities." Given that clashes with protestors is what's at issue, though, that's functionally not much of a distinction. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
