The ability of Donald Trump to surprise the world is startling. His bombers initiated a war with Iran, swiftly band-wagoned by Israel, but then a chance (or was it deliberate) obscenity concerning out-of-touch old men seems to have brought about a swift ceasefire; but one which does not extend to Gaza where murdering genocide continues unabated, without any equivalent sharp comments from the US president.
Trump’s antics over the last few months have had everyone guessing, from the outrageously ill-mannered scenes in the White House to his blowing hot and cold over Vladimir Putin. The way that he, his vice-president JD Vance, and a planted puppet-journalist staged their obvious and deliberate ambush of Volodymyr Zelenskyy (would they have challenged the leaders of, say, China, Saudi Arabia or India for not wearing a Western suit and tie?) should have forewarned us all that worse was to come, but who could have foreseen his siding with Putin in blaming Zelenskyy for starting the war in Ukraine?
Chaos, Trump and trade deals
One possible explanation for this bizarre White House behaviour could be that it was all a softening-up process in order to maximise US benefit from any minerals deal that Trump still is eager to sign with Ukraine. The question that must concern the world is the extent to which Trump enterprises, or any company even vaguely connected with the US president or his family and friends, may benefit financially from any such deal.
If this should prove to be the case, then it would be a crime of such magnitude that all the other crimes for which Trump has been indicted and found guilty, would pale into insignificance. We also await confirmation of the actual extent of the damage caused by the bombing in Iran: Trump claims to have obliterated the enrichment facilities; Iran suggests a minor setback of a few months.
On 20 January this year, the US formally initiated the year-long process of withdrawing from the globally important body, the World Health Organization (WHO). It has already begun to disengage from its activities: US laboratories and other science facilities have stopped sharing information about ongoing cases of influenza, presumably on direct orders from Trump.
In particular, they have separated themselves from the regular annual discussions about which global flu strain should be targeted in the production of vaccines. It takes about six months to develop and stockpile vaccines in time for winter surges, and scientists need to use as much global data as possible to optimise their predictions.
US vaccination rates are now well below previous levels in the run-up to a winter flu season predicted to be the worst this century. The WHO held its annual meeting on this subject on 28 February, and although US scientists were contacted and invited, none responded, nor did any attend. The axing of the US aid programme will acutely threaten the availability of vaccines for children in developing countries, adding to the consequences of major cuts in food and other essential aid.
Exiting the WHO – at what cost?
Environmentalists are equally worried about the actual changes that Trump has brought about since taking office, and which have serious implications for humanity and the planet, such as the distancing we have seen from the already inadequate and anodyne agreements that regularly emerge from COP meetings. The practical science of global warming and climate change as practised in the US under Trump, will have global consequences for years to come.
In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has given monthly briefings to journalists and other interested parties on the state of the global climate for some time, and has recognised the direct effect of human activity on weather in recent years. However, the February event (the first in Trump era 2) made no link between January’s record high temperatures and the resulting wildfires and human greenhouse gas emissions, despite the rest of the world’s climate scientists having no doubts about the connection.
January 2025 was not only the hottest January on record, but it also followed the hottest year on record and the simple fact that each of the last 10 years has been one of the 10 hottest on record in its own right.
Climate denial in high office
In its February statement, NOAA sought to blame the unusually rapid alternation between El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean and below-average sea-ice cover at both poles, without explaining why these events should have occurred, i.e. global heating.
Their spokesperson, Russell Vose, cited the decline in air pollution over the oceans as the most likely cause of the observed changes. He also claimed (incorrectly) that NOAA was not in the habit of offering explanations for individual monthly variations in normal weather patterns.
At the public presentation, NOAA members were asked the specific question by science journalists: “Has human activity and human-caused climate change played any role in the record high temperatures?” At this point, the meeting was terminated abruptly, and NOAA’s press office subsequently refused to accept any further questions.
Following this debacle, science reporters scoured through thousands of relevant US government webpages for references to ‘global warming’ (and similar) and ‘climate change’, to find that all such references had been deleted. When Trump acts, he certainly acts swiftly.
Silencing the scientists
There can be only one reason for this astonishing volte face by a body that has long been recognised internationally as representing good climate science and honest evaluations of clear data. Clearly, orders have arrived from on high about what they have been known to call ‘alternative facts’.
Like everyone else, scientists are only human, probably with large mortgages and other lifetime financial commitments, and although one or two have shown themselves willing to challenge the new regime with its barbaric approach to truth and morality, it seems that the world’s scientists must now, like us, wait another three years or more for a return to US credibility.
MAGA and Musk: who is really in charge?
During the presidential campaign, Trump was rarely seen without a red Make America Great Again (MAGA) baseball cap. But what or who was MAGA? Was this just a slogan his agents came up with, or was it something more tangible and sinister? Eventually, the question arose, “Did Trump create MAGA or was Trump the product of MAGA?”
At a time when the best minds of humanity should be fully dedicated to devising practical ways to minimise the threat of damage from climate change and other environmental crises, we have the image of Trump persuading all the leaders of the NATO community to pledge an increase in military spending to 5% of their respective GDPs; for the UK this would mean roughly doubling current spending.
Guns before green policy
Few human activities rival warfare and military production for their environmental impact. Plans to ramp up defence spending confirm that Trump is right in at least one respect: to paraphrase the president, the world is being governed by a bunch of old men who have little idea of what they are talking about.
The biggest problem with writing a piece about Trump today is that it is likely to be out of date tomorrow; the man will continue to surprise the world. But how any more surprises can the world withstand?
(A much more comprehensive analysis of Trump and MAGA can be found in the June 2025 issue of Monthly Revue.)
