Let’s start with the good. Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, visited the overwhelmingly Republican affected areas in the immediate aftermath of the flood and promised that the state would be there to help local communities recover and rebuild. In two important ways, he’s come through. First, his administration has provided close to $1.5 million in relief, giving homeowners and businesses a lifeline at a desperate time, even if the amounts provided aren’t enough to meet the area’s vast needs. Second, his administration was quick to apply for federal disaster funds with the expectation that the federal government would augment the state’s efforts.

State Sen. Mike McKay, a Republican who represents the flood-affected areas, has given our Democratic governor credit for his strong and thoughtful response. His partnership with the Moore administration on this issue seems productive and strong. This is reminiscent of another bipartisan moment in recent history when, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, then-New Jersey Governor Chris Christie embraced President Barack Obama in the middle of a presidential campaign and thanked him for his strong leadership and for helping the people of his state. Christie was criticized at the time for complimenting a Democratic president who was locked in a close election fight, but he did and said what was right regardless of the politics.

Just as Maryland’s 2026 gubernatorial race gets underway, McKay has followed Christie’s lead and shown us all what it looks like to transcend partisan politics. No doubt the senator will often disagree with Gov. Moore in the future, and when he does, we’ll have a strong reason to believe his disagreements are honest and not informed entirely by a political calculus.

Now the bad. President Donald Trump suggested he’s not interested in helping Democratic states when he upended plans to move the FBI headquarters to Maryland in part because it was a “liberal state.” That position casts suspicion on a White House statement explaining the rationale for withholding disaster funds from Maryland. The statement mentions that states should invest in their own resilience for disaster preparedness. This might be a legitimate position if the president were guided by that idea in every case. Instead, his administration is pouring money into relief operations in Texas following that state’s tragic flooding in early July.

The president’s position on the self-reliance of states rings hollow given the support his administration is providing to Texas. What unfolded there was a human tragedy, and the state’s people deserve federal assistance as they mourn their losses and begin the process of recovery. Expecting Texans to shoulder this burden on their own while the rest of the country stood idly by would be morally indefensible and undermine the idea of our country as a group of states united. The scope of the tragedies in Texas and Maryland is vastly different, but so are the needs. Maryland is asking for much less than the amount of money being sent to Texas, and we shouldn’t be expected to stand alone.

Finally, the feckless. Maryland Congressman Andy Harris is chair of the House Freedom Caucus in a closely divided Congress. That should matter to Maryland because his influence should help make our case to President Trump about disaster relief. In reality, Harris has ceded whatever influence he might have had by demonstrating his propensity to acquiesce to the president’s demands and cave under pressure from the administration. Even after he expressed reservations about the One Big Beautiful Bill’s impact on our national debt, he meekly voted “present” rather than vote against the bill and then voted for it when the bill was sent back to the House by the Senate. Being the chair of the Freedom Caucus isn’t worth anything to Maryland if Harris doesn’t have the fortitude to stand up to the president, especially when Marylanders need help.

Contemporary American politics is a study in dysfunction and partisanship, but the aftermath of the Western Maryland floods reminds us that hope for a better future isn’t lost. Our Democratic governor helped Republican counties, and a Republican state senator gave credit for those efforts. Maryland has a tradition of this type of politics, and it’s heartening to remember that Republican Governor Larry Hogan left office with an 81% approval rating among Democrats. America needs more of that and less of the empty rhetoric and feckless politics of Andy Harris.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.

Dan Bongino, now the deputy director of the FBI, rose to prominence in part by convincing a group of Americans that the Epstein conspiracy was real. By way of his podcast and other media, Bongino assured listeners that the government had a list of Epstein’s associates that included the names of powerful people. Attorney General Pam Bondi was insinuating the same after she took office, validating the widely held belief among MAGA’s rank and file that their conclusions about the Epstein files were right all along. People like Bongino and Bondi poured fuel on the Epstein fire because it served a personal and political purpose at the time. Now they’re learning how hard it is to change a narrative once it’s deeply rooted in people’s minds.

President Trump has so far supported Bondi as she’s come under intense criticism from MAGA media personalities, especially Laura Loomer, who hosts a podcast with a strong rank-and-file following. Loomer demonstrated her influence earlier this year when six senior officials at the National Security Council were fired by the president after she determined they were insufficiently loyal. Breaking with Loomer would be complicated for the president, and he hasn’t singled her out as he calls on his followers to stop talking about the Epstein matter and stop attacking administration officials. Even if she wanted to, it’s difficult for someone like Loomer to heed his call. Like so many others, she’s trapped herself in a narrative of her own making and doesn’t have an easy way out.

The Epstein controversy is dangerous to the president because he’s so far sided openly with a government official, Attorney General Bondi, against the MAGA rank and file. His insistence that the Epstein conspiracy is nothing more than a Democratic hoax may be confusing to people who have been encouraged by Trump’s own allies to believe the hoax is real. Trump’s loyalty to Bondi and Bongino is admirable in a way. He’s trying to reward their fealty by shielding them from the pressure of his voters, but his willingness to continue that support is probably limited.

There’s little in the president’s history to suggest a willingness to sacrifice his own standing for the benefit of others. It’s likely that if he can’t quiet the dissension, he’ll find a way to distance himself from Bondi and Bongino to preserve his own political well-being. The stakes for these figures are high, since they’re not welcome in the more traditional circles of the Republican Party and don’t have a place with Democrats. Like so many who have achieved power and position by way of loyalty to President Trump, without MAGA it’s not clear where they would go.

Almost a decade ago, the president assured our nation that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. In the years since, that’s often seemed true. In fact, the president maintains support from MAGA’s rank and file so long as he comports himself within the bounds of their expectations. In this sense, President Trump has always been more of a follower than a leader, taking cues from his supporters rather than exercising the type of leadership that would change their minds. More than anything he’s faced so far, the Epstein case will test this theory of Trump as a follower.

If the president continues to support the attorney general, he’ll be in the unusual position of telling his followers something they don’t already believe and don’t want to hear. If they change their minds about the Epstein case and reembrace Bondi, the president would have demonstrated real leadership. If they don’t, and they ignore his assurances that the Epstein conspiracy never existed, he would have proven the point that he’s free to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, so long as the person he’s shooting is someone his supporters want shot. That’s a feature of followership much more than leadership.

Politicians often trap themselves in narratives during campaigns that go on to complicate their efforts to govern. President Trump benefited from the enthusiasm that people like Bongino and Bondi were able to generate among MAGA’s rank and file. That power was useful during the campaign when enthusiasm and voter turnout mattered, but it became dangerous once the president wanted to move on to other issues.

Unlike Bongino and Bondi, many of the rank and file are true believers in the Epstein conspiracy, and the president’s ability to influence his base is being tested like never before. This is one of the first times he’s had to change the minds of his supporters rather than reinforce what they already believe. His unsuccessful early attempts to deflate the Epstein story suggest his power to influence may be limited and his reputation as a leader overblown. If his supporters won’t follow, the president may find himself having to revert to form.

To preserve his political standing and reputation for always being on the winning side of an argument, he may need to follow his supporters to where they already are rather than continue trying to lead them somewhere new. That would show the limits of the president’s power over the movement he’s harnessed and imply that the movement itself is in control.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.

Beyond the fiscal implications, compassionate Americans may find the human cost of pushing millions of people off Medicaid hard to watch. The president claims that the debt projections are wrong, and that accelerated economic growth will compensate for the government’s loss of revenue. He may be right, but the fact that the executive orders and legislation he signed into law during his first term were responsible for adding more than $8 trillion to the federal debt doesn’t bode well for his predictions.

The passage of the president’s tax and spending bill is significant, but two actions he took as the bill worked its way through Congress may have implications as large as the bill itself. First, he called on Republicans to ignore the Senate parliamentarian when she decided that portions of the bill as written couldn’t avoid the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader John Thune deserves credit for amending the bill rather than heeding the president’s call, but it was the call itself that was most significant. Equally consequential was the president lashing out at North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis for not supporting the bill, and his threat to back a primary challenge to Tillis surely played a role in his decision not to seek re-election.

Republicans aren’t alone in calling for changes to longstanding traditions or in criticizing members of their party who don’t walk a narrow ideological line. In the past, Democrats made similar arguments about carving out exceptions to the filibuster and increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Both proposals were rooted in the party’s frustration about not being able to pass parts of its agenda under current rules. That was exactly what drove President Trump to make his call to ignore the parliamentarian, even though Thune’s changes ultimately made ignoring her ruling unnecessary.

Large segments of both parties are now inclined to play by the rules only until they stand in the way of their agenda. That’s no way to run a government and leads inevitably to significant swings in policy as both parties maneuver to force through their agenda by any means necessary. Senator Tillis’ retirement next year compounds the problem, since it’s been the moderates in both parties who have so far resisted changes to longstanding rules.

There’s a fair chance that by pushing Tillis out of next year’s North Carolina Senate race, President Trump hands the seat to a Democrat. North Carolina is a swing state and one of the few places in the country with truly competitive races. It’s unlikely in that environment that a candidate better aligned with MAGA would do better than Tillis. But even if the Democrats regain the North Carolina Senate seat, our country may lose. In the long run, it takes two functional parties who are willing to compromise for our system to work, and a Republican party without Tillis is less receptive to compromise.

The purge of moderates has so far been more pronounced in the Republican Party. It started during President Trump’s first term with efforts to force the retirement of senators like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, both of whom left under pressure from the MAGA wing of the party. But the quest for ideological purity is present with Democrats as well, something illustrated by critiques of Senator John Fetterman and efforts by former co-vice chair of the Democratic Party David Hogg to support left-wing candidates in primary challenges against moderates.

Calls by both parties during the last few years to either change or ignore the rules have undermined the trust that’s necessary for bipartisan cooperation. Moderates, who value that type of cooperation, have so far resisted these changes and prevented the worst possible outcomes. Tillis’ departure will mean one less moderate in the Senate, just as former Democratic Senator John Tester’s departure last year meant the same. Tester was replaced by a Republican senator closely aligned with the president’s agenda, and it’s likely that whoever replaces Tillis next year would move in lockstep with the president if he or she is a Republican. The best hope for that seat remaining in moderate hands is a Democratic victory, since moderate Democrats still have a chance to win a primary in relatively conservative North Carolina and it’s unlikely that a moderate Republican in that primary could do the same.

Moderates, or at least traditionalists like John Thune, have been the bulwark against efforts to pack the Supreme Court, ignore the Senate parliamentarian, or change the filibuster. Whatever their political affiliation, our country needs North Carolina voters next year to choose the candidate most committed to centrism and least beholden to either of the political extremes.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.

Israel claimed that its attack on Iran was necessary because its intelligence showed the country was moving aggressively to construct a nuclear weapon. That may be true, but it’s also possible that Israel simply saw an opportunity to attack Iran at a moment when its proxies across the region had all been degraded significantly and the country’s ability to respond was particularly weak.

President Trump’s decision to join the attack deepened the damage to Iran, even if it risked widening the conflict. But he seems to have avoided that outcome and also made it less likely that Iran ever achieves nuclear capability. He has so far managed the conflict well and was right that Iran couldn’t be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally change the balance of power in the Middle East and threaten American interests around the world. That threat would initially come from Iran’s ability to share nuclear weapons with the remnants of its proxies and later from ballistic missiles as the country’s capabilities progressed. If Iran could threaten the United States with a nuclear response, our ability to contain it by threatening the use of force would be severely degraded.

Iran knows this, and it’s why the regime has pursued capabilities for the past three decades that would allow it to quickly build a nuclear weapon. President Trump’s attack on Iran was opportunistic and took advantage of the favorable situation created by Israeli actions, but it effectively furthered America’s goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear arms.

The risk of renewed hostilities and a general war in the Middle East is tied to the Iranian regime’s assessment of its prospects for survival. If the regime believes the war is over and it assesses it can remain in power, it will carefully calibrate its actions to avoid restarting the conflict. If the Iranian regime assesses, however, that regime change is the real goal of U.S. and Israeli actions, it may conclude that it doesn’t have anything to lose by restarting the conflict.

Like all dictatorial regimes, the survival of the system and the maintenance of power is the Iranian government’s priority. The regime will be willing to end the conflict, even after suffering significant casualties and widespread destruction, if it believes it can maintain its grip on power. The best way for us to encourage the ceasefire to hold is to make it clear that any escalation by Iran may force us to seek regime change, but regime change isn’t our current goal. Our goal is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to set favorable conditions for follow-on negotiations.

Most of our nation’s leaders have been measured in their response to questions about regime change, and President Trump was wise to withhold his support from an Israeli plan to target Iran’s Supreme Leader. That act would have galvanized Iranian support for their war effort and might have immediately widened the conflict. His attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was bold, but his actions have so far been limited and controlled.

Iran’s attacks on U.S. facilities were ineffective, but if we allow the regime to save face by telling its people that their country responded forcefully to our attacks and is entering negotiations as an equal, we increase the likelihood of Iranian concessions and long-term success. If we try to destabilize the regime by pointing out its failures to the Iranian people, we risk backing the regime into a corner and encouraging it to take actions that might restart the conflict. Senator Ted Cruz’s call for regime change increased the risk of a wider war.  As the conflict winds down, that type of rhetoric won’t be helpful.

Iran’s leaders may interpret any additional comments like Cruz’s as nothing more than bluster, and America’s overall discussion about regime change has so far been restrained. This matters because there are hardline factions in Iran’s government that will use comments like Cruz’s to make the case that Iran’s regime is in a fight for survival. If Iran’s Supreme Leader is convinced of that position, he might be inclined to restart the conflict, something we can avoid if we stop talking about regime change and continue signaling our willingness to find a workable accommodation with the current Iranian regime.

Prior to 1979, Iran was a close ally of the United States and a friend to Israel. Iran’s people are well educated, and many are well disposed to be friendly toward the West. Iran is not a backward place, even if its current government is backward-looking and selfish. One day, the Iranian regime will fall and be replaced by a government more worthy of Iran’s history and the potential of its people. But our experiences over the last 25 years should remind us that regime change is best when it happens organically and not at the point of an American or Israeli gun. If the Iranian people revolt against the regime, we should seriously consider supporting them and celebrate their courage. And if they don’t, because the time isn’t right and the regime is still too strong, we should continue our efforts to contain the current government and deny it the world’s most dangerous weapons. One day, the Iranian people will replace their government in the same way the Soviet Union crumbled from within. In the meantime, our job is to manage the situation for as long as necessary and avoid the worst possible outcomes of a wider conflict or an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel who spent most of his 20-year military career filling strategic intelligence assignments. He’s a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., and lives in Annapolis.

Republicans focused exclusively on the lawless behavior and ignored the peaceful parts of the protest. They dramatically portrayed LA as a city in rebellion. Their dystopian language made it difficult for Americans to assess what was happening and created political pressure for aggressive and risky actions. Political leaders have a responsibility to offer sober assessments but many of the statements from politicians were intended to dramatize events for personal gain. It’s true that rioting occurred in parts of Los Angeles but also true that most of the city was quiet. That suggests the number of people involved in the disturbances was limited, since greater numbers would have caused havoc across a larger area of the city.

Democrats also failed to offer accurate assessments of the situation on the ground. Former Vice President Kamala Harris chose to highlight the peaceful protests, blamed President Trump and fully ignored the actions of protesters who were breaking the law. LA Mayor Karen Bass blamed “immigration raids” for causing the disorder rather than consistently condemning lawbreakers. Americans learned that Republicans are too quick to declare an emergency and Democrats are too slow to realize a potential crisis. These tendencies manifested themselves in the decisions of major leaders from both parties.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and President Trump have offered different versions of their recent telephone conversations, and neither can agree publicly about the timeline of the calls. It says something important about the state of our politics that a governor and the president of the United States are accusing each other of lying about something as simple as the existence of a phone call. Whenever they spoke, and whatever they spoke about, it would have made sense for Newsom to activate parts of the California National Guard on June 7, even though disturbances in LA were not widespread at the time. When President Lyndon Johnson ordered the Alabama National Guard to federal service in 1965, against the wishes of Governor George Wallace, he wasn’t responding to ongoing violence or disorder. He took the measure preemptively because he believed that future disorder was likely.

Newsom could have anticipated that federal immigration raids would continue over the weekend and could have also anticipated the chance for large-scale protests in response. Whether those protests would turn violent couldn’t be known but there was always a relatively high likelihood of disorder. Because it takes time to mobilize forces, it would have made sense to follow Johnson’s 1965 example and mobilize the Guard as a preemptive measure. Newsom could have kept them outside the city if he feared their presence would be inflammatory, but it would have been smart to have them ready and near.

If Newsom demonstrated the danger of Democratic underreaction, President Trump’s deployment of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles shows the danger of Republican overreaction. Because the separation of military from civil life is such a core part of America’s identity, presidents should deploy active-duty forces domestically only as a last resort. The situation was nowhere near that point when President Trump ordered a Marine infantry battalion to Los Angeles. Most of the California National Guard had not been mobilized and the police resources of neighboring cities and states had not been fully deployed. The Marines were sent not as a last resort but as a relatively early part of the government’s response. Seven hundred of them were placed in the middle of a civil disturbance with roots in our country’s ongoing failure to find a workable consensus on immigration.

The U.S. Marine Corps doesn’t regularly train its infantry battalions to operate in American cities amid civil disturbance. Except for Abbey Gate during the Afghanistan withdrawal, it’s been more than a decade since Marines were guarding facilities in actively hostile environments. During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military forces were trained to respond to hostile crowds using the least amount of force necessary, but that type of training is less common now. If the federal facilities guarded by the Marines are threatened by an aggressive crowd, they’ll find themselves in a difficult situation that hasn’t been addressed extensively in their training.

The presence of the Marines also jeopardizes one of the few national institutions still capable of uniting Americans across political lines. Pictures of Marines engaged in street fights with other Americans, should that sad scene come to pass, will create controversy around the military where none exists currently. That’s why the stakes of this deployment are high. The way Americans view the military will be shaped by events in LA.

Federal agents have a right to enforce federal law anywhere in the United States, and the definition of peaceful protests can’t include interfering with their ability to carry out their jobs. But it’s fair to critique their priorities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is under pressure to increase the pace of deportations. To meet their quotas they’ve started arresting people in places like Home Depot parking lots as they gather to solicit work. These people are criminals in the sense they entered our country illegally, but it’s hard to imagine gang members and drug dealers waiting for the chance to dig ditches, pour concrete or cut someone’s lawn. ICE can run up its numbers by targeting day laborers but that takes energy away from finding dangerous people who are threatening our communities. Deporting a thousand gang members would make Americans safer than deporting a million day laborers, but federal action seems mostly focused on achieving high numbers. The disorder that occurred in LA is unacceptable but that doesn’t mean our current immigration policy is wise.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C.

America’s children are watching.

If they choose in the future to interrupt their days to engage in social media battles, we’ll have only ourselves to blame. The example we’re setting today makes it more likely that tomorrow’s leaders will take to social media and perpetuate more of the same. Even as we try to laugh through the spectacle of these grown-ups yelling at each other, the reality is more sad than funny. Sad that two men with such immense responsibilities could find time to attack each other publicly by way of tapped-out messages on cell phones.

Beyond the disappointment of watching the absurdity of this behavior is a call to action, which isn’t to complain about the president or lament the sorry state of our culture and politics. Pointing out the obvious and staring at the problem doesn’t move us any closer to a solution. Until Americans treat civil behavior as non-negotiable, we’re unlikely to escape from the toxic mess we’re in. The first step is to avoid adding to the toxicity, the opposite of what happened in the escalating exchange between Trump and Musk. Neither man took the high road and neither felt secure enough to let an insult pass. Perhaps each of them feared they would look small unless they responded to vitriol in kind. This is part of America’s contemporary political culture: to respond to every perceived slight with a battle to the death online. But that’s not how most of us were raised, and it’s not what our nation should tolerate, especially in front of our children.

My daughter Claire was too young during President Trump’s first term for me to worry about her learning the wrong lessons from a man whose speech is looser than I prefer. No longer. If she hears the president call someone “scum,” she’ll ask me about it. If she reads a post calling someone a “loser,” she’ll ask me about it. And if she understands what’s happening between Musk and Trump, she’ll ask me about it. One day, when she does, I’ll do my best to explain that even if others act that way, we don’t and won’t. As she gets older, I worry my message will compete with a culture that demands a slight is answered with a slight and believes strength is incompatible with turning the other cheek.

And yet, hope remains. Hope that we’ve reached the bottom and have already started our climb toward a more respectful version of politics. Most Americans would never practice what we tolerate in public from our leaders, and organizations old and new are mobilizing to change the practice of our politics. The Maryland Forward Party is one of those organizations, and their candidate pledge is a model of what we should expect from our political leaders. Braver Angels is a group that brings liberal and conservative Americans together for conversation and reminds both sides they’re united by love of country. No Labels, an organization once co-chaired by former Governor Larry Hogan, has new national leaders who represent both major parties but are committed to treating each other respectfully as they seek common ground. Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, Democratic Congressman Jared Golden of Maine and Democratic Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez are carrying on Hogan’s work to put country over party. The Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress has 49 members, each committed, at least in principle, to the idea of bipartisanship. It’s disappointing but not surprising that no one from Maryland’s congressional delegation is a member.

Changing our politics begins with a change in expectations by the American people. If politicians understand that voters simply won’t consider them, regardless of their positions on the issues, if they describe opponents in language we won’t tolerate from our children, these politicians will change their ways. As it stands, politicians know they can rely on the votes of almost every member of their party regardless of the language they use, because party affiliation takes precedence over decency. That will change if voters prioritize decency over other issues, at least for a while, until our public discourse is planted firmly in a more productive place.

The definition of that decency requires humility and the ability to walk a higher road. It means rejecting the idea that every perceived slight is a chance to engage in a coarse exchange. The Trump-Musk feud is the opposite of that decency. It’s the type of behavior the Forward Party, Braver Angels, No Labels and the Problem Solvers Caucus are trying to overcome. When I was in the Army, the strongest soldiers were never the ones who bragged about their medals or ran people down. The strongest were always the ones who quietly earned the medals the braggers coveted, strove to act calmly and built up everyone around them. They set an example our political leaders should follow and show what real strength is. We should expect that kind of strength as voters.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat, a former member of the Veterans for Hogan Coalition, a small-dollar donor to the Maryland Forward Party and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University. He lives in Annapolis.

It’s important that discussions about abortion never involve a hint of judgement. Many women who make this hard decision do so out of fear: fear they won’t have enough money or the support system they need to raise a child, fear they won’t be able to uphold their other responsibilities, fear they won’t be a good parent or fear they won’t be able to provide a safe home for their child. Maryland does more than most states to address these powerful concerns, even if it isn’t enough, and it’s fair that women who are making one of the hardest decisions of their lives at least know how the state could help if they decide to have a child.

When I first became a Democrat, President Bill Clinton described abortion as something that should be “safe, legal and rare.” Thirty years later, the party has changed beyond recognition on the issue, choosing to frame the procedure as a simple health care decision devoid of moral complexity and dropping the expectation that abortions would be rare. This was driven in part by the rational fear that accepting any restrictions on abortion would ultimately empower a pro-life movement intent on banning the procedure entirely. But the change in tone risks alienating some of the two-thirds of Americans who support restrictions on abortion that usually begin in the second trimester.

Maryland can set an example for the country if we take a step toward a middle position by educating women about their options at the same time we offer to fund their abortions. Doing so would give real meaning to the word “choice,” since nothing is really a choice if only one available option is presented. If choice rather than abortion is the goal, it’s important that women, especially women struggling on the lower end of the economic spectrum, understand they have options. They should know unequivocally that help is available to have an abortion, and also available to have a child.

Abortion policy in America is more polarized than at any time since the passage of Roe v. Wade. When Roe was overturned, Republican states moved quickly to ban abortion in almost all cases, and Democratic states moved equally fast to undermine the idea that limits on abortion are reasonable. I was one of the 24% of Marylanders, and one of even fewer pro-choice voters, who opposed the amendment enshrining abortion rights in our state constitution. I saw the amendment as an extreme reaction by the left to equally extreme policies being passed in other states by the right, and I feared the amendment would make it difficult to maintain Maryland’s restrictions on abortion at the point of fetal viability. Had the amendment guaranteed the right to an abortion only until that point, or beyond it to protect the health of the mother or spare a child with a catastrophic medical condition unnecessary suffering, I would have supported it.

Educating women about their options at the same time they seek an abortion seems like a reasonable position, but it’s controversial because many thoughtful people believe that sharing that type of information is condescending toward women who are perfectly capable of educating themselves and making up their own minds. But the state is comfortable educating citizens about the benefits of vaccines, eating healthy foods and a host of other things all without ever requiring citizens to take its advice. There’s value in providing information to help people make the best possible decision for their own circumstances. A thoughtful effort to provide women with information can avoid feeling like a lecture and won’t include anything that resembles an effort to discourage them from having an abortion. There won’t be any of the graphic pictures previously used in conservative states to change women’s minds, or cases made about the sanctity of life. The presentation about programs that could provide some support as they raise a child should be as clinical as discussions about the abortion itself.

We should also strive to do more than educate people about existing programs. Maryland and the entire country should commit to policies that make it easier for women and families to raise children. At the governmental level, this might mean working through our congressional delegation to encourage federal tax increases whose revenue is fenced off to subsidize child care, affordable housing for families, and provide low-cost college and vocational training to mothers and fathers. Even Americans who generally oppose raising taxes might support this policy if they understood the money would be used to help women who choose to have a child. Leaders in both major political parties are beginning to recognize the economic and moral benefits of investing in young children. On a personal level, Marylanders might donate their time and money to organizations that provide things like diapers to families in need. Republicans have too often talked about the need to protect children before birth and then done too little to support them once they were born. Some of the cuts in the tax bill working its way through Congress seem to continue that trend. Democrats are making a different mistake by funding abortions in Maryland without making sure women have a chance to truly understand their options. They seem to be defaulting to abortion as the only acceptable answer rather than empowering women to make a fully informed choice.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.

Support for the reparations commission is rooted in a sad truth of our state’s history: For too long, the power of government was used to subjugate, disadvantage and disenfranchise Black citizens. How to address that issue is complicated, and Gov. Moore’s conclusion that now wasn’t the right moment to explore the question with a commission is reasonable given the other complexities of our time. House Speaker Adrienne Jones, a supporter of the plan to establish the commission, is right when she points out the lingering effects of racism, but neither our state nor our governor is ignoring historically rooted discrepancies that persist along racial lines.

On June 19, the day our country celebrates the good news of emancipation reaching the most distant parts of the defeated Confederacy, Moore plans to announce new efforts to close the wealth gap between Black and white Marylanders. Whatever he announces will have to be evaluated, but the fact that he plans to announce something is a reminder of his commitment to address racial disparities. I see these disparities every day in my own life when I drop my 2-year-old son off at a preschool where almost all the caregivers are Black, and almost all the children cared for are white. That reality wasn’t only created by individual choices but by the different histories and circumstances that allowed one set of families to thrive and another to struggle for economic advancement. Our Black governor is a testament to the immense progress we’ve made in Maryland, but the racial disparity I see at Casey’s preschool is a reminder of why the legislature supported a commission to study reparations.

This and all of Gov. Moore’s decisions are open to public scrutiny. That’s one of the great gifts of our country, that despite its troubled racial history, we’ve evolved to a place where everyone is free to offer critiques and share dissenting opinions. Some members of the legislature may never reconcile themselves to the governor’s decision, but others may come to see the sound intent of his action even if they never fully agree. Polling makes it clear that any discussion of reparations would have been fraught with division and would have consumed a large amount of our political energy. Opponents of the governor’s veto believe the expenditure of that energy is necessary and point to efforts in Washington to unravel DEI as a reason Maryland should commit itself to study reparations. But their logic is a reminder of just how complicated Maryland’s position has become, as the pace of change in our nation’s capital has reached a fever pitch and requires the deepest reserves of our concentration to successfully navigate. The reparations commission would have broken that concentration at a critical time.

Maryland needs to diversify its economy away from its longstanding reliance on the federal government, and we need to ensure our safety net is strong enough to withstand the extreme cuts we may soon see from Washington. None of this is easy, and all of it will take collaboration and compromise among our state’s leaders. This type of compromise is easier if Marylanders themselves come to understand that neither party, and certainly not a faction within a party, has all the answers. Gov. Moore demonstrated something important when he vetoed a bill supported by a legislature that’s thoroughly dominated by his own party. He reminded us that loyalty in politics should lie with a leader’s best judgment about what’s best for the people he serves and not with the wishes of a particular political party or group of legislators.

Former Governor Larry Hogan made this definition of political loyalty an important part of Maryland politics when he criticized a president of his own party and refused to endorse the MAGA-aligned Republican who ran against Moore. The coalition Hogan assembled included Republicans, Democrats and independents, and though it wasn’t enough to prevail under challenging conditions in the 2024 Senate race, it was still in existence and on display. Hogan ran 9 points ahead of President Donald Trump in 2024 because he left a legacy of accomplishments as governor, and because the vision of politics he offered wasn’t defined by strict partisanship. Gov. Moore has sometimes drifted from that vision, and when he does, it’s fair to point out and encourage him toward something better. It’s just as right to point out when he does something politically difficult in the best interests of our state and the people he serves.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat and former member of the Veterans for Hogan Coalition, and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis. 

Gov. Wes Moore recently signed a bill that alters the 2023 legislation in part by limiting the size of damages the state can be required to pay. Wilson sponsored the bill in the House of Delegates and by doing so took a position that was easy to criticize and widely unpopular. Opponents of his bill characterized the legislation as being unfair to victims and encouraged its veto by Gov. Moore. To his credit, Moore resisted the political pressure and signed the bill into law.

Lost in the flood of lawsuits being filed by an eager array of lawyers is any discussion about where the money to pay victims will come from. State government may sometimes seem nameless and faceless but is in fact a collection of programs that exist to benefit the people of Maryland. As we consider the proper size of victim payments, three things are fundamentally true: Victims are entitled to compensation; no amount of money can make up for the horror of their childhood abuse; and any money paid to victims doesn’t come from something as undefined as “the state” but from cuts enacted to specific state programs or by raising taxes on Marylanders. This is why the conversation about financial restitution isn’t as simple as the attorneys advocating for higher limits claim. Wilson did something politically brave when he recognized this hard reality and amended his original bill to limit the state’s liability.

Victims have a right to confront state institutions for two important reasons: first, to shed light on past failures to ensure they aren’t repeated and second, to seek a degree of emotional closure and financial restitution to help them continue their lives. That these victims deserve our consideration, well wishes and financial support should not be controversial. What is fair to discuss is the size of the financial awards available to victims, not because those victims don’t deserve every dollar and more, but because those dollars are raised by cuts to programs that are serving Marylanders, potentially including Maryland’s children. It’s possible that victim funds could be raised through higher taxes or special fees rather than cuts to state services. This too isn’t cost-free and would make us less economically competitive and add a new burden on Marylanders at a particularly delicate moment for our state’s economy.

The claims already filed have exposed our state government to more than $3 billion in unfunded liabilities and the number is expected to rise as new cases are filed. The 2025 change that limited the amount of money victims could seek was a sad but necessary step to protect our state from a crushing financial blow at a time when we’re already struggling to keep pace with our commitments. The change was sad because past victims of childhood abuse deserve as much restitution as we can possibly provide. It was necessary because the Marylanders who rely on government services today are also entitled to our consideration.

Many of the attorneys now shepherding these cases through the courts are doing so for the right reasons and we should take them at their word when they talk about a deep commitment to achieve justice for their clients. The attorneys have failed to mention, however, the true cost of the settlements and what that cost means to Marylanders. By seeking the maximum damages allowed, and by racing to file claims before the lower limits enacted by the 2025 law go into effect, they are helping one group of Marylanders by hurting another. The higher amounts of money being sought by these attorneys will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is most likely higher taxes or reductions to government programs.

The lower limits in Wilson’s 2025 amendment to his 2023 law have nothing to do with callousness toward victims. Everyone agrees that what happened was both a failure and a tragedy that can’t be allowed to ever occur in our state again. Wilson’s 2025 law acknowledges that truth along with another: Maryland isn’t doing well financially and what money we have is being used to maintain programs that he and the majority of Marylanders support. These programs are intended to improve our schools, maintain our roads and care for people as they navigate the unexpected challenges of life. This doesn’t mean victims don’t deserve compensation for past abuse, but it does mean that tradeoffs are always necessary and often hard. Rather than accuse the people who supported the 2025 update to the Child Victims Act of being insensitive, we could thank them for doing something that was politically and emotionally difficult but also necessary. Their willingness to make a hard decision protected our state from liabilities that would have had real and negative effects on the lives of many Marylanders.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.

Ukraine has done its part to fortify the West. Through immense sacrifice, it has weakened Russia and left it less able to expand its influence in other parts of the world. American support has been decisive, but Europe is also doing its part. Defense spending by European countries is rising, and even Germany, long hesitant to grow its military, is investing heavily in its armed forces. President Trump should get credit for pushing the Europeans to spend more on defense, but now that his pressure has been effective, it’s time to stop talking about Europe as a place that isn’t pulling its weight. It will take time for the Europeans to rearm, but they are rearming.

The rebirth of European military power is well timed since Russia has already begun a program of military construction and reorganization designed to threaten NATO and the West. The establishment of new military headquarters near NATO borders, the construction of new rail lines to make those borders more accessible, and the holding in reserve of Russia’s most advanced military equipment rather than using it in Ukraine are all signs that Putin is preparing for a long struggle that won’t end with the conclusion of his current war.

Especially in this strategic environment, the type of independent European military power now being contemplated in Europe’s capitals has never been our goal. We sought a strong Europe to augment American influence and not a strong Europe that acted on its own. Doubtful of American resolve, Europeans are exploring ways to decouple themselves from American decision-making and reduce their dependence on our military power. Not only does this embolden Russia, but our country will find it harder to convince a less dependent Europe to support a broad range of American goals.

The Europeans are discussing how British and French nuclear weapons might replace the American nuclear umbrella that did so much to deter the Soviets and the Russians who followed. Because the world is better off with fewer rather than more nuclear actors, America will not be safer if Europe expands its capacity for independent nuclear action. The growth of a truly independent European nuclear capability would be another unwelcome symptom of America ceding its influence in the world.

President Trump is right that Ukraine isn’t strong enough to expel Russian forces and may have to accept the long-term occupation of some of its territory. Ukraine may even need to cede Crimea, a bad choice but probably the only one available. Officially recognizing Russia’s other territorial gains and normalizing economic relations with Russia will cause more problems in the long run than are solved in the present. Russia will accrue enormous economic benefits if the United States facilitates its reentry into the world economy, generating revenue that will go directly to rebuilding its military, funding hostile intelligence operations and propping up a regime that’s never far from its next military adventure.

President Trump understands the power of economic sanctions elsewhere in the world. He has starved the Iranian regime of resources by isolating its economy and been reluctant to remove sanctions on Syria, even after the fall of Russian ally Bashar Assad. China is the best example of his unwillingness to provide economic relief to a potentially hostile state, and the president is willing to risk a deep global recession to weaken Chinese power. Only with Russia does Trump seem willing to forgo the leverage of America’s economic might and welcome a rogue regime into the ranks of normal nations.

With so many threats in the world and serious challenges at home, the growth of European military power as a way to reduce our burden is a generally positive development. It becomes less positive, however, if the Europeans decide to act independently and counterbalance rather than augment our capabilities. The world isn’t safer if power is diffused away from the American center and countries seek to fill the void within their various spheres of influence. The 80-year period from the end of World War II has been a time of relative peace and stability in part because overwhelming American power precluded smaller nations from acting on their own.

As China rises and Russia pushes toward the boundaries of its old empire, America will need our allies. Many Chinese and Russian goals are incompatible with our interests, and both countries will be counterproductive actors in the foreseeable future. As they deepen what Chinese President Xi Jinping calls a “no limits” strategic partnership, we can either face them with friends or we can face them alone. If we abandon instead of strengthening what remains of the post-World War II order, we also encourage the Europeans to become an independent military power. This would mark another step away from American hegemony and toward a world with various spheres of influence. We’ve seen that world before, and it always leads to conflict. Rather than grow up in an era of competing spheres of influence, our children are better served in a world still shaped by American power. The alternative isn’t world peace, only a less stable world for them to manage in the future.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.