Momentum at airport highlighted
This year's edition of The Tribune-Democrat's Vision special section represented the latest indication that John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport is an increasingly significant part of the area's economic future.
Among the positives, as highlighted in stories in the Vision 2025 section published Feb. 22:
• A sustained increase in passenger numbers over the past couple years has led the Federal Aviation Administration to elevate the airport's status, which comes with an increase in federal funding to use for runway repairs, new equipment and safety upgrades.
• Balance Restaurant began serving breakfast and lunch at its Marketplace eatery inside the terminal building, and there are hopes that a renovated dining room will open soon.
• The pilot training program at Nulton Aviation Flight Academy has grown from 10 students in 2020 to more than 70 this year.
• St. Francis University is enrolling its second class of students for its fledgling aviation maintenance technician program, which is housed at the airport.
• Efforts are moving forward at the airport to create more space for passengers to wait, expand parking for growing crowds and add new hangars for aircraft.
• And the airport has room around it to grow, unlike many of its peers in the northeastern U.S.
• In a related development, Somerset County Technology Center is looking to raise money for a new building to house its burgeoning welding program and its new aviation maintenance program.
Meanwhile, the Johnstown airport has some big things coming up this year.
SkyWest Airlines' Essential Air Service contract to serve Johnstown runs through 2025.
And airport officials have approved a study that they say could be a key planning tool as discussions get underway for the next air service deal.
Consultant ArkStar will work to determine local passengers' favorite destinations and which airports they are flying out of if not Johnstown's.
Johnstown airport leaders are planning an April or May trip to SkyWest's headquarters in Utah to meet with airline officials to discuss the results of the survey.
They're anticipating keeping the airport's current 50-seat jet service and would welcome adding charter service and possibly a Florida flight on top of that.
Airport Manager Cory Cree put it this way: 'It's a situation where success breeds success. We have a lot of momentum from 2024 that is kind of rolling over into 2025.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Big, beautiful bromance breaks up — live on social media
For those who think government should be run like a business, the messy social media spat that played out last week between President Donald Trump and billionaire CEO Elon Musk suggested that business could be doing a lot better. That may help to explain why shares of Musk's company Tesla dropped 14% Thursday, falling for the second straight day as the spat between the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world oozed into a meltdown. Ironically, the fight played out on the social media platforms Truth Social, majority-owned by the president, and X, formerly Twitter, which Musk bought and renamed in 2023 and subsequently turned into a megaphone for far-right politics and Trumpism. To many observers, the breakup of this bromance seemed inevitable, less because of the bros' differences than the great deal they share in common. 'Like 'Alien v. Predator' for political nerds,' The Guardian ballyhooed — and, as a dedicated political nerd, I agree. What else can we expect from two megalomaniacs dedicated to fame, money and far-right politics and experienced with messy divorces? 'I suppose it was in the stars,' Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland and top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. 'Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.' Ah, how far the oligarchic dream team has tumbled since Trump and Musk joined forces to wage war against what Musk branded 'the woke mind virus' — and of course to pursue riches through tribute (Trump) and government contracts (Musk). The table for the breakup was set in late May when the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a domestic policy spending bill, which among other things would eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles such as those Tesla makes. Musk began grousing about the bill early last week, but he mostly confined his criticism to the amount by which the bill would increase the deficit. Trouble began in earnest Thursday, while Trump was meeting in the Oval Office with Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. A reporter asked Trump about Musk's criticism of the bill. Trump pointedly referred to the relationship in the past tense and cast doubts on its happy future. Musk later slipped in a jab, suggesting that Trump and the Republicans could never have prevailed in last year's elections without the $288 million that Musk spent to put them over the top. 'Such ingratitude,' he huffed. The exchange became more heated as Musk lashed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination' that would bankrupt the country. He then rallied his online followers to 'Kill the Bill' and things only got nastier. Among the highlights — and lowlights — Musk accused Trump of keeping the company of a pedophile. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' Musk tweeted. '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That's the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' The reference is to the late registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who can be seen in widely circulated video partying with Trump. Musk later replied 'Yes' to a post that suggested Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President JD Vance. By Thursday afternoon, White House staff were calling the fracas 'the one big, beautiful breakup,' a reference to the legislation that ignited Musk's fury. That led to more speculation and debate as to where the feud would go next. Would it disrupt serious legislation? Who was winning the public relations battle on an ever-shifting playing field? A poll taken by YouGov asked respondents whose side they were on in the feud and found 52% said, perhaps sensibly, neither one. Only 28% picked Trump and a meager 8%, perhaps tech bros, picked Musk. Frankly, in a country loaded with people who have serious concerns about government and feel weary over such shenanigans, I hear a message in the polls: Make it stop! What happened to all the people who say government should be run like a business? The answer I hear is another question: Whose business?
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Crop insurance costs taxpayers billions but only helps big farms
For farmers who grow anything but soybeans and corn in Illinois, buying crop insurance is nearly impossible. Even an insurance agent couldn't figure out how to safeguard his vegetable and poultry farm against unpredictable weather and plain old bad luck. Ed Dubrick, a first-generation farmer, worked at a local crop insurance agency for two years as he was starting up his small operation. He wanted the same federally subsidized safety net for his grapes, raspberries, asparagus and tomatoes that he was easily selling to row crop farmers. But the bureaucracy was insurmountable. 'After probably two dozen phone calls and at least 100 hours put into trying to figure out what I needed to do, I decided crop insurance was too complicated for my diversified farm. It really felt like an instance of the blind leading the blind,' said Dubrick, a veteran who runs DuChick Ranch on 7 acres in Cissna Park, a small village 100 miles south of Chicago. Crop insurance is intended to support 'food security for American consumers and economic stability for rural America,' according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But it doesn't cover all crops equally. It's primarily used by farmers growing the nation's four major commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton. And Illinois is the nation's No. 1 producer of soybeans and No. 2 producer of corn. Only 10 insurance policies were sold to specialty crop farmers last year in Illinois, according to a federal agriculture department census. Meanwhile, nearly 147,000 policies were sold to corn and soybean farmers. 'Does this mean that only 10 farmers in Illinois would benefit from (specialty crop insurance). Absolutely not,' Dubrick said. The federally subsidized program is administered by 12 approved insurance conglomerates who profit more from selling single-crop policies to large operations than multicrop policies to small fruit and vegetable farms. Half of the insurers are subsidiaries of foreign-held multinational corporations based in Japan, Switzerland, Canada and Australia. The Tribune is launching a series of special reports analyzing the hurdles many farmers face in trying to be good stewards of the land as climate change intensifies. Crop insurance is one of these barriers. As currently structured, it helps big farms stay big and keeps fledgling farms small and vulnerable. It's an invisible hand nudging Illinois farmers to cultivate land dominated by neat rows of corn and soybeans. But aggressive farming of only two crops has gradually eroded and depleted nutrients from the Midwest's rich soil. To compensate, grain and bean growers have become increasingly dependent on fertilizers and drainage systems that contaminate water supplies and reduce soil fertility, said Illinois State Climatologist Trent Ford. 'The corn and soybean yields are going up but the question is, how many more inputs are we having to put into the system in order to do that? ' he said. 'Everybody sprays with fungicides now at least twice a year no matter how wet we've been because they just know that's what you do.' Climate change is a wild card that threatens to bring severe drought one year and heavy downpours the next. Farms only growing one or two crops also have less flexibility to adapt. Diversifying harvest is a natural form of insurance, said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization at the intersection of human health and the environment. But, instead of working with nature, she said the federal government throws tens of billions of dollars at antiquated crop insurance policies that benefit large farms and insurance conglomerates. '(Crop insurance) is really keeping farmers on this treadmill of growing the same crops each year, knowing that in 10 to 20 years, it's very likely not going to be sustainable given intensifying climate change,' Schechinger said. Corn and soybean farmers work with a local agent to secure an insurance policy with one of 12 federally approved insurance providers. The policies protect up to 85% of the farmers' historic revenue or yield for a single crop against unforeseeable perils such as natural disasters and market crashes. The USDA's Risk Management Agency subsidizes roughly 60% of a farmer's premium. Farmers are responsible for paying the rest, regardless of whether they own or rent their land. And they never profit from insurance; they just recoup a percentage of their losses. In 2022, the government paid approved insurance providers $12 billion to subsidize premiums and another nearly $4 billion annually to administer the program, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In turn, these insurance providers pay local agents a commission to write policies for farmers. 'In so far as who's benefiting most from this system, without question, it's these private insurance companies,' said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, an alliance of grassroots organizations advocating for federal reforms that support small to midsize family farms and rural communities. The profits have progressively been consolidated in the hands of a few. Over the last decade, 17 federally approved providers have dwindled to a dozen, following a series of buyouts by the publicly traded providers. Ten of the 12 insurers did not respond to requests for comment for this Jones, director of marketing for South Dakota-based Precision Risk Management, said the privately owned provider 'would not be the best fit' to comment on subsidies or the barriers small specialty crop farmers face to receiving insurance. Country Financial, the parent company of Country Mutual, which is based in Illinois, said in a statement from spokesman David Beigie that it supports crop insurance reforms benefiting farmers, companies and agents and 'strongly opposes' cuts to the federal programming. 'In the face of severe weather in Illinois and in other parts of the country, we work with farm clients to help mitigate risk and ensure they have the proper insurance protections for their farming operations,' the statement said. Country Financial and another Illinois-based insurer, American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, have ties to nonprofit groups made up of farmers and non-farmers that lobby for biofuel production, free trade and agricultural subsidies, including crop insurance subsidies. Several people on the leadership team of Country Financial have previously worked at or have joint positions at the Illinois Farm Bureau, which spent $120,000 lobbying on Capitol Hill last year. American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, also based in Illinois, is partially owned by the American Farm Bureau Federation, a national lobbying group that calls itself 'the unified national voice of agriculture' and sowed doubt that climate change was real until a few years ago. It spent more than $7 million lobbying in Washington in the two years before the passage of the last farm bill in September 2018. Last year, as talks were underway about the next farm bill, the federation spent over $1.3 million lobbying. The Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, an advocacy group that includes eight of the 12 approved providers in its membership, has consistently spent $320,000 to $400,000 annually on lobbying since 2014. 'I 100% have a concern about it,' said U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, a Democrat from Chicago who sits on the House Agriculture Committee. He'd like to see more woman- and minority-owned insurance firms on the list of federally approved providers. 'It is a public-private partnership where the government is covering 60% of the premiums. That, to me, is a strong call to make the case for diversity, equity and inclusion.' Congress is negotiating a new farm bill this year, but previous legislation prohibits the federal government from making any changes to crop insurance that would lower the subsidies providers receive. 'It's not dissimilar from how the federal government hasn't been allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices through Medicare. A similar dynamic exists here in crop insurance, and that was a very intentional provision that was added in the 2014 farm bill,' Hackett said. Farms were highly diversified and much smaller in the 1920s, said Scott Irwin, a professor of agricultural marketing at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. They still would have grown plenty of corn but less soybeans. Lots of ground was used to grow oats and hay to feed the horses that did most of the manual labor. As motorized vehicles became popular, there was less need for horses. Illinois' flat land was ideally suited for mechanical agriculture: tractors, combines and planters. And, fewer horses meant less need for hay and oats. Field space freed up just as Americans' appetite for meat increased. Soybeans, an import from East Asia, were an ideal high-protein diet for livestock. It just so happened that they grew well in Illinois. A connected network of rivers also positioned Illinois to export grain and beans throughout the Americas. Railroads were built to further facilitate the transfer. Food processors such as ADM and Cargill set up shop in Illinois to be closer to their raw ingredients and benefit from the region's robust transportation system. 'You stir all that together and you get Illinois' comparative advantage within the U.S. and globally to produce corn and soybeans at scale,' said Irwin. Today, one would be hard-pressed to find a rural town in Illinois where a tall silo can't be seen beyond acres of open field. Crop insurance has kept Illinois committed to these two by Congress in the late 1930s in response to the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, crop insurance was intended to reduce the need for ad hoc disaster spending. In recent years, however, it has become a near-constant form of disaster spending. The top five weather-related losses resulted in over $118.7 billion in payouts nationally from 2001 to 2022, according to the Environmental Working Group. But, crop insurance companies rarely lost money because they have been allowed to assign higher risk policies to the federal government. The only year crop insurance companies did not profit was 2012, when extreme drought ravaged the majority of the country. Payouts in Illinois topped $3.5 billion. Droughts are anticipated to become increasingly common between intense storms as climate change makes Illinois significantly warmer and wetter. So far, the higher temperatures have been concentrated in the winter and at night. This has made growing seasons longer, actually giving corn and soybean farmers more flexibility. It's also much easier to deal with too much water via drainage systems than the total lack of water that growing regions in the American Southwest are facing. 'We're more resilient, not necessarily because of measures that have been put in place, but because of a little bit of fortune in where we live,' said Ford, the Illinois state climatologist. Warmer, wetter conditions do, however, increase the prevalence of pests and bacteria, and a 2022 USDA report encouraged Illinois farmers to begin planting crops that are better suited for heat and water stress such as okra and peppers. But the consequences of climate change have yet to truly be felt on Illinois farms. 'With (fertilizers, pesticides) and the proliferation of crop insurance, the non-climate pieces of agriculture are crafted such that the climate risk we do face in the Midwest is subsidized,' Ford said. It may even shield farmers from having to think about climate change, he suggested. He has noticed that specialty crop farmers tend to be more keyed into the impacts of climate change and resilience strategies because their crop insurance systems are less robust. While farmers who grow relatively small amounts of lots of different crops, instead of just corn and soybeans, can technically buy a special plan instituted in 2014 called whole farm revenue protection, it's not well-known or easily accessible. Only 9% of specialty crop farms nationwide were insured in 2022 compared with 62% of row crop farms, according to federal agriculture department data. Dubrick was one of several diversified farmers the Tribune spoke to who explored the whole farm revenue protection plan for his vegetables and poultry but decided it was too much of a bureaucratic nightmare. He would have had to submit meticulous expense reports for every crop he grew, a cumbersome task that takes farmers' attention away from the field. 'Farming is where I find my solace and enjoyment,' Dubrick said on an overcast afternoon in early April. Dubrick's home and farm are across the street from the former home and farm of a local man he looked up to like a grandfather, who sparked his love of farming and is the namesake of his 1-year-old son, Calvin. Today, he makes all his financial decisions with his wife Lindsey, son Calvin and 3-year-old daughter Evelyn in mind. A plan that offered security while he grew his operation would be attractive, Dubrick said. In the early years, he aspired to triple his revenue to support this growing family. But whole farm revenue protection plans would only let him assume up to a 35% increase in his revenue compared to the previous year. It wouldn't be enough. 'If I knew I had a floor of what I was going to get any given year (like grain farmers), I would be more apt to invest in infrastructure and scale up more efficiencies,' said Dubrick. Many farmers don't even know about whole farm protection. Only seven of the nearly 1,600 agents who sell crop insurance in Illinois are licensed to sell whole farm plans, according to a Tribune analysis of federal agriculture department data. Agents aren't incentivized to sell whole farm plans because the 12 insurance companies pay them based on the amount of the premium they secure. It takes more time to tailor coverage to small, multi-crop farms that will inevitably pay lower premiums to insurance companies. Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced legislation in 2023 to subsidize insurance companies based on the complexity of a policy rather than the size. It would provide funds to train insurance agents on how to write whole farm policies. The legislation was intended to push insurance companies to give agents more commission for selling whole farm revenue protection plans, encouraging a safety net for small diversified farms. But the bill, called the Whole Farm Revenue Protection Program Improvement Act, didn't go anywhere. Instead, the largest 2% of policies account for over 36% — or $759 million — of the subsidies given to insurance conglomerates. So, when the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency posted an open call for 'insights on finding and fixing waste, fraud and abuse related to the US Department of Agriculture' on Elon Musk's X in mid-February, Schechinger decided to make a suggestion. She took to BlueSky, an X competitor: 'how about the $2B taxpayers send to private crop insurance companies/agents each year just to operate the program?' The government paid $2.2 billion in administrative and operating subsidies to crop insurance providers in 2022. It doled out another $1.5 billion in underwriting gains, which equal the difference between the premiums collected and losses paid out. 'I think (crop insurance) should be on DOGE's hit list, but not the money that's going to farmers,' Schechinger told the Tribune later that day. The USDA did not respond to requests for comment. If the government were interested in reining in insurance company profits, Schechinger said it could implement changes to the public-private partnership in the next farm bill. The comprehensive package of legislation that dictates agriculture policy is supposed to be updated every five years, but the bill that the country is operating under expired in 2023. A gridlocked Congress gave it two one-year extensions. The new expiration date is Sept. 30. Senate Democrats included the Whole Farm Revenue Protection Program Improvement Act in their latest farm bill framework. Meanwhile, a competing farm bill introduced by House Republicans sidestepped the issue. U.S. Rep. Eric Sorenson, a former meteorologist who represents parts of north and central Illinois, was one of four Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee who voted in favor of the Republican bill. His office did not respond to requests for comment. Neither the House Republican nor Senate Democrat proposals sought to rein in the insurance companies' claim to taxpayer dollars. 'The (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) doesn't have a policy that advocates blowing up the public-private partnership because of just how radical that is,' said Hackett, the coalition's policy specialist. 'You don't touch it.' Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a Senate Agriculture Committee member, had once championed a bill that would reduce crop insurance premium support for top-earning farmers. Instead of subsidizing 60% of the policy, the federal government would subsidize 45%. He abandoned the proposal, which came to be nicknamed 'the Durbin amendment,' in the latest farm bill negotiations after it failed to garner enough votes to include it in the two earlier farm bills. The senator and his team declined to comment on the matter when approached by the Tribune in April shortly before he announced his intent to retire. However, in recent months, his team shifted its attention from high-earning farmers to the impact of climate change related losses on the crop insurance industry. Durbin met with the Illinois Corn Growers Association in March to discuss how to insulate Illinois from premium hikes as southern states see more crop failures and file more claims. Crop insurance companies are already strategizing how to minimize their losses as climate change intensifies. Since they receive federal subsidies, they cannot withdraw from markets as easily as home insurance providers have in fire-, hurricane- and flood-prone areas. Last year, the federal government blocked insurance providers' attempts to pull out of West Texas, a region that's been scorched by heat and drought. 'This may be the first proverbial canary in the coal mine,' said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of agricultural policy at the U. of I. and an Agriculture Department appointee under the Obama administration. 'It's not an imminent collapse, but it is indicative of a very real, big and growing problem. Why are we insuring areas that cannot produce a crop year in and year out? I think that's a real challenge for the system.' As West Texas and other regions start feeling the impacts of climate change more intensively, premiums could rise nationwide. States like Illinois, which aren't anticipated to experience as intense extremes, may decide crop insurance isn't worth it for them, leaving only those in high-risk areas buying policies. This, Coppess warns, could be how the crop insurance industry comes tumbling down. The USDA did not respond to requests for comment, nor did U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth or Reps. Mike Bost, Nikki Budzinski and Mary Miller, who represent Illinois on the House Agriculture Committee. Meanwhile, without crop insurance, diversified farmers in the Midwest like Dubrick have gotten creative with nature. When a drought hit in summer 2023 and he lost nearly half of the revenue he was expecting for May through July, he was able to recoup some of his losses by pivoting to crops in other growing seasons. Corn and soybeans, on the other hand, have one optimal planting and harvesting window per year. Last year, Dubrick planted over 30 different crops to ensure he was prepared for whatever weather came his way. 'Peas like cool weather, but tomatoes and peppers want warm weather, and peppers do really well in drought. Tomatoes do better with some more moisture,' he said. 'The diversity is my insurance.' But Dubrick would feel more secure if there was a form of crop insurance that worked for him. 'Just point-blank honesty, the revenue safety net that we've leaned on the most is that my wife and I both have off-farm jobs,' Dubrick said. 'We can't lean into the farm because there's just too much unknown. Some years, I could be full time on the farm, and then the next year I would go bankrupt.'
New York Post
15 hours ago
- New York Post
Don't underestimate Donald Trump — he and his goals will survive without Elon Musk
Among other things last week, President Trump played host to Germany's chancellor in the Oval Office, issued a travel ban against 12 countries whose citizens routinely violate their visas, had a 'very positive' conversation about tariffs with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and twisted arms to push his 'one big beautiful bill' across the congressional finish line. Meanwhile, a stream of good economic news sent stock markets higher, with a jobs report beating expectations while inflation fell and wages rose. Oh, and Trump also had a brutal falling out with Elon Musk. Advertisement 3 Elon Musk attends news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP No need to guess which of the above dominated the news. Bad news travels fast and predictions of calamity win eyeballs, but I've learned a few things knowing and covering Trump for a decade. Rule No. 1 is always to remember to take a deep breath when it feels as if the end of his days is near. Advertisement Whatever the sensational event of the moment, the smart play has been to realize that this too shall pass — and to feel sorry for cats because they only have nine lives. Rule No. 2 is to be prepared for the next big end of days event, which is coming soon, and to expect another one after that. The 47th president is a human machine full of pride and plans, but only rookies still attempt to define him by a single event. If a stream of nasty Democrat prosecutions and threats of jail didn't derail him, the end of a partnership with the world's richest man won't either. Advertisement While Trump often appears to be courting disaster, reports of his imminent political demise still remain premature. That's not to say he is impervious, only that he is the closest thing to it on the American scene today. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Advertisement So long, Elon, it was nice knowing ya. Need for speed Another thing to remember about Trump is that he's in a hurry to get big things done and is determined not to get sidetracked by anything. He's well aware of how Dems used the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax to win the House in the middle of the first term and showed no compunction about impeaching him over a nothing-burger phone call. He's not going to squander his second chance with a GOP-controlled Congress to engage in wild goose chases or pout over setbacks, even when they involve an important ally such as Musk. The clock in his head is always ticking. 3 The Musk-Trump feud sparked the day after the DOGE head left the White House. NY Post Despite his occasional talk of a possible third term, he knows that's not going to happen. Besides the constitutional prohibition, the reality is that he turns 79 next Saturday, and the last thing Trump wants to do is stay too long at the party and repeat Joe Biden's decrepit decline in office. Thus, Trump's need for speed is what makes the Musk divorce important. It ends, or at least interrupts, an iconic alliance that was good for both men and was paying big dividends to America. Whether Musk is right that his support and his extensive financial contributions made the difference in last year's campaign is impossible to know. But there is no doubt that the addition of Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to the Trump train broadened his appeal well beyond traditional GOP circles and MAGA diehards. Advertisement Consider, for example, that Kamala Harris foolishly tried to counter Trump's moves by adding former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney to her team and claiming they were evidence she had bipartisan appeal. The advantage to Trump wasn't a close call. As for Musk, most critical was his commitment to DOGE and to the idea that spending cuts are not only possible but essential to the nation's future. He used his soapbox to set a new standard for Washington, even if the results fell short of the promise. Advertisement Whatever started his break with Trump, it was complete when he attacked the tax cut and spending legislation the president helped to craft, saying at one point, 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both.' No damage to agenda The oddity is that the break came after Musk officially left his temporary DOGE post, complete with a happy sendoff in the Oval Office where Trump praised him and gave him a ceremonial key to the White House. Given the nasty nature of the rupture, attempts by others to forge a reconciliation are not likely to succeed. Yet even if the break is final, I don't believe it will do serious damage to the president's agenda, despite the hopes of media doomsayers. As even The New York Times ruefully conceded in a Saturday headline, 'Elon Musk May Be Out. But DOGE Is Just Getting Started.' Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP Another mistake many Trump observers are making is seeing him through the eyes of his chaotic first term. As I have noted before, Trump 2.0 is a very different person. Being on the sideline for four years served him well in that he better understood Washington, and was smarter about what he wanted to achieve and who could help him do that. Advertisement In raw political terms, Biden's spending-palooza that drove inflation to 40-year highs and the inexplicable decision to open the southern border were gifts that helped pave the way to a Trump return. And then came the brush with death from a would-be assassin's bullet in Pennsylvania. 'God spared me' I had previously arranged to interview Trump the next day on his flight to the GOP convention in Milwaukee, and to my everlasting surprise, he kept his schedule. It was during that interview that he first raised the idea of divine intervention, saying, 'I'm not supposed to be here . . . I'm supposed to be dead.' His wry sense of humor remained intact, as he noted that people were already calling the photo of him standing up, pumping his fist and shouting 'fight, fight, fight,' with his face streaked with his own blood, an 'iconic' scene. 'They're right and I didn't die,' Trump said. 'Usually you have to die to have an iconic picture.' Although he was never an especially religious man, Trump began to embrace the idea that 'God spared me for a purpose, and that purpose is to restore America to greatness.' It's a fat target for haters, but the important thing is that Trump himself believes it to be true. One result is that he is a much calmer and more gracious president. Even his demeanor last week reflected a 'what, me worry?' approach, as he demonstrated in a series of quick phone interviews with media outlets, including The Post, where he insisted he was not rattled by the blowup. His explanation was simple: Musk suffers from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Woof, woof, and the caravan moves on.
