CUBA: MORE COMPLICATED THAN EVER

 

In January 2019, my spouse and I were privileged to join a Washington County Bar Association cultural exchange. It was a unique continuing legal education program that transported 24 local travelers to Havana, Cuba. Over five days we were treated to a full lineup of lectures on Cuban history, economics, and the socialist political system. We also enjoyed diverse eating experiences, museums, an art colony, and music/dance ensembles.

All of us came away with admiration for the Cuban people. They have been resilient through difficult economic times. Older Cubans were patriotic and grateful for the advances in education, universal healthcare, and social equality achieved under the regime’s vision of communism. On the other hand, younger Cubans complained about the hardships and restrictions. Many seemed eager to receive a Cuban education and then leave the island to live elsewhere.

Following this exhilarating trip, I wrote two commentaries about our excursion for the Observer-Reporter. The first, focused on the Cuban People and their adaptation to socialism following the 1959 revolution. The second, covered the political climate in the beginning of 2019 and the state of Cuban-American relations.

I concluded my commentaries with the thought that “Cuba remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma…and very complicated.” Since Donald Trump regained the presidency, the Cuban story has become even more complicated. This commentary will provide an update on Trump’s policy toward Cuba and what the future might hold.

In January, 2019 Trump was two years into his first term. The previous, Obama administration had taken major steps to reestablish diplomatic relations and to ease the six-decade old embargo against Cuba.

Trump reversed course and placed the relationship with Cuba back on a belligerent footing. Trump believed he needed the political support of exiled Cuban Americans and Florida’s Cuban-American Senator, Marco Rubio, to keep Florida “red” in the 2020 national election.  

As events unfolded in his first term, Trump turned his attention to other issues.  Little additional action was taken against Cuba. Moreover, the Obama initiatives to improve relations were supported by 77% of Cubans born in America.

It was encouraging that a month after our group left Cuba, voters overwhelmingly passed a referendum to reform the Cuban constitution. The referendum kept an authoritarian socialist system in place while adopting several economic, social, and legal reforms.

The lives of most Cubans did not significantly improve during the less hostile Biden administration. The island continued to experience gasoline and medicine shortages. Power outages were common, food costs increased, and the public health system was overwhelmed. However, things were about to get much worse.

Last year, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, the policy toward Cuba dramatically changed. First, the President reversed his campaign pledges of a foreign policy based on “no war, isolationism” to one of attacks on Iran in the Middle East and of gunboat diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere.

U.S. forces began conducting a campaign of airstrikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean. As of March 25, there have been 47 attacks killing at least 163 people.

In Venezuela (Cuba’s main trading partner and source of oil), there was a surprise U.S. military action to remove President Nicolás Maduro from power. The Trump administration now supports a friendlier authoritarian government and has gained control of the country's oil assets. It stopped Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba.

Second, Marco Rubio was appointed by Trump to serve as his Secretary of State. Rubio has long called for a regime change in Cuba. An important goal was to permit Cuban exiles to return to the island and to recover their nationalized assets. Trump began publicly boasting about “a friendly takeover of Cuba.” The President gave Rubio the lead over Cuban policy to implement his long-held goals.

Today, there is almost no electricity or gasoline. Schools suspended classes, and hospitals have canceled surgeries. The country was heading for a major humanitarian crisis until Trump permitted a single Russian oil tanker to dock in Cuba on the last day of March to provide temporary relief.

What happens next? An excellent analysis comes from two Latin American experts on Cuba, Rut Diamint and Laura Tedesco. Their essay, The Coming Showdown Over Cuba, appeared in the March issue of Foreign Affairs. The authors surmise that because the Cuban security forces are well trained and loyal, that an attack similar to Venezuela would be too costly and probably fail.

However, Diamint and Tedesco have concluded that the communist regime that has ruled Cuba since the 1950s is in serious trouble. They see a likely outcome where “Cuba’s leadership may soon be forced to accommodate Washington, bringing the revolutionary era of the last seven decades to a close.”  

There are news reports that Secretary of State Rubio has been in serious talks with Raul Castro’s grandson, Raul Guillermo Rodriquez Castro. He is a younger, more business minded member of the famous family.

What if Trump doesn’t really care about democracy? What if his aim is, like in Venezuela, to work with a Cuban government that will import American products and build Trump hotels? What if permitting the next generation of Castros to become oligarchs, under a business-friendly authoritarian government, achieves this goal?

With this endgame, the wealthy Cuban expats get their land back. However, the citizens of Cuba gain few freedoms. At least they could turn on the lights.

 

 

 

 

 

THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED BUDGET WILL UNDERGO CHANGES

 

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s proposed 2026-27 state budget released in February features $53.3 billion in spending. This is an estimated 5.4% increase. The proposal seeks to raise additional funds not through higher personal income or sales taxes, but by legalizing new revenue streams and utilizing state reserves to balance the budget.

Proposed state budgets are similar to party platforms at national political conventions. They provide red meat for the party faithful but are rarely adopted in full after grinding through the legislative sausage-making process. In Pennsylvania, competing priorities between the Governor and the General assembly always results in significant adjustments to proposed new programs and funding. This year, Democrat’s efforts to pass legislation to raise new categories of revenue and to gain access to the state reserves are anything but certain.

The political battle to adopt a state budget is aways a drawn out, contentious affair. Last year’s impasse ended in November 2025—over four months late—following significant disagreements between the House and Senate. This year may be worse given the unique nature of the proposals and the jockeying for position in the months before the all-important mid-term elections.

There are two issues to consider in analyzing the governor’s proposed budget. First, where will the additional funds come from, and are these sources reasonable and sustainable?

 *Recreational Marijuana Legalization. According to Wikipedia’s overview, 24 U.S. states have legalized cannabis for adult use. Governor Shapiro would follow this trend and create a new law.  A 20% wholesale tax, retail sales taxes, and licensing fees could generate $540 million in the first year.

*Skill Games taxation. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that in 2026 taxing skill games (video gaming-lottery terminals) remains a rapidly evolving issue around the country. Shapiro is in the vanguard by proposing an effective 52% tax rate on skill games (same as slot machines) with a projection of over $2 billion in revenue. The underlying debate is whether these machines constitute true skill or are simply unregulated gambling devices. The tavern lobby will oppose this legislative effort, which will reduce their revenue.

*Corporate Tax Changes. New reporting requirements would increase tax collection on multi-state corporations. This measure increases taxes from businesses operating across state lines.

*Energy Tax Proposal. This plan features a cap-and-trade system to tax carbon emissions. Critics argue that the so-called “Lighting Plan” could increase energy costs and electricity prices.

*Use of Reserves. The proposal would utilize $4.6 billion from Pennsylvania’s Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund (“Rainy-Day Fund”) to help balance the budget. The General Assembly must authorize withdrawals through a separate appropriations bill, requiring a two-thirds majority.

Republicans argue that Shapiro’s plan is constructed to avoid new taxes in 2026 but will create a structural deficit by draining the Rainy-Day Fund. They believe this could lead to future tax hikes. They also point out that the new sources of “uncertain” revenue will require legislation.

I agree with most Democrats that the Governor’s proposal is bold and demonstrates unique foresight and good judgement. Adult recreational cannabis and gambling are deeply embedded in American society. Pennsylvania needs to tax these activities to the fullest extent possible to avoid raising taxes on the millions of citizens on fixed incomes.

The Rainy-Day Fund is an important reserve intended to address emergencies like unexpected revenue shortfalls. However, the last several years have seen the fund balloon to over $7 billion. A portion of these funds should be utilized to fill the budget deficit.

The second question is, what programs will the additional funding enhance to improve the lives of the Commonwealth’s citizens?

*Education. The proposal includes an additional $923 million (a 5.2% increase) for public schools.

*Transportation. The plan diverts an additional 1.75% of sales tax revenue (about $300 million) to public transit agencies like SEPTA in Philadelphia and PRT in Pittsburgh to address deficits.

*Economic Development. Over $100 million is targeted for life sciences, robotics, and tech, along with $9 million for agriculture innovation. There is also a proposal to further cut the Corporate Net Income Tax.

*Housing and Infrastructure. A $1 billion bond-supported fund for housing development and a $500 million investment for business ready sites are proposed.

*Community Safety & Services. The proposal includes over $80 million for gun violence prevention and $10 million for non-profit security.

The only guarantee is that the proposed and final budgets will look very different. Kudos to the governor for initiating legislative debates on creative methods to raise funds that will benefit all Pennsylvanians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRATS NEED SELF-CORRECTION AND NEW IDEAS

 

There are two different paths for political leadership to take in reviewing their past decision-making, current events, and prospects in upcoming elections. The first is to never admit a mistake and to always blame the opposition for the failure of any policy, or election result. This approach is now the chosen path of President Donald Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party.

Never admitting bad results has long been a feature of authoritarian governments seeking to limit dissent. This thinking ignores the core principles of accountability, transparency, and the capacity for self-correction. These concepts are the hallmarks of our American democracy. They emphasize that rulers are not infallible and that power rests with the voting public.

Over the past decade, a populist trend has swept through democratic governments, including the United States. Donald Trump and the Republican Party took advantage of this trend to gain control of the government. The national election results in 2024 demonstrated that Democrats have not kept pace with the concerns of a more populist electorate.

This commentary will discuss several progressive policies supported by Democrats that require review and self-correction. My points will require reconciling party values with the pragmatic need to win elections. Moderation on these points can attract more voters without seriously compromising Democrat’s principles.

Where Wokeness Went Wrong. "Woke" refers to “being awake” and aware in order to recognize and take action against social injustices and discrimination. It centers on race, gender, and marginalized identities. In recent years, woke has escalated into a hotly debated range of political views based on identity. Unfortunately, this trend has harmed the election prospects of Democrats.

MAGA has argued that Democrats have adopted a simplistic view of what it means to be a community and ignored freedom of expression. MAGA has gleefully claimed that Democrats are only supporting select minorities (that do have legitimate complaints) rather than our diverse country as a whole. Efforts to articulate and implement “woke” programs for minorities have been interpreted by populist white, middle-class Americans as oppression towards them.

Democrats, as well as others, know that good intentions are behind most efforts to improve the lot of minorities. However, Trump and MAGA have opened a full court onslaught against any policy, opinion, or word that might be considered “woke.” These attacks have resonated with a growing number of populist minded voters.

To win elections, Democrats must carefully choose their talking points. There is no need to denigrate the Western literary classics because the authors were white, and their work contains ‘racism,” “gender stereotypes,” or “toxic relationships.” Every student can benefit from learning about cross- culture diversity and not simply American slavery or imperialism. What good is gender neutral language to a single mother who is struggling to pay her rent? Just because someone is offended by protected speech does not mean that they can claim they are “unsafe.”

Democrats need to concentrate on economic justice rather than psychic justice. They must refine their political messaging on woke.

Adopt More Moderate Views on Poverty and Wealth. When it comes to economic equality, Democrats can improve their election prospects by moderating their positions on poverty and wealth.

Regarding poverty, a comprehensive study by the conservative, but well-respected American Enterprise Institute, concludes that “the pace of poverty reduction was not greater after LBJ’s War on Poverty than before.” From 1939 to 1963 the poverty rate fell by 29 per cent. Over the next 60 years, it only fell by 16 per cent.

This study is cited by the Economist and other non-partisan researchers as evidence that poverty fell by a greater amount because people earned more money than because of welfare programs. In light of our budget deficit crisis, these results require a rethinking of how best to provide economic opportunities and to fight poverty.

Regarding the wealthy, it is not helpful for Democrats to only view them as a punching bag that should pay more taxes and stay out of politics. Democratic capitalism is made possible by the thousands of small businesses founded by individuals who have accumulated wealth.

A majority of wealthy people are not manipulating government for their own interests. Instead, they are independent-minded, public-spirited, and offer an important voice to our national debate. Americans are not prepared to replace self-reliance and ‘the American Dream” with socialism.

Focus on the Future. The upcoming elections cannot only be about Donald Trump and his efforts to dismantle American institutions.

For our first 250 years, dysfunction, injustices, and bad leaders have been inherent in American democratic government. Our system works because elections matter and errors can be corrected. Democracy has outlasted Jacksonian imperialism, the Civil War, and Southern segregationists.  Democrats can win elections. America will survive Trump.

Democrats must help the electorate conclude that the future is open and full of promise. When voters believe that many possibilities still exist, those with different views can productively engage to reach compromises.

Focusing the next election on positive issues—such as economic solutions, and future-oriented goals—rather than only negative, attack-driven narratives against Trump and MAGA, is crucial. For the liberal order to regain the upper hand, the Democrat election platform must recognize the legitimate concerns of the increasingly populist middle class.

The country is weary of Trump’s daily stream of lies, crisis and negativity. Democrats can win back voters by offering a constructive agenda of hope, peace, prosperity, and civility.

 

 

 

 

 

IN TRUMP’S WORLD, I AM PROUD TO BE AN ATTORNEY

 

Lawyers are the brunt of many jokes, often deservedly so. Members of my profession tend to be brash, overconfident, and unemotional. Far too often we give advice and fail to listen. Our legal training focuses on becoming zealous advocates for our clients. Attorneys are not trained to be therapists.

I have kept my legal license but retired from the practice of law. I now introduce myself as a “recovering lawyer” and seek to recapture the more emotive qualities of my college liberal arts education. Unfortunately, my wife would argue that my personality often reverts to being an analytical advocate rather than a philosopher or poet who shares his feelings.

Despite the shortcomings of my profession, I have never been prouder to be an attorney. The judicial branch, comprised entirely of lawyers, makes up one third of our democratic government. It ensures that the laws made by Congress and implemented by the president fall within the parameters of our Constitution and its democratic principles.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has stressed the checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution to the limit. There has been a significant reduction in the traditional separation of powers. 

First, with Trump’s appointment of members to the Supreme Court, all three branches of the federal government are under the control of a single political party.

Second, at the highest level, rather than act independently, all three branches regularly appear to be coordinating activities in service to the President.

Third, Congress, and often the Supreme Court, have meekly stood by as Trump ignores his presidential oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This includes the President’s adoption of questionable or illegal policies through executive orders. He is also slow to follow legal rulings that stand in the way of his illiberal goals.

With the Supreme Court’s partisan support of administration policies, why am I so proud to be a card-carrying member of the legal profession? To begin with, the sheer number of dedicated lawyers, legal advocacy groups, and federal/state judges who have called the Trump administration to task for violating the Constitution and/or violating recent court orders is astounding.

According to a review conducted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Since October 2025, more than 400 federal judges have ruled at least 4,421 times that ICE is holding people illegally. Forty-four Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the administration in mass-detention cases.” In the Western District of Pennsylvania 254 habeas petitions, challenging the legality of an arrest, have been filed. This is a 2,200% increase from the same time period the prior year. 

POLITICO has reported, “Federal courts have issued increasing warnings that the new ICE policy, doesn’t just subject millions more people to detention while they fight deportation, it also bars them from being released on bond.”

In many cases, the Trump Justice Department has delayed a final resolution by appealing the adverse decisions. Thankfully, there is no reason to believe that the appellate courts will reverse the trial courts’ sound opinions.

The federal courts have also rebuked the administration’s decision to threaten the legal status of thousands of foreign students studying at American schools. This judicial pushback led the administration to reconsider its policy.

Apart from the immigration debacle and before the Iran War, thousands of lawyers have been working overtime to keep up with the onslaught of other questionable or illegal executive orders. Lawsuits have been filed against a multiplicity of Trump orders. These include his efforts to: target colleges and universities, target law firms, strip power from independent regulatory agencies, give DOGE access to government payment systems, freeze federal grant funding, and a patently unconstitutional executive order to end birthright citizenship.

In health care, legal action has been brought to prevent the rollback of health regulations and affordable drug pricing.

In education, actions have been filed against an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, against cuts to Pell Grants, and against cuts to student loan programs.

Regarding environmental issues, lawyers are fighting the sweeping rollbacks in EPA regulations, and cuts to clean energy and sustainability programs.

Lawyer advocacy groups are also fighting cuts to small business grants which disproportionately impact minorities and women.

There are other examples and a growing list of Trump’s illiberal policies that seek to dismantle our democratic institutions. Lawyers around the nation have volunteered their valuable time to provide a defense. Judges have consistently rejected Trump’s vision of authoritarian rule.

So far, no one in Trump’s administration has asserted that they have the constitutional authority to disobey court orders. However, they have been slow to comply and have often misrepresented facts in filed court documents and when arguing before a judge.

The recent Supreme Court decision finding Trump’s tariff policy illegal gives some hope that there is a red line to preserve the separation of powers, one that the justices will not cross. Now Congress needs to step up and regain its footing as an equal branch of government.

Lawyers and judges are reining in Trump until the American people can exercise true accountability in this year’s midterm elections. Unfortunately, there is not much the minority Democratic Party can do until it regains the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

Until then, the legal profession that is often held in low regard, and the lower courts, have saved our democratic republic to fight another day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IRAN: A CONFLICT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION OR STRATEGY

 

My views on war and its place in American foreign policy have changed dramatically over the years. As a child, my family were members of a tiny Quaker congregation (Religious Society of Friends) that met in the Meeting House that defined our small N.J. hamlet, Quakertown.

In the Quaker tradition, several male members of our gathering were pacifists and had gone to prison rather than take up arms in WWII. Pacifists believe that using violence is never legitimate, even in self-defense.   

At Swarthmore College, my thinking on war evolved. The college was founded by Quakers and now houses the Peace Collection. It is the most extensive “non-violence” research library and archive collection in the world, focused solely on movements for peace.

In 1970 the Nixon administration’s Cambodian Campaign fueled a major domestic antiwar movement in the U.S. The Swarthmore campus shut down for a week to permit students time to conduct anti-draft work in Philadelphia and to attend the protest marches in Washington, D.C.

I remained vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War and still feel strongly about peace in international relations. However, I dropped my support for pacifism. In my philosophy studies I came to believe that individuals have a moral right to protect themselves and their families from imminent threats.

 After graduation, my views further developed into not opposing “just wars,” to stop aggression or genocide. Today, I am a realist and believe it is a primary responsibility of the U.S. to provide national security, within the framework of international law.

My hope for international peace has led me to study and understand war. When a major conflict occurs, there are two published books that provide perspective on whether a hostile engagement is justified and/or is being conducted in a rational manner. The first, War: How Conflict Shapes Us, by Margaret Olwen MacMillan, a Canadian historian and emeritus professor at the University of Oxford is an historical study of war as a central force in human history.

MacMillan starts from the premise that “War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” By the end of the book and its many examples, the reader has a better understanding of the circumstances under which war was “dreadful and unnecessary” and when it was “required.”

My second reference on conflict is Strategy, A History. It was written by one of the world’s most eminent authorities on war and international politics, British historian Sir Lawerence Freedman. The author tackles the subject of how best to conduct military campaigns after conflict begins.

Freedman reminds us, “A strategic approach is preferable to one that is merely tactical, let alone random. Having a strategy suggests the ability to look up from the short term to view the long term and the essential to address causes rather than symptoms. Without a strategy, facing up to any problem or striving for any objective would be considered negligent.”

Freedman has written extensively on the “fog of war,” a term coined by the Prussian military strategist, Carl von Clausewitz.  It refers to the uncertainty regarding enemy intentions on the battlefield. It forces military strategies to evolve from rigid planning into adaptive, intelligence-driven decision-making. Freedman warns that the promise of technological superiority can create a "misleading perception of risk-free war,” which can lead to unexpected consequences. He must have had the Iran conflict in mind.

After considering the themes of these two books, it is my view that the unprovoked Iran attack, initiated by the Trump administration, initially failed the justification test. It now is badly failing the strategy test due to the administration’s tactical, and often random approach.

There is little confidence when the Trump administration’s justification for starting the war changes as often as the March weather. Many foreign policy experts have concluded Trump is simply “making it up as he goes along.” This is not surprising given the President’s “personalization” of domestic politics and of the global order. In Ukraine, Venezuela, and now in Iran, his individual whims are driving great-power policy. There is no advisor willing to challenge him.

In this 250^th year since our nation’s founding, each of us should reflect on the fact that a personalist, one-man government is contrary to everything our democratic constitutional republic stands for.

Journalist and commentator Thomas Friedman makes an excellent analogy when discussing Trump’s Iran justification and strategy. “Would you invest in a company whose leader, without warning, embarked on a radically new business strategy and then, by the next week, described its goals in five different ways? That is a flashing red light.”

The endgame that now appears to have gained the most traction is to remove the Islamic regime from Tehran. This result should improve prospects for Iran and for Middle East peace. However, there seems to be little thought on how to reach this goal or an explanation of the blood and treasure that must be spent to attain it.

Lastly, no rational, flexible military strategy has been articulated. Each morning the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, stands before the press corps and emphasizes “the destruction of enemy capabilities,” “fighting to win” and “acting on the President’s timeline.”

Hegseth’s boastful words offer little assurance that this unprovoked “small excursion” will not become a larger war. A war offering few strategic advantages to America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DATA CENTER DILEMMA

My thoughts on data centers coming to the region are complicated.  If I am wearing my stock market hat, where I am invested in corporations on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, my thoughts are positive. On the other hand, if I consider the possibility of a large data center operating a short distance from home, my thoughts are “build them in Texas.”

This creates the contradictory opinion of “create as many data centers as you need, but not in my backyard.”

The Investor’s (Macro) Case.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now a major factor in the resurgence of the United States economy. AI cannot realize its full potential without massive data centers. Yahoo Finance estimates that in 2026, AI-related investments, supported by data centers, account for roughly 30%-40% of US GDP growth. These entities comprise about one-third of total stock market value.  

 

While there are different types of data centers, they are basically facilities built to house and distribute huge amounts of data collected from numerous sources. The centers contain networking infrastructure, cooling systems, and server racks.

 

To illustrate the relationship between AI and data centers, consider a pizza shop. AI chips, manufactured by companies like Nvidia, are the raw pizza dough. The chips are specialized circuits designed to speed up machine learning. Data centers are the pizza ovens. Without them, the newest chips cannot be processed into immense datasets – used to create the next generation of AI.

In recent years, the race to build data centers has accelerated. According to ABI Research, there will be 8,821 in operation worldwide in 2026. This number is expected to reach 12,048 by 2035.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Meta, and Google are the largest owners of U.S. data centers. These companies often build massive, hyperscale facilities for their own AI projects. Meta’s Hyperion center in Louisiana has a larger footprint than Manhattan.

AWS has the most data center sites worldwide among all cloud hyper-scalers, with 105 in the United States. This translates into 2.3 gigawatts of energy usage (enough to power 2 million homes simultaneously). By 2035, Deloitte Research estimates that the power demand from AI data centers in the United States could grow more than thirtyfold, reaching 123 gigawatts. 

 

As an investor, I want to financially benefit from the transformative economic benefits of AI technology made possible through data centers. Sustained gains in labor productivity and capital efficiency could add trillions to the world economy.

 

The Local (Micro) Case. The paradox is that no investor in AI technology would be pleased to wake up in the morning to see a data center being constructed across the street. While AI technology may add value to a portfolio, homeowners are very concerned about quality of life and property values. Many have decided that the negative factors that a data center brings to their community far outweigh the benefits.

At least 50 new data centers are being considered for Pennsylvania. Southwestern Pennsylvania is the focus of many would-be developers. Our region has numerous industrial sites with access to natural gas for power and rivers to supply water. Many of the brightest AI scientists work at local universities.

These proposed projects are facing strong opposition from a connected network of community groups. It appears that public outcry will outpace objections to past extractive industries like coal and natural gas.

The grievances are backed by solid science and include negative reports from established data centers. Massive energy consumption leads to higher energy costs, high water usage causes damage to water tables, and noise/light pollution degrades quality of life. Moreover, like many new technologies, the long -term environmental effects of data centers are unknown.

In my own neighborhood of South Strabane, the potential for building a data center on 1,400 acres of land owned by CNX Resources has created a firestorm. There is no formal agreement, and the only activity is the drafting of a local ordinance to address data centers. Nevertheless, concerned residents attend every township meeting in droves.

I have been monitoring these meetings on Zoom. The residents who speak are well-informed and persuasive. They propose revisions and restrictions to the ordinance that would make it difficult for the developer to proceed.

South Strabane’s public negativity is not encouraging for a data center. A traditional warehouse or other less intrusive development for the 1,400-acre property makes more sense.

New data centers are going to get built. However, the desirability of new centers will continue to be debated in communities across the region.

 

THE STATUS OF MIDTERM ELECTION CONTESTS

The November midterm elections will see voters coming out to decide hundreds of federal, state, and county level positions. Across the nation, Democrat officials are predicting a “Blue Wave” of heavy turnout supporting their candidates.

This election is historically a referendum on the president. There is a strong relationship between presidential approval nationwide and midterm outcomes. According to a recent Reuters poll, 38 percent of voters approve of Trump’s performance while 60 percent disapprove. 

This year, there is only a narrow path for Democrats to retake control of the Senate. But recent polling shows a strong chance to capture the House of Representatives.

This commentary will focus on the political landscape in Pennsylvania and in Washington County. According to POLITICO, “Few places epitomize Democrats’ recent challenges — and hopes for 2026 — as well as Pennsylvania. Trump flipped the state back in 2024. Democrats lost a Senate seat and every statewide row office — and failed to make inroads in the state legislature.”

However, Commonwealth Democrats were encouraged by the results of the 2025 election. SPOTLIGHT PA reported, “In November, the party retained three state Supreme Court justices by more than 20 points. Down ballot, gains were made in Republican Bucks County, where the first district attorney running as a Democrat was elected since the 19^th century. In Erie County, a Democratic unseated the Republican incumbent county executive by a margin of 25 points.”

SPOTLIGHT interviewed an encouraged Democratic State Party Chair Eugene DePasquale. “We are focused on bread-and-butter economic issues. People are struggling in their daily lives. The Trump administration is just throwing more gas on the fire.”

Pennsylvania Republican leaders argue that the real affordability crisis in America takes place in Democratic strongholds like New York, Illinois, and California. These states have higher taxes and housing costs. Republican officials claim that only by electing their candidates can Pennsylvania avoid higher expenses.

Statewide, the real issue for Republicans in these mid-term elections is getting their supporters to the polls. When Trump is not on the ballot, participation by casual voters who support him often disappears. For the upcoming election, the momentum lies with Democrats.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro, with presidential aspirations, is running against Republican State Treasurer, Stacy Garrity, a strong ally of president Trump. While Garrity, a combat veteran and business leader, has won state elections, she is not expected to unseat Shapiro. In early polling, Shapiro is running 15-17 percentage points ahead of his rival.

For years, in Washington County and across the country, there has been an alarming lack of knowledge regarding local politics compared to national campaigns. Much of the voting public does not get energized by local news. Typically, unless there is a catalyst (like attempts to bring a data center to South Strabane Twp.), social media is not engaged with local politics.   

Local Democratic leaders hope that this year will be different, even though no county offices are on the ballot. They believe that the widespread dissatisfaction with the president and his anti-democratic policies will produce an increased interest in Democrat candidates who represent Washington County.

Our Republican Congressman, Guy Reschenthaler, is running for a fifth term. He is a strong supporter of President Trump and has worked his way up the national party leadership to chief deputy whip in the House.

Reschenthaler has come under repeated criticism for spending most of his time in Washington DC and being a “no-show” in the district. He does not hold in-person townhall meetings for his constituents.

The Democratic candidate to oppose Reschenthaler in the 14^th District is a new face, Alan Bradstock. A native of Donora and a graduate of Ringgold High School, Bradstock went on to graduate from Washington & Jefferson College with high honors.  He served in the U.S. Army as a helicopter pilot, and following his military career worked for the FBI. More recently, Bradstock worked as an auditor for the large financial advisor, KPMG.

Bradstock has proven to be the ideal hardworking, well-qualified, moderate candidate needed to unseat Reschenthaler. However, political observers point out his uphill battle in our heavily Republican 14th District. Reschenthaler defeated Chris Dziados by more than 30 points in 2024.

There is no announced Democrat to oppose State Senator Camera Bartolotta in the 46^th Senate District. To date, the only political kerfuffle has been between the local and state Republican parties.

In January, the Washington County Republican Party executive committee issued a 21-3 vote of no confidence for Bartolotta. The local party was upset with her marriage to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, Bill DeWeese. They also disagreed with her support for Haitian immigrants in Charleroi.

The State Republican Party supports Bartolotta and declared the local vote null and void. Local Republicans rejected the state decision. Bartolotta will face a primary challenge from Al Buchta, who lives in Canonsburg. Neutral observers of this Republican dog fight believe Bartolotta’s position in the primary is secure.

This race will not affect party control of the Pennsylvania Senate. However, it highlights the fractured Republican party on issues like aggressive immigration crackdowns, economic policy, and support for all things Trump.

While Democrats are hopeful for large gains in the midterms, they must keep a close eye on Trump’s plan to nationalize elections. On February 3, nine months from the midterms, the president announced, “We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.”