A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
Today, a grave and illegal line was crossed — and it did not make the United States safer or stronger.
The U.S. carried out an unauthorized act of war by bombing another country’s capital, forcibly removing its leader without Congressional approval and asserting criminal jurisdiction over a foreign head of state who never consented to U.S. law — violating the War Powers Clause, due process, national sovereignty and international law.
Full stop this is not strength, it is what a lawlessness out-of-control authoritarian regime looks like.
If any other nation did this to us, we would call it exactly what it is: state-sponsored terrorism, because international law does not magically disappear because we claim moral superiority.
I do not care what party you belong to — the War Powers belongs to Congress, this is literally YOUR job. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution — not protect a president’s ego, polling numbers or political future.
To date, Donald Trump and those acting under his direction have committed multiple impeachable offenses, while far too many members of Congress sit safely in their ivory towers — silent, complicit and cowardly.
Every American should ask themselves this: How would you feel if another country bombed Washington, kidnapped our president and then decided to “helpfully” install a new government?
Some might cheer at first — until they grasp what that precedent actually means.
And let’s be honest about the likely motive behind this reckless escalation: Global threats to the petrodollar — a system that allows oil to be traded outside U.S. control — threaten bond markets, deficits and America’s economic leverage.
I really wonder how Russia, China, Iran and other BRICS nations will view the actions committed in the named of the U.S.A today? The BRICS nations do represent roughly half the world population.
How will other nations look at this precedent?
No declared war necessary — just bomb your way to get what you want. People through history have attempted this game, it’s NEVER ended well for anyone. Just look at World War II. When power feels threatened, authoritarians lash out.
Trump promised:
This is who he has always been: A con man, a fraud, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Any member of the House or Senate who allows this precedent — set by Trump, Hegseth and Rubio — to go unanswered is either unfit for office or unwilling to do their duty.
We will all pay for today’s actions — in money, blood and tears.
America deserves better, the Constitution demands better, Impeachment should not be optional, because accountability is not partisan and our Democracy requires courage now more than ever.
Stephanie Steiner, Sutherland
The EPA’s proposal to weaken protections under the Clean Water Act is not a misunderstanding of science. It is not regulatory fine-tuning. It is a conscious decision to allow more pollution, more flooding, and more illness — especially in states like Iowa that have already failed to protect their own water.
By redefining “Waters of the United States,” the EPA would remove federal protections from wetlands and ephemeral streams across much of the country. In Iowa, where state leaders have refused for decades to enact meaningful wetland safeguards, this change amounts to open season on the waters that remain. Iowa has already destroyed nearly 90% of its wetlands. Now the federal government is proposing to finish the job.
This rule defies reality. Water does not obey political boundaries or legal loopholes. Wetlands and ephemeral streams are not optional features of the landscape; they are essential components of interconnected water systems. They trap pollution, recharge aquifers, and blunt the force of floods. The Clean Water Act was built on this understanding. The EPA’s proposal rejects it — and with it, decades of settled science.
The human consequences are immediate and unavoidable. Wetlands filter nitrates, pesticides, and PFAS before those contaminants reach rivers and drinking water supplies. Remove the wetlands, and the pollution flows straight into municipal systems. Cities are then forced to spend millions on treatment, passing the costs to families through higher water bills and taxes. Polluters avoid responsibility. Communities absorb the damage.
Iowa already knows this story. Nitrate contamination is widespread. Toxic algal blooms are common. Drinking water utilities are stretched thin. Yet instead of strengthening protections, the EPA proposes to strip them away — knowing full well that Iowa has no comprehensive wetland protection program to replace them.
This is not an accident. It is policy failure layered on policy failure. Iowa lawmakers have consistently chosen not to regulate water pollution. The federal Farm Bill continues to under support conservation practices that reduce fertilizer runoff. And now the EPA is proposing to remove the last meaningful line of defense. The outcome is predictable.
Iowa now has the fastest-growing rate of cancer diagnoses in the nation. No single policy explains that statistic, but pretending environmental contamination is irrelevant is dishonest. Weakening water protections in a state already struggling with polluted drinking water is not just negligent — it is dangerous.
The damage will not stop at pollution. Wetlands are among the most effective flood protections we have. One acre can hold more than one million gallons of water. As climate change delivers heavier rain and more frequent flooding, destroying wetlands guarantees higher disaster losses, higher insurance premiums, and greater human suffering — at exactly the moment when federal disaster response is being scaled back.
Nor will the harm stop at Iowa’s borders. Midwestern wetlands protect downstream waters and support fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico that generate billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Countless species — many already endangered — depend on wetlands to survive. This rule makes habitat destruction easier, cheaper, and legal.
Supporters of the EPA’s proposal claim it provides “clarity.” What it actually provides is permission — to pollute, to pave, to drain, and to walk away from the consequences. It shifts costs from industry to families. It sacrifices public health for convenience. And it abandons the Clean Water Act’s central promise: that clean water is a shared right, not a disposable commodity.
Weakening wetland protections will not spur innovation or growth. It will make people sicker. It will make floods worse. It will drive up costs for everyone except the polluters who benefit.
This is not responsible governance. It is government-sanctioned pollution — and Iowans will be left to live with the fallout.
Linda Schreiber, Iowa City
Twas the night before Christmas when all through the White House there arose such a clatter. Twas being torn down but to Trump it didn't matter.
No stockings were hung by the chimney with care. Trump just laughed cause the voters put him there. The voters were nestled all snug in their beds while orange Kool-Aid danced in their heads.
Now Vance! Now Johnson!
Now Ford and Nixon!
On Coney! On Bondi!
On Thomas and Putin!
He spoke not a word but went straight to his work. He cut up the stockings and acted like a jerk. And raising his finger in the middle of his hand. He spoke to everyone all over the land. The hell with you all and you've all got no rights.
Dave Haynes, Duncombe
You’ve probably seen it: “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper” — the iconic 1932 photo of 11 ironworkers eating lunch on a high beam of the almost-complete Rockefeller Center.
This year’s Time Magazine person of the year features an AI rendition of the same photo, peopled not with day laborers, but with AI CEOs.
Opportunities and anxieties are center stage in both images, but the anxieties in the Time image involve powerful non-human forces which can alter not only humanity itself, but also, on a national scale, the outcome of elections.
Deep in the bowels of the Big Beautiful Bill was a 10-year moratorium on states enacting or enforcing their own AI regulations. Of course, Iowa’s congressional delegation voted for it. But the Senate rejected it.
So, on Dec. 11, President Trump issued an executive order establishing the framework for challenging state AI regulations in court, including regulations on the use of deceptive media (deepfakes) to influence elections.
We must act! I suggest the following:
Karen Heidman, Sioux City
The recent government shutdown, the longest in our history, was centered on the Republicans’ refusal to extend ACA premium tax credits. Estimates were that 24,000,000 people would be affected negatively, with ACA premiums increasing in some cases by thousands of dollars monthly, and some subscribers dropping insurance altogether. But more importantly to Republicans it seemed was that the total estimated cost of extending the tax credits was $35 billion per year, often shown as $350 billion for the bill’s ten-year period.
That’s a very large sum. But the Big Ugly Bill contains many very large sums. The first Trump Tax bill (2017) decreased the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 37%. The BUB extends that for 10 years. While this favorable tax break applies to fewer than 1% of earners, the total cost (reduction in tax revenues) is an estimated $600 billion!
This is only one example of how the Big Ugly Bill transfers wealth upward. People without employer-provided insurance will pay more for health care while the nation’s wealthiest get to pay a lower tax.
Contrary to the fairy-tale stories about lower taxes on the wealthy creating prosperity for all, American University estimates extending the lower tax rate will reduce federal revenues by 2.24% and provide no benefit in terms of GDP, investment or wages.
When will the Republican budget hawks start squawking about the cost of the Trump tax breaks for the wealthy that they supported?
Sue Ravenscroft, Ames
The governor has decided that applicants are limited in the foods they can purchase with SNAP dollars. Would it make sense that she also require farmers to implement water-safe farming practices in order to qualify for government subsidies?
David Weiss, Ankeny
As we step into a new year full of resolutions, imagine a healthier home, safer children, and pets free from toxic risks, all starting with your lawn. With so many new goals, I am writing because one simple change can protect your family’s health: stop using pesticides for cosmetic lawn care.
The New Year often sparks people to take their health more seriously, but one major adversity to health is pesticide exposure. Pesticides don’t just kill weeds; they can have negative effects on people’s well-being. Research shows pesticide exposure is linked to rising cases of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, memory loss, and impaired neural coordination. Children and fetuses are especially vulnerable due to weaker immune systems, with exposure causing birth defects, genetic disorders, and hormonal disruption. Pesticides also have carcinogenic effects, contributing to cancers including leukemia, bladder, thyroid and brain.
Not only do pesticides have negative effects on human health, but they can also harm your pets. Your pets play on your lawn every day. Pesticides put them at risk of bladder cancer and lymphoma. Using chemicals on your lawn isn’t worth risking their health.
A weed-free lawn does not have to come at the cost of potentially harming your family’s health. Join Good Neighbor Iowa, a statewide initiative promoting pesticide-free lawn care. Join the other Buena Vista County residents who have pledged to go pesticide-free at goodneighboriowa.org and make 2026 the year we protect what matters most: our health, our pets and our planet.
Together, we can make a difference.
Jordan Holloway, Cedar Falls
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here