Read

Shock and Awe (Hardly), by Timothy Trainer

The odds are that more people are now paying some attention to what is going on in Washington, D.C., than during the pre-election campaign. Suddenly, in a matter of a few days, more people are paying attention.

There are so many reasons for this new level of attentiveness. One of the many issues attracting attention is the deportation of a Maryland man. Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Order Requiring Return of Wrongly Deported Migrant – The New York Times. The case has attracted thousands of comments. It makes one think that every person in the country matriculated at a law school, and all have obtained a law degree and passed at least one state bar examination, not the drinking kind. We are now inundated with more lawyers than we ever thought was possible.

The other big news was the announced tariffs on every country on the planet. There seems to be some confusion about tariffs. It has been said and repeated many times: tariffs are applied upon the arrival of goods into the country and paid by the importing country. In the case of the United States, if the United States imposes tariffs, the tariffs are paid here, not over there. Essentially, we pay the tariffs. Of course, if China retaliates and imposes tariffs, its tariffs are applied on U.S. goods when our goods arrive in China.

Apparently, the related big news is that upon announcing these tariffs, the stock market in New York (as well as many cities around the world) plunged. For Americans who have little or no assets because they earn too little and need every dime they earn or are unemployed, what happens in New York stays in New York. For millions of other Americans, it seems that some may be feeling jittery and may be thinking that their financial futures might be in jeopardy, as one estimate places the losses at nearly five trillion dollars over the first two days after the tariffs were announced. Tariffs Cause Another Stock Market Rout—Losses Approach $5 Trillion As Dow Plummets Another 2,200 Points

The stunning part of the past few days is the reaction by many. Why? Trump imposed tariffs during his first term and campaigned on the issue of imposing tariffs again if re-elected. The chaos created during the first few days and the ensuing losses shouldn’t be that surprising if one were listening and paying attention to what Trump has said over time.

Perhaps the most shocking thing isn’t that Trump imposed tariffs on penguins on a desolate island, but the reaction from economists who are now yelling loudly about how damaging these tariffs might be to the domestic and global economy. Maybe, just maybe, they should’ve been looking into the crystal ball and providing people with the worst-case scenario months ago rather than reacting now in a predictable manner.

For those who have been listening to the business-economic related “plans” that Trump mentioned during his campaign, much of it fell into the “too good to be true” realm. The imposition of these tariffs exposes a group of people along with Trump who appear to have little appetite for detailed analysis and planning in executing Trump’s wants and desires. By now, this shouldn’t surprise us, yet for some reason it does surprise many.

Read

In honor of Vietnam War Veterans Day: March 29, 2025 — an essay by Tim Trainer, author, “The Fortunate Son”

This is an informative brief excerpt between President Johnson and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, Nov. 20, 2009: www.pbs.org/moyers

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: I will tell you the more I just stayed awake last night thinking about this thing, the more I think of it, I don’t know what in the hell it looks to me like we’re getting into another Korea […] I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damned mess that I ever saw.

MCGEORGE BUNDY: It is. It’s an awful mess.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: And we just got to think about — I look at this sergeant of mine this morning. Got six little old kids […] and I just thought […] what in the hell am I ordering him out there for?

MCGEORGE BUNDY: One thing that’s occurred to me […]

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: What the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country?

President Johnson was sworn into office after the Kennedy assassination in November 1963. In the waning days of 1963, President Johnson had those misgivings about escalating in Vietnam. And in the early months of 1964, he was not yet committed to an increased level of military involvement, but he had an election to think about as well as how he would be politically attacked if he didn’t fight communist aggression. After the events in the Tonkin Gulf in August 1964, the path toward greater U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was made easier.

As they say, the rest is history. Despite President Johnson’s own reservations about the value of Vietnam to the U.S., over 2.7 million Americans served in Vietnam (vietnamveteranproject.org). Eligibility for the Vietnam Service Medal shown above required a service member to serve in Vietnam between July 1965 and March 1973.* National Vietnam War Veterans Day is celebrated on March 29^th because the last combat troops left Vietnam on that date in 1973: apnews.com/today-in-history/march-29. In 2017, the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017 was signed into law. (Public Law 115-15).

The Vietnam Service Ribbon displayed here was worn by Emerson Trainer, First Sergeant, US Army, (Ret.). Eligibility for the Vietnam Service Medal required a service member to serve in Vietnam between July 1965 and March 1973.

For most Americans today, the Vietnam War is history. As we approach the 50^th anniversary of the fall of Saigon (renamed Ho Chi Minh City) to North Vietnamese troops on April 30, 1975, nearly two-thirds of Americans were not yet born. United States Population by Age – 2025 Update | Neilsberg. Those who consider the Vietnam War as history have many books and documentaries available to edify themselves. Alternatively, one can listen to the stories as told by these warriors on websites like Witness to War (witnesstowar.org).

Marking this anniversary, it is worth taking the time to honor the Vietnam veterans who served in a most unpopular war. Their sacrifices in the name of the United States should be and must be honored and respected in a manner distinct from the decisions made by the politicians who sent them there and funded the continuation of that war for years.

Unlike veterans who fought in wars before them, many of these old warriors spent decades after the war never acknowledging their service, their sacrifices, and their wounds. What we must recognize is that, like their predecessors in other wars fighting other battles, these warriors fought valiantly. They tramped through the jungles, slogged through the delta, and fought to capture mountains. They battled the environment as well as the enemy.

Only a couple of decades after World War II, young Americans, whether voluntarily enlisting to serve or showing up when their draft boards notified them, believed in great numbers that it remained a duty to serve their country. Like others before and after them, Vietnam veterans have done things and seen things that most would never want to see or do, but they did it in the name of their country.

As a society, we may have matured to the point of not blaming the men and women who served and sacrificed for the decisions made by those who voted and decided to send them off to war. The warriors honored the decision made. They deserve respect for having served and sacrificed. Once on the battlefield, they fought a determined enemy. They fought to stay alive and to keep each other alive.

Over fifty years ago, these old warriors wearing baseball-style caps denoting their past service were young, strong, and dedicated to a mission they believed their government wanted them to fulfill. We are indebted to such duty, service, and commitment. As we read that the current administration seeks to cut government support and services, including those that would help thousands of disabled veterans, the country should not turn its back on those who served nobly and honorably.

The country has a duty to provide the care necessary for those who gave so much in their youth, while the government’s own reservations about the war resulted in questionable decision-making. Having served, sacrificed, and suffered during their early years, we should not allow the government to deprive them of the care they deserve as they live the final chapter of their lives.

Read

“Gated” Community, Nostalgia and Diversity — by author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

March 19, 2025 — We’re counting in weeks the length of time this administration has been in power.

To many people, it might feel like it has been much longer. It’s hard to pick just one, two or three things that might have raised blood pressure readings recently. Among the many issues being raised, there is the recent report that “Materials on the Arlington National Cemetery website highlighting the graves of Black and female service members have vanished as the Trump administration purges government websites of references to diversity and inclusion,” Arlington Cemetery Website Loses Pages on Black Soldiers, Women in Military and Civil War – The New York Times.

Being of an age north of 70, I have to remind myself what “woke” means or what the acronym “DEI” stands for despite the fact that they appear in the media often.

According to Merriam-Webster, woke is being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”. On its face, it’s hard to read this and conclude that it provokes such negative reactions. Turning to this acronym DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), it, too, is reason to pause and wonder why it has become so controversial in a country where so many ethnicities and cultures intersect. It’s hard to read these three words and understand why they cause such angst.

Taken together, they take me back to a different time. I often lived in “gated” or “fenced” communities during the troublesome 1960s and early 1970s. My environment was color-blind in major ways, but it wasn’t color-blind at all. There was a predominant color, and it permeated daily life without notice. Olive drab green (OD green) or some version of it was everywhere. One color mattered most during those years of my youth. It was the color of the work uniform worn by my father and every other dad in our gated/fenced community (this was before the number of women in the military increased to today’s numbers). It was the color of the equipment (tanks, jeeps, trucks, etc.) rolling by on the streets of our “home” town.

No period underscored this color-blind period more than those few years living in Kentucky.

It was just before and just as Vietnam became an American war. My “neighborhood” was called Dietz Acres, a housing area of army families located on U.S. government property–Ft. Knox. Our fathers (white, black, Latino, Asian, etc.) were active-duty career soldiers, and our mothers were a mix of Asian, European, Latino, and, obviously, Americans (white and black).

The families and, more importantly, the children who lived and played there covered the spectrum of skin color, but the only one that mattered was OD green. We played together, we argued, we went to school together, and we did all the things kids do with little or no regard for skin color. At that point in time, it would’ve been difficult to find such a level of diversity anywhere except on a military installation. My neighborhood had kids who were African-American, Korean-American, Japanese-American, German-American, Filipino-American, and, well, half this and half that.

There were two underlying things about us, the children. We saw ourselves simply as Americans. We didn’t know about the hyphenated part that described us. It’s likely that many of us weren’t aware of the hyphenated part of our identities until much later in life.

Because of what our fathers did (and more mothers today), we heard and learned a little about duty to the country and some things bigger than us as individuals. Our wants and desires weren’t exactly at the top of the list. The Army moved us around, whether it was during summer vacation or the middle of the school year. We moved when the Army decided our fathers needed to be transferred to a new posting somewhere else in the United States or abroad.

Looking back, there was nothing that referred to this environment as one that promoted “diversity.”

We just happened to have diversity imposed by the Army. There was no discussion about integrated schooling. It was a natural development because of the make-up of the Army community.

As U.S. society continues to confront the real challenge of race relations and treatment of people of different backgrounds and ethnicities, I sometimes think that I may have lived on an island or someplace surrounded by a moat where those of us in the OD green world were walled off from the rest of the U.S.

It is frustrating, saddening, and anger-provoking to see what is still plaguing U.S. society when it comes to race and ethnicity. The mere fact that neo-Nazis use racial slurs and harass a community of predominantly Black citizens in 2025 reflects a failing of our society: A majority-Black town starts armed protection group after neo-Nazi rally

This multi-cultural population has a lot to offer to each other when it comes to learning about ourselves. Despite the passage of time and the package of laws, what is evidenced far too often is that we have not made as much progress during the past sixty years as we would like to convince ourselves that we have.

It appears that in the halls of power within the U.S. Government, those in power seem to fear allowing Americans to be aware of and learn about the successes and accomplishments of women and people of color.

While these supposed “leaders” are arguing for a colorblind environment, they seem to expose their own fragility and weakness by removing deserved recognition of the successes of women and people of color.

Read

“Shutdown Threats and the Numbers Game” — an essay by author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

March 17, 2025 — Another government shutdown threat hung over members of Congress to do something by the end of March 14: U.S. Congress faces looming funding deadline: What to know

Not only are government employees and those relying on government funding and services worried about the future of agencies, but Congress also wrestles with a budgetary funding deadline. Racing to act before funding deadlines has become a regular congressional exercise. As usual, a last-minute deal was struck to avert a shutdown.

Other than those who are paid to be part of the budget-making process, who else really looks at the legislation that provides the specific outlays of thousands, millions, and billions for different government offices and programs? No doubt, members of Congress who have pet projects look at the parts of the budget of greatest interest and relevance to their wants and needs. Congressional staffers who are responsible for portions of this mammoth piece of legislation look at relevant portions. Lobbyists who work on behalf of interested trade groups and companies look at relevant portions of the budget legislation.

The vast majority of us are not involved or interested in these details. The thought of cobbling this legislation together involves an army of people who are familiar with offices, agencies and departments, their sizes, missions and requirements to get their jobs done.

A glance at a sliver of one paragraph might cause a reader’s eyes to glaze over and render the reader mentally numb. Here’s 2019 text for funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):

$7,542,153,000; of which $6,000,000 shall remain available until expended for efforts to enforce laws against forced child labor; of which $75,448,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2020; of which $1,500,000 is for paid apprenticeships for participants in the Human Exploitation Rescue Operative Child-Rescue Corps; of which not less than $15,000,000 shall be available for investigation of intellectual property rights violations, including operation of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center; and of which not less than $4,273,857,000 shall be for enforcement, detention, and removal operations, including transportation of unaccompanied minor aliens, Text – H.J.Res.31 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This portion of one paragraph deals with multiple ICE functions to combat child labor, intellectual property violations, the transport of unaccompanied minors and an apprenticeship program.

To put together the whole paragraph addressing ICE’s funding requirements involves a committee of people. Not only do the drafters of our federal budget address big numbers in appropriating funds; they also delve into the issue of staffing numbers within government offices.

In the same 2019 budget document as noted above, there were several places where the document provides specific staffing instructions. One of these is found regarding the Office of Management and Budget where it states that “no less than three full-time equivalent senior staff positions shall be dedicated solely to the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.” The section addressing the Food Safety and Inspection Service included the following instruction:

“That no fewer than 148 full-time equivalent positions shall be employed during fiscal year 2019 for purposes dedicated solely to inspections and enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.” It can be argued that there isn’t enough detail in the budget document. It can be argued that the amounts appropriated for any specific activity might not be the correct amount. One could argue that the staffing levels are too big or too small. Audits could be carried out to determine how to address some of these issues as to costs, expenses and staffing.

Audits, however, are not being conducted today.

We have a sledgehammer approach to cutting the federal government’s size and costs without regard to anything. The act of eliminating government offices, agencies and departments may fulfill the desires of those who relish the idea of smaller government and cost-savings, but the approach taken the past few weeks has nothing to do with governing. The current approach is employed without concern for the people that the officeholders took an oath to serve.

Read

“Trump, Trade, and Tariffs” — insights from author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

March 5, 2025 — Federal Reserve reports that effects of the 2018-2019 “tariffs led to job losses in the manufacturing sector and higher prices for producers and consumers. . . . Our Results indicate that tariffs have been a drag on employment and have failed to increase output.” https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2019086pap.pdf

Tax Foundation’s key findings conclude that “The first Trump administration imposed tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.” In addition, “studies find the Trump-Biden tariffs have raised prices and reduced output and employment, producing a net negative impact on the US economy.” https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

Given the current political rhetoric from the White House about how tariffs are good for the U.S., that doesn’t square with what the economic experts have analyzed and concluded based on the tariffs imposed previously. As we wade into the waves of new tariffs, the question is who has learned from the first time around.

The U.S. agriculture sector is looking at a new trade war with concern. One article provided the following background for what happened in 2018. A “spending surge began in mid-2018 when USDA started writing checks to farmers and ranchers to pay for the damage from Trump’s trade war, which brought about higher tariffs that crushed agricultural exports and commodity prices. Farm sales to China plummeted from $19.5 billion in 2017 to just $9 billion the next year; as producers continued to hemorrhage profits in 2019, farm bankruptcies jumped nearly 20 percent last year.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932.

Indeed, the farm sector’s experience should raise eyebrows and serious questions about the past trade war and the new trade war. The Council on Foreign Relations wrote that “in 2018 and 2019, Trump authorized payments to U.S. farmers of $28 billion to offset their losses from Chinese trade retaliation. https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-trumps-china-tariffs-proceeds-has-gone-bailout-angry-farmers.

China, a main target of Trump’s tariffs, refuses to sit idly by and allow the U.S. to undermine its economy. Taking the agriculture sector as an example, Reuters reports that China diversified its supply chain for certain products by acquiring more from Brazil and increasing domestic production.

China is a good observer and student. After Trump’s announcement days ago of more tariffs on China-origin goods, China announced its own next steps in confronting the U.S. tariff challenge. Instead of simply reducing its imports of U.S. goods, it announced that one U.S. company is no longer permitted to import certain products for its Chinese operations. China also indicated that ten U.S. companies were no longer permitted to do any business in China. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/illumina-china-unreliable-entities-list.html. Think about the potential future business operations of those U.S. companies. Can they continue to operate without operations in China?

Venturing a hunch, it is very likely that the Chinese chose certain U.S. companies to target after weighing the domestic economic significance of banning these U.S. companies from operating in China. On the flip side, the question is whether Trump’s version of “the best and brightest” engaged in any detailed economic assessment of potential economic damage to the U.S. before announcing the tariffs. Given the available data from 2018-2019, a deep-dive into the overall economic impact of all these tariffs should have been a basic prerequisite. It begs the question: Is there any responsible decision-making occurring before announcing the imposition of tariffs?

Does anyone in the administration ever speak up and point out that U.S. businesses may be harmed more by these tariffs or the retaliatory measures taken by our trading partners than the theoretical benefits of the tariffs?

Of course, time will tell how these tariffs will impact American workers, consumers and families. If the data from the past is any guide, Americans should tighten their belts and expect some rough economic waters ahead.

Read

“Is the US Shifting Its Dependency?” Don’t miss these thoughts by author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

February 28, 2025 — The headlines just this week about the US increasing its dependency on international energy have included the following:

Reuters, February 26, 2025: What are Rare Earth Metals and Why are They in Demand?
CNN, February 26, 2025: What We Do and Don’t Know About Trump’s ‘Very Big Deal’ on Ukraine’s Mineral Resources
Foreign Policy, February 26, 2025: Trump’s Rare Earth, Minerals Push Underpins Ukraine, Greenland Policy
Newsweek, February 25, 2025: Putin Offers Donald Trump Ukraine’s Rare Minerals
And earlier this month the Associated Press reported: Trump Says He Wants Ukraine’s Rare Earth Elements as a Condition of Further Support

Here’s my question: While the subject of ”rare earth minerals” might be of interest to a limited audience compared to the overall readership of current events, after just a few minutes searching under the topic of rare earth minerals, a long list of articles are found. Even non-science readers will quickly grasp the importance of these minerals after reading just a few articles that describe what they are and the products that incorporate them.

Do you use a cell phone? Do you have a flat-screen television monitor? Are you driving an electric or hybrid automobile? Do you need a computer hard drive? What about the latest greatest U.S. fighter jet and other advanced weapons systems? Our modern daily lifestyle and technology-based economy and military demands minerals that aren’t easy to access. The minerals have to be found, mined, extracted and refined to be usable.

According to the articles listed above and many others, the U.S., Europe and Japan are dependent upon other countries to provide the minerals necessary to make many of today’s modern products. China is the world’s greatest source of processed minerals. At present, the U.S. and its companies depend on China for a significant amount of what China processes and exports.

Suddenly, we are seeing articles about the possibility of sourcing our needs from Russia as well as China. Based on the above listed articles, Russia offers to provide these minerals from Russian-occupied Ukrainian land while the Trump Administration attempts to negotiate an agreement to access mineral deposits under Ukraine’s control.

The crux of the problem: These changes will remain with us for years as the U.S. will continue to be dependent upon others as the source of these minerals for modern day living and security. We should ask whether decreasing dependence on China only to be beholden to Russia is any better. China, Russia and any other country that provides these minerals will be able to influence corporate and government decisions simply by threats of cutting off access to rare earth minerals.

Unfortunately, as dependence on China and China’s refinement and control of rare earth minerals has increased, it has occasionally used its superior position to limit exports to certain countries as retaliation when its customers have acted against its interests. There is no reason to believe Russia wouldn’t do the same.

Given the necessity of rare earth minerals in today’s technology-based world of products and military systems, the challenge for the U.S. is to make a commitment to improving its technological capabilities to mine these minerals without having devastating impacts on the environment as well as extracting the minerals from what is mined in order to refine them for use.

The reality: There is no easy or quick solution for the U.S. in resolving its issue of dependency on other countries. The question is whether shifting U.S. dependency from China to Russia does anything to lessen our vulnerability to the whims of others who control the export flow of these minerals for use by U.S. industries.

Any decision to mine U.S. reserves of rare earth minerals and build the necessary infrastructure to extract and refine them is an expensive and long-term endeavor. The U.S. will not be able to eliminate its dependence on others.

The challenge is finding alternative foreign sources who are less likely to use them as an economic weapon that can have debilitating effects on our industries and the military.

About the Author: Attorney Timothy Trainer worked in multiple federal government agencies and in the private sector. His non-traditional legal career included significant time focused on international trade issues. His work required extensive travel around the world, including dozens of trips to the Asia-Pacific region. His experiences led him to co-author a legal treatise for fifteen years, penning novels including “The China Connection,” and “Pendulum Over the Pacific,” and authored a non-fiction book “The Fortunate Son: Top, Through the Eyes of Others,” about men who served in Vietnam with his father. Learn more at TimothyTrainer.com.

Read

Let’s look at the law: Learn about the reality of “Mindless Ceremony v. Meaning,” with author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

Feb. 23, 2025 — Is it just a photo op? Is it just a formality? Is it just ceremonial for families and a few select officials? Or, is there an expectation of respecting and fulfilling the duties as embodied in the words of an oath of office or position?

The Constitution, Article II, Section 1 requires the incoming president to recite the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The incoming president is not the only person subject to an oath of duty. The Constitution’s Article VI states that “Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . . .” Every member of Congress (House and Senate) has taken the following oath since 1884: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

For individuals taking a position within the federal government, the oath of taking their position is found in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 3331. “I, NAME, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

A similar oath is required of individuals entering the military service of the United States. The oath for members entering military service is found in Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 31, Section 502. It requires these individuals to “[s]olemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

For good measure, here is an additional example of an oath. After passing the Ohio Bar Exam, becoming a licensed attorney in the state requires one to take the following oath:

I, NAME, hereby (swear or affirm) that I will support the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the Constitution and the laws of Ohio, and I will abide by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. In my capacity as an attorney and officer of the Court, I will conduct myself with dignity and civility and show respect toward judges, court staff, clients, fellow professionals, and all other persons.

Here’s what I see: It appears that the various oaths place protection of the foundations and principles of the country as provided for by the Constitution and the bills passed by the various legislative bodies and signed into law above any individual. And, even the oath of military members has a caveat regarding obedience to the orders of the President given the reference to fulfilling orders in accordance with the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as if to say one is not obligated to follow an order that contravenes law or the Constitution.

As the Trump Administration guts agencies and fires workers without any concern as to whether people were good, efficient and committed to their jobs, he seeks a government of people committed to him. Essentially, that means there is no commitment to the laws of the United States or the Constitution. The commitment to support and defend the Constitution would be eliminated.

And here’s what I want to know: What do we expect from your elected officials and those civil servants working in government agencies and the military? Do you want them to fulfill their daily functions with an eye toward serving those who are the intended recipients of their and their agencies’ efforts? Or, alternatively, do you want them to fill jobs to serve and please one person without any regard to the country? That seems to be the choice that this Administration wants people to make.

Thoughts, ideas, questions? Send us an email.

Read

“American Students Walk Out of Class … in Germany.” The author of “Fortune Son” explains why it’s so noteworthy

February 11, 2025: The Washington Post reports that dozens of middle school students in Germany walked out of class as a protest of Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s visit to Patch Barracks — “Hegseth’s visit to U.S. base in Germany met with student walkout,” The Washington Post

For most of this century, the U.S. has been at war. Below the surface of headlines about deployments, battles, service members wounded or killed, there are so many others in service to the country without wearing any uniform. One group of people affected by decisions made in our name is that group of young people who rarely if ever receive any mention or recognition: military brats (see here how “brat” is an acronym for children of military service members 5 Unique Facts About Military Children and Their Families | Military.com).

In and of itself, the student walk-out is not big news. Nothing occurred that prompted calling out the troops or the military police. Parents were not summoned to get control of their children. It is, however, worthy of some thought.

First, these were middle school students. Generally, these are young people ranging in age between 12 and 15. The article indicated that the walk-out was, in part, led by “an eighth-grade student who is not yet 14 years old”.
A second point to understand about these students is that they are, in their own way and in their world, veterans of a sort. It is very likely that most of these students were born into the military. They had no say in the matter. Their serving parents have decided to make military service a career and that is why they are middle school students on a military installation. During their short lives, these students have likely lived on and off of military installations. The only constant in their lives is some element of the military. Many other things are in flux and they have little to no influence on how decisions and events impact their lives.
Third, as middle school students, it is easy to assume that they have been uprooted multiple times, living in different locations (continents) and changing schools regardless of their personal desires. Their friends, their schools and their residences are temporary.
Fourth, despite their tender age, they understand what deployments are and the dangers and risks that those deployments pose. Like it or not, they either have or are about to reach that age when they realize that they are part of a system that relegates them to being veteran spectators. Their role during deployments is to remain, as much as possible, normal regardless of where a deployment takes their serving parent. Their job is to soldier on because they, too, serve in their distinct way.
Finally, there is something about “growing up” military. There is a familiarity with the system of structure, order, discipline and service. The all-volunteer military that has been in place since the end of the draft (U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973 – POLITICO) relies to some extent on these military brats to keep the current all-volunteer system in place. Though slightly dated, a January 2020 New York Times article reported that “more and more, new recruits are the children of old recruits. In 2019, 79 percent of Army recruits reported having a family member who served. For nearly 30 percent, it was a parent — a striking point in a nation where less than 1 percent of the population serves in the military.” Who Signs Up to Fight? Makeup of U.S. Recruits Shows Glaring Disparity – The New York Times

My forecast for the future: Given the country’s dependence upon an all-volunteer force, it would be prudent for those in civilian leadership positions to be mindful of the fact that we rely on a tradition of service among our military dependent young people to be our future soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

Read

“Consumer Desires and Government Policies Collide,” says author and IP attorney Timothy Trainer

February 10, 2025 — In China-related news this week, CNN reporter Elisabeth Buchwald asked: “Is something you ordered taking a while to be delivered? Tariffs may be to blame.”

She explained: “The recent tariffs set in motion by the Trump administration could be to blame for delayed packages coming from China on sites like Amazon Shein and Temu. Last week, Trump levied a new 10% tariff on all goods coming to the US from China. Initially, the tariffs were also applied to packages imported from China worth less than $800 that were previously exempt. However, the Trump administration suspended that provision temporarily, throwing the US Postal Service into chaos as it was forced to halt all package deliveries from China and Hong Kong to comply with the order. Experts say some packages have been caught up in the confusion and could still be sitting with customs where they were set to undergo a more thorough inspection.” Read more here.

From my perspective as an IP attorney and author of “The China Connection,” and the “China Factor:”

A little background: U.S. consumers and foreign online retailers reap the benefits of low-value shipments entering the U.S. market without paying import duties. Shipments valued at under $800 (often referred to as de minimis because of low value or of little significance) enter the U.S. without being assessed duties. Recently, the Trump Administration issued an executive order eliminating this duty-free status for de minimis shipments from China. That order, however, was reversed within days to allow these shipments to continue to enter the U.S. market duty-free. To be fair, opposition to these de minimis duty-free shipments prompted a rethink of the provision during the previous administration.

Up until now: Consumers have had ease of mind by shopping, ordering and processing payment online and expecting items to arrive within days. There was no reason to consider paying the federal government any additional amount. On the flip side, the U.S. Government sees these de minimis shipments as posing threats to U.S. consumers and avoiding the payment of duty (i.e., loss of revenue to the government).

Looking forward: Delving into the magnitude of these de minimis shipments and their potential impact on consumers and government revenues, their impact is no trivial matter. The Congressional Research Service reported that in 2023, Chinese exports to the U.S. that qualified for the de minimis duty-free treatment were valued at $18.4 billion. Learn more here: crsreports.congress.gov

Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) webpage warns consumers to beware of what they buy and from whom they buy. CBP reports that four million de minimis packages arrive in the U.S. every day. Buyer Beware: Bad Actors Exploit De Minimis Shipments | U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The reason for CBP’s warning to consumers is because of the agency’s inability to examine all these shipments and the individual products in millions of packages. For 2024, CBP reported that the total number of de minimis shipments was 1.36 billion with a total value of over $64 billion. These numbers are not China specific.

Given the massive numbers of low value shipments arriving daily at U.S. international mail facilities and expedited cargo facilities, it becomes clear that those responsible for examining goods arriving in the U.S. are unable to sift through packages in an attempt to identify goods that might pose harm or risk to consumers. Moreover, these de minimisshipments are not required to have the kind of detailed documentation that is required of higher value imported goods. As a result, exporters with ill-intent are able to exploit this system by shipping questionable, substandard or illegal goods to the U.S.

Forecast for China: As China continues to be home to a significant number of manufacturing sites and ecommerce platforms, it is likely to be the predominant source of goods being made, bought and exported to the U.S. for the foreseeable future. That being the case, the Trump Administration will take steps to eliminate the duty-free status that these low value shipments currently enjoy. The only question is when will the U.S. develop the procedures necessary to begin imposing duties on these shipments and how will consumers be notified that they will be responsible for paying the import duties.

Forecast for the U.S.: American consumers have become accustomed to the ease with which they can conduct their personal and commercial business. In the future, it may cost consumers more to buy their desired product and take longer for those products to be delivered. The government’s stated interest is to protect consumers and collect revenue. Change is inevitable. The only question is when the changes will take effect.

Watch

Listen

Listen to the podcast on Inkandescent Radio Meet Timothy Trainer, intellectual property attorney, international trade expert, author with spectacular insights into trade with China — and more! Ep6: This month on IP attorney and author Timothy Trainer’s podcast/video show, we meet GW Intellectual Property Law Professor Mark Traphagen. The topic: Artificial Intelligence and its impact on labor, with a focus on how AI impacts the creative/entertainment industries, including several recent developments. Read

Meet Timothy Trainer, intellectual property attorney, international trade expert, author with spectacular insights into trade with China — and more!

Writing books is a passion for attorney Timothy Trainer, who for more than three decades focused on intellectual property issues in his day job. He has worked in government agencies and in the private sector and his assignments have taken him to 60 countries around the world.

Tim found time to pen a few non-fiction tomes, including his first book, Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights; the 15th edition was published in 2022. Thomson Reuters’ Aspatore Books published Tim’s next title in 2015, Potato Chips to Computer Chips: The War on Fake Stuff.

Fiction was a genre he always wanted to try. In 2019, Pendulum Over the Pacific, was released by Joshua Tree Publishing. “This political intrigue story is set in Tokyo and Washington, D.C., and centers on trade tensions between the U.S. and Japan in the late 1980s,” Tim explains, noting that his latest two novels — The China Connection and The China Factor — are about geoeconomics. “The economic and trade tensions between countries provide fertile areas for stories.”

The big news for 2025:

May 2025: The sequel, The China Factor, ranked #63 on the Amazon Asian Literature list.
September 2025: The Military Writers Society of America (MWSA) announced on September 27, 2025, that Timothy Trainer’s third novel, The China Factor, received the Bronze Award in MWSA’s Mystery, Thriller, Crime fiction category: mwsadispatches.com/2025-season. Read more here.

In 2023, his first series hit bookstores: The China Connection.

Here’s the story: It’s a year after Hong Kong reverted to China. Aaron and Kellie’s dual purpose in Hong Kong, their trip for business and pleasure, descends into chaos when Kellie fails to deliver the blueprint Chinese entrepreneurs seek in hopes of greater riches in the U.S. market. After a day-long meeting, she awakens across the border in southern China the next morning without her travel documents. Aaron, while waiting for Kellie’s return, is attacked in his hotel room.

He panics. Helpless, Aaron enlists the aid of Roger, a retired Customs attaché in Hong Kong. Roger questions the nature of the contents of millions of containers leaving Hong Kong and wonders how he can profit from it. Aaron and Roger cobble together a group of people to rescue Kellie from across the border. This small group of government and non-government people engage in questionable tactics to find Kellie. Can the group come together to save Kellie or will their personal ambitions prevail?

About The China Factor: In this novel, Tim takes us back to the spring of 2005. The FBI foils a government employee’s attempt to provide confidential information to the Chinese. As the FBI struggles to understand why the information is valuable, its investigation entangles Capitol Hill staffer Kellie Liang and jeopardizes her nomination to a State Department position.

Under scrutiny, Kellie thrusts herself into the FBI investigation. Seeking a voice of reason, Kellie reaches out to Aaron Foster only to learn that he is vacationing in Vietnam with his uncle, a war veteran. Surprisingly, Aaron believes he has found a Chinese corporate connection to information theft. From two sides of the world, Kellie and Aaron work to thwart China’s efforts and save Kellie’s nomination.

Learn more about this book and Tim’s writing process when he’s interviewed by author Jeffrey James Higgins’ for his new Inkandescent podcast and video show: Elaine’s Literary Salon.

Learn about Tim’s work and books: timothytrainer.com

Read this week’s blog entry from Tim: “Veterans Day 2025: The Undoing?”

November 11, 2025 — The confrontations in the streets of U.S. cities between law enforcement and the people have already caused law enforcement agents and officers to be equated with Germany’s secret police of the 1930s, the Gestapo, because of the tactics used to pursue those illegally in the United States. The fully masked officers and agents whose indiscriminate conduct in pursuing suspects, including U.S. citizens, has caused them to be seen as enemies of the people in the eyes of many.

We’ve seen National Guard troops deployed to various cities around the country. Activated by governors or the president, they are in our cities and on our streets wearing military uniforms. To the civilian citizens who see and encounter these part-time soldiers, there’s likely to be no distinction made between the National Guard, reserve service members, and full-time active army troops.

Essentially, we are seeing Trump use those in uniform as his pawns to punish anyone who disagrees, who fails to knuckle under, who fails to remain silent, and raises a voice against him.

Click here to read the entire post.

Previous 1 2 3 4