By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A bill proposing to feature Donald Trump on a $250 bill, which would represent a significant departure from the long-standing prohibition against depicting living individuals on U.S. currency, has stalled in Congress. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s printing director, Patricia Solimene, was reassigned after explaining the extensive legal and procedural challenges, including the typical six-to-eight-year timeline for new currency production and the lack of authorization. Solimene stated her reassignment was involuntary, emphasizing her commitment to the U.S. Currency Program and the organization’s values.
Read the original article here
The recent news about President Trump skipping a planned visit to soldiers injured in Iran at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center has, understandably, sparked considerable discussion and reaction. This situation brings to the forefront long-standing concerns and criticisms regarding his perceived relationship with veterans and the military. Many observers have pointed to a pattern of behavior and statements that they interpret as disrespectful and dismissive of those who have served.
This perceived lack of empathy isn’t entirely new. There are persistent recollections of past incidents, such as the canceled trip to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, where reports suggested the reason cited for the cancellation – rain – was not the sole or even primary motivation. Accounts from individuals with direct knowledge of the situation indicated that concerns about his hair being disheveled in the rain and a general disinterest in honoring fallen soldiers were key factors. It’s been widely reported that he referred to the cemetery as being “filled with losers” and described soldiers who died at Belleau Wood as “suckers.”
For many, this narrative paints a consistent picture. The argument is that Trump’s own history of avoiding military service, citing “bone spurs” during the Vietnam War, fuels a deep-seated resentment towards those who have made sacrifices for their country. This perspective suggests that he views military service not as a noble endeavor, but as something for people who couldn’t find better options, hence his alleged disdain for those who serve and are subsequently injured.
The reaction from some veterans themselves, as shared in various discussions, is also noteworthy. Some express a lack of surprise at this particular development, indicating that they don’t necessarily seek or desire President Trump’s “bullshit concern or empathy.” There’s a sentiment that his engagement with veterans often feels performative rather than genuine, driven by political calculation rather than authentic care. Some even suggest that his personal well-being, mentioning things like receiving medication, takes precedence over any perceived obligation to visit injured service members.
The core of the criticism often revolves around the idea that President Trump is fundamentally self-interested, focused on personal gain and vanity projects. The argument is that the well-being of injured soldiers, or indeed any sacrifice made by others, simply doesn’t register on his radar when there are more pressing personal matters to attend to, like maintaining his public image or pursuing financial interests. His alleged tendency to prioritize his own comfort and image over solemn duties is seen as a recurring theme.
Furthermore, past instances of alleged disrespect towards military families and heroes are frequently brought up in these discussions. His reported comments in 2015 about Gold Star families and his preference for individuals who were not captured are cited as evidence of a long-standing pattern of demeaning remarks towards those connected to military service and sacrifice. This history, for many, makes the Walter Reed visit cancellation unsurprising, but no less disappointing.
The idea that injured soldiers, no longer considered active “war fighters,” lose their value in Trump’s eyes is another critical point. The perspective is that he sees them as having fulfilled their purpose and are now of no further use to him or his agenda. This transactional view of service is deeply troubling to those who believe in honoring all who have served, regardless of their current status or ability to fight.
There’s also a cynical observation that while President Trump may not care about injured soldiers, they often remain loyal voters. This highlights a perceived disconnect between the actions of some politicians and the unwavering support they receive from certain segments of the population, including some veterans. The question is posed: why do these soldiers continue to vote for someone who has repeatedly shown them disrespect?
The notion that he can only sympathize with service members if they avoided STDs, or if he provided them with something tangible like “crab legs” prior to their injury, underscores the perceived superficiality of his understanding of military service and sacrifice. The expectation of gratitude, even for seemingly trivial gestures, further emphasizes the transactional nature of his interactions.
Some commentators suggest that President Trump’s avoidance of visiting the injured soldiers might be a matter of his own discomfort or inability to face the reality of their suffering, especially if he feels a sense of responsibility for the conflicts that led to their injuries. The idea that real bravery makes him feel inadequate is presented as a possible psychological reason for his avoidance. Others, perhaps more cynically, propose that it’s best for the soldiers’ recovery, as his presence and potential pronouncements might be more harmful than helpful.
The ultimate judgment from many is that President Trump lacks basic empathy and compassion. His actions are described as destructive and inconsiderate, with no regard for the implications for others. The idea of him visiting injured soldiers only to use the platform to campaign against political opponents or solicit funds for his own endeavors is a recurring fear.
Ultimately, the repeated instances of President Trump’s perceived disdain for military service and injured veterans, culminating in the skipped visit to Walter Reed, solidify a negative perception for many. It reinforces the belief that his expressions of support for the military are often hollow and that his personal interests consistently override any genuine commitment to honoring those who have served and sacrificed for the nation. The question that lingers for many is not whether he will continue to disappoint, but how many will continue to overlook these transgressions.