SUMMERTIME IN THE CITY

 

Our summer was capped off with an end of August trip to the New York City theater district. My nephew’s wedding took place in nearby New Jersey. It was a short drive through the Lincoln Tunnel to our Times Square hotel. Yes, the parking was $50.00 a day, but we avoided flying into La Guardia from Pittsburgh and the two expensive cab rides.

The late summer energy in and around Midtown Manhattan was a marvel to behold. The beautiful weather and influx of foreign tourists made the four blocks in every direction from Times Square a sea of exhilarated humanity. In order to check Google Maps, we needed to duck behind a lamp post to avoid being swept away.

Almost everyone we met was from some other country with an interesting story to tell. The local waiters and retail clerks always greeted us with a smile. They would not hesitate to leave their posts to guide us around a corner to point out our destination. Those who label “the city” cold and dangerous are missing out on the excitement of America’s 24/7 global epicenter of culture, finance, and human diversity.

Our focus on this excursion was Broadway. Some performances on our bucket list had just closed (Cats: The Jellicle Ball and Ragtime) and the new fall offerings had not yet opened (Galileo and Other Desert Cities). However, our five choices did not disappoint. We came to summarize our viewing experience as “three gunshots and two large bangs.”

The initial play, on the evening of our arrival, was Oh Mary! This irreverent 80 minute, one-act drama provided our first gunshot.  The play satirizes the life of Mary Todd Lincoln in the weeks leading up to Abraham Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theater. My guess is that this dark comedy will not be making the rounds in local community theaters anytime soon.

The play portrays Mary as an unhinged and raging alcoholic trapped in an unhappy marriage to a gay, closeted Abraham Lincoln. It mixes 19th-century historical figures with absurdist fiction, musical medleys, and biting camp humor.  

Initially, the show’s creator, Cole Escola, did not envision casting anyone besides himself to play Mary for what he thought would be a limited run. After the play became a runaway hit, nine actors have now played Mary in this very challenging performance.

Our second gunshot was from the famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton that ended the title character’s life. Hamilton has been on Broadway for over ten years. I thought our viewing would be a bit stale and anticlimactic. I was wrong. Hamilton was one of the most entertaining theater experiences of my life. Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda’s combination of hip-hop score and his African American take on American history was a joy to behold.

The third gunshot was from a small, off Broadway, production of The Play That Goes Wrong. This offering was a fast-paced physical comedy and a “play within a play.” It tells the story of a college drama society’s disastrous opening night where everything goes wrong, bringing chaos to the stage and laughs from the audience. At the end of the play, the villain is shot and the entire set collapses on the actors. Great fun, with the cast often going off script to interact with the patrons.

Our first large bang (in fact, many big booms) occurred in the over-the-top production of The Lost Boys. This musical is a major theatrical spectacle with incredible special effects, first rate acting, and memorable songs. This year, The Lost Boys won four Tonys including best performance by an actor and actress in a featured role.

The plot involves a mother and her two teenage sons. Looking for a fresh start, they move to the fictional boardwalk town of Santa Carla, California. Instead, they find a “band” of teenage vampires. The script uses some of the scenes from the 1987 cult film starring Kiefer Sutherland, but revises the roles of the female characters, giving them more agency.

For over two hours the action is nonstop. After the final song, “If We Make It Through the Night” there is a dramatic loud boom and a sudden drop to pitch darkness.

Our last selection, Operation Mincemeat, won high praise in London and made its way to Broadway in March of 2025. It has become a major commercial success and gained critical acclaim.

The musical depicts the true story of a 1943 British military deception plan during World War II. British Intelligence used a dead body with fake papers to trick Nazi Germany into expecting an invasion of Greece and Sardinia instead of Sicily. Hitler believed the fake papers and moved his troops to Greece and the Balkans, allowing the Allies to capture Sicily with far less resistance.

While the film by the same name was a drama starring Colin Firth, the musical is straight comedy pulled off by five actors, each playing dozens of roles. Our final theatrical “bang” was the high-energy, theatrical climax—the explosive final number of the show.

In addition to our theater selections, museums were high on our list. New exhibits at the Met were outstanding. We were particularly blown away by the recent renovations to and art installations at the Henry Clay Frick Mansion (now museum) facing Central Park.

Summertime in the city was an experience that will provide us with many pleasant, year-round memories.

 

 

HOW WILL TRUMP’S ODYSSEY END?

 

The year 2026 will be remembered for the celebration of America’s 250th birthday. The events of this year will be compared with those in other milestone celebration years and used to chronical the ebb and flow of American history.

I believe that one of the most widely discussed events from this year will be the manner in which Homer’s The Odyssey left an indelible impression on the cultural and political life of America. Odessey mania is sweeping the country following the release of Christopher Nolan’s epic movie, staring Matt Damon and Anne Hathaway. Prior to the movie’s release, a new highly regarded translation of Homer’s The Odyssey, was released by Daniel Mendelsohn.

My wife and I felt that Nolan’s creation was timely and enthralling cinema. The movie has influenced American society by igniting online culture-war debates over casting and interpretations. (Many scholars trained in the classics take issue with Nolan’s approach.)

The movie triggered widespread public reflection on national identity, misapplied military conflict, and the modern relevance of classical myth. Reviewers of the movie have noted that the sensory-heavy, large-format cinematic production compels audiences to feel the brutal physical toll of the hero’s journey rather than romanticizing the adventure of one man trying to reunite with his family.

The film has sent thousands of new readers back to Homer's original text as depicted in Mendelsohn’s and other modern translations.  According to the Guardian, “The movie’s most significant accomplishment might be turning a nearly 2,700-year-old epic poem into the most sought-after book in America.”  It was reported that in this country sales increased by roughly 76% and by an astounding 700% in the UK.

The popularity of The Odyssey has led many commentators to consider Donald Trump and his presidency through the lens of Homer’s epic works. There are many interesting parallels that come to mind.

Ironically, exactly ten years ago, in August of 2016, when Trump was first running for president, I wrote a commentary for this newspaper titled “Donald Trump as Homeric Hero.” After reading the excellent book, Why Homer Matters by Adam Nicolson, I had an epiphany that “Trump was staging a Homeric hero quest.”

I explained my analysis as, “the dichotomy between the warriors ‘outside the walls’ who view the civilized class ‘within the walls’ as too soft, corrupt, and dysfunctional. The quest is for the people of the ‘earth’ and ‘sword’ for whom action is everything and words have no meaning to tear down and replace the existing structure.”

I went on to say, “The hero’s goal is to crush what has come before and to take life back to a simpler time. The Homeric tradition sings the praises of a powerful leader who is able to meld uncooperative bands of miscreants into a coherent force to conquer what was thought to be the essence of the civilized world.”

Ten years ago, I reasoned that, “Trump may be the newest manifestation of the Homeric myth. The Homeric view of the world centers on revenge and conflict, not consensus or compromise.  Power is something to be fought for, not passed peacefully from one political elite to the next.  The Homeric warrior who can reach the pinnacle of power without the aid of other politicians or institutions owes nothing to the order that came before.  He controls his destiny.”

To prove my point, in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Trump claimed that his power as commander-in-chief is limited only by his own morality and judgment, not by international treaties or laws.

My conclusion was that, “for those of you, who think I am giving Donald Trump too much credit, remember that Agamemnon, the Greek leader, was also called psychopathic.  In the Iliad he murders his daughter to gain a favorable wind to Troy and later steals Achilles’ woman, Briseis, thereby angering his greatest asset against the Trojans. Are Trump’s public acts those of a narcissistic madman or of an Alpha Greek warrior in the Homeric tradition?”

As the Trump presidency has unwound over six years, other Homeric similarities, not my own, have been widely discussed. First, Trump is called a “trickster” in the classical tradition as practiced by Ulysses. He employs no set strategy and instead is unpredictable and breaks conventional rules to outmaneuver opponents. Unfortunately, these tactics have not succeeded in Iran.

 

Second, Trump’s unstructured and repetitious political speeches are described as similar to the Greek oral tradition. He is fond of using catchy epithets (“crooked Hillary” instead of “swift footed Achilles”) to captivate a crowd from memory, not a teleprompter.

Third, Trump presents himself as the “lone warrior” and often remarks that “I alone can fix it.” This mirrors Ulysses in the Odyssey, the ultimate individualist who would rather do things his way than to follow the gods. 

How will Trump’s odyssey end? A core theme of Homer’s epic is xenia, the sacred Greek law of hospitality toward strangers and travelers. The Greek version is unlike the interpretation in Nolan’s movie, where the hospitality seems to be based on the Judeo-Christian, golden rule. In the classical version, you were kind to strangers because they could be gods in disguise.

Nevertheless, Trump’s actions with his brutal policies toward immigrants, disregard for those in need, and attacks on foreign dignitaries seems to directly violate xenia. Disobeying this policy (also known as Zeus’s Law) always brought ruin to Greek epic characters.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA

The Swarthmore Bulletin is a quarterly magazine mailed to all alumni of the college. Normally, I turn to the final pages and read the class notes to catch up on the news of those who graduated with me. Then I return to the front of the magazine to review the books written by Swarthmore graduates over the past three months. Lastly, I skim the articles for interesting topics.

The current summer issue was unique. On the cover was a photograph of four students from foreign countries that were attending Swarthmore. The title of the issue was A Global Community. I eagerly read the articles covering this topic and was struck by the importance of foreign students to the college. Moreover, as Swarthmore graduates from other countries entered the workforce in all manner of professions, their contributions to our nation and to the world was astounding.

The editor of the Swarthmore Bulletin sets the stage with the following introduction: “Swarthmore’s global community is a snapshot of everything that lends to the cause of celebration in the U.S.---our diversity and our commitment to social equity and the pursuit of and access to knowledge. This unfolds in landscapes near and far.”

One article focuses on a project called “THE 1875.”  The projectname honors the year the first known international student came to Swarthmore. It traces the history of Swarthmore’s international students and how they enriched the fabric of the college. The project addressed important questions. What was it like to be an international student 50 years ago?  What about now? How does the college continue to grow and strengthen thisimportant community?

Since 1875, students from 133 countries have been admitted. The project documents the generations of international students that have forged lifelong friendships, overcame obstacles, and left their mark on the world. Their stories are a testament to the resilience, adaptability, and contributions of Swarthmore’s global community. The goal is to strengthen the ties between international students and the college as a whole, fostering a sense of belonging that extends beyond graduation.

A second article titled, “A Story of Welcome,” goes back in time to document a 1942 endeavor sponsored by PhiladelphiaQuakers and Swarthmore. John Nasson, then Swarthmore president, led an effort to relocate young, college-aged Japanese from West Coast internment camps and to place them in East Coast academic institutions. The effort removed almost 5,000 students from the camps and helped them gain a degree from prestigious institutions.

Among the Japanese admitted to Swarthmore were three members of the Inouye family. After the war, two became physicians and one a physics researcher.

Lastly, an article titled, “A Full Circle Moment,” tells the story of recent Swarthmore graduate Narangarav Enkhtaivan, a native of Mongolia. She arrived in 2023 through the Mongolian Young Scholars initiative and now helps run the program. Her goal is to repair the Mongolian education system which suffers because of underfunding and the fact that one third of Mongolian families are nomadic herders.

While Swarthmore celebrates its foreign students, throughout the nation other institutions that recruit international applicantshave been devastated by the Trump administration. Larger public and research universities rely on federal dollars to fund labs, employ staff, and to innovate with private companies. In these cases, federal funds can make up over 40% of total revenue. Even Harvard University, with its massive endowment, depends on federal dollars for 11% of its yearly operating costs and for 66% of its annual research budget.

When president Trump resumed office in 2025, foreign students became an immediate target. Using unfounded rationalizations concerning national security and the threat to the employment of American citizens, Trump sought to restrict legal immigration of students. This policy dovetailed with Trump’s plans to pressure elite universities on political and ideological issues.

The Trump State Department has revoked student visas for foreign-born individuals who participated in campus demonstrations. At our most elite universities, including Harvard, the Trump administration has moved to withdraw foreign student enrollment certificates. 

A new rule issued by The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) places a strict four-year admissions cap on students to discourage them from seeking employment in the U.S. The post graduate departure date has been shortened from 60 days to 30 days. In late July, DHS announced a rule that will add strict time limits to student visas. It will restrict student transfers from one program to another and/or changes to study plans.

In Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University is an important research center with many Ph.D. programs that are longer than four years. It has a large number of international students that will be affected by the new rules. The school administration announced plans for a town hall for the upcoming fall semester. It stated in part, “Changes can cause uncertainty and anxiety. We want students to know that we are here to support you.”

Even a small private college like Swarthmore, with little federal funding, is affected. The new federal restrictions on international students threaten the college's diverse campus community, creates administrative burdens for foreign enrollment, and challenges the school's core institutional values.

International students are good for America. Most pay full tuition, which helps fund university budgets at a time when domestic student populations are dropping. These students provide diverse viewpoints and unique life experiences to help prepare our domestic students for living in a multicultural world.

 

OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

 

Baby Boomers in the United States are currently 62 to 80 years old. My wife and I will both be 75 in September. In many ways, our retirement has been all we expected. It would be easy for us to assume that the American retirement system is working well and protecting older folks now and into the future.

This assumption would be a mistake.  Those experts who make a living analyzing the aging population have reached the opposite conclusion. America’s retirement system is broken.

A study in 2024 found that one in 10 (10.2%), or 5.9 million adults ages 65 and older, had incomes below the official poverty level. Without Social Security, 22 million more adults and children would live in poverty. If Congress does not act by 2032, Social Security will only collect enough revenue to pay 78% of scheduled retirement benefits.

To exasperate the financing of the aging problem, an average boomer who is currently 65 years old can expect to live another 18 to 20 years. (For someone born in the United States in 1930 the average life expectancy was about 59.7 years.)

This commentary will review some basic history of our retirement system. I will then turn to several recent books that have documented the “aging class” in America. These experts explain the financial problems of the growing older population and offer some plans for “rescuing retirement.”

Until the late 1800s, agriculture dominated the economy. Older Americans owned their own farms and passed them on to their children. My own family provides an example. At the turn of the century, my N.J. grandmother received one of six farms divided among her siblings. That farm passed to my father’s older brother who worked the land until his death in the late 1960s.

The needs of farm hands were covered by the broader community. Women stayed on the farm and cared for elderly family members. Life spans were relatively short.

The fate of older people changed dramatically as workers left the farms and women entered the labor market. Along with new immigrants, they poured into city offices, factories, and mines. There were no longer insular communities, or farm assets help the elderly. The majority of Americans had to continue working until they dropped. Secure retirements did not exist.

In the early 1900s, European countries faced up to the industrial revolution and began establishing government-run pension systems. The US waited until 1935 to establish Social Security benefits.  There were more dramatic changes after WWII. Company sponsored pensions were designed to attract and keep workers in tight labor markets. By the 1960s, more than 40% of American workers had a private pension in addition to Social Security. As a result, a third of the elderly population no longer lived in poverty.

What has become of this remarkable public/private retirement system to shield the elderly from financial hardship? Unfortunately, earlier gains have been reversed with lower-income workers hurt more than others.

The British historian, Robin Blackburn, explained the dilemma in his excellent 2007 book, Age Shock. Blackburn found that “Many elderly will be forced to take jobs in their later years that are too demanding and will be unable to afford needed health care, as life spans increase and costs rise.” Blackburn concluded that there was little political interest in the problem of old age poverty as other topics dominated the public debate.

Two more recent books explain the problem well.  Teresa Ghilarducci is a labor economist and nationally recognized expert in retirement security. Her book, Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy, presents evidence that the system benefits private interests and exploits the most vulnerable people. She tells the stories of elderly Americans locked into jobs—not because they love to work but because they must.

Ghilarducci documents that while 50% of Americans age 62-70 are retired, their living standards have diminished significantly since they stopped working. Another 28% are still working and cannot afford to stop. She points to 1) inadequate savings, 2) insufficient Social Security payments, and 3) risky defined-contribution pensions like 401(k)s, that have supplanted traditional defined-benefit pensions paid by employers.

Ghilarducci is a progressive economist who believes that coercive corporate elites have replaced “working more hours” from the Gilded Age with “longer working lifespans” today. This policy deflates wages and reduces business costs by increasing the labor pool.

The second book Golden Years: How Americans Invented and Reinvented Old Age was written by James Chappel, an historian at Duke University. He is affiliated with the Duke Aging Center which focuses on aging research.

Chappel also traces the history of old age as a distinctive “stage of life.” He points out the many contradictions in old age policy as longer lifespans and spiraling health care costs have produced more instability, not an improved system. He believes the original, post-war model has crumbled. Instead of more security, older people are forced back into the workforce.

How could our retirement system be made better? Chappel urges Baby Boomers of all stripes to view themselves as a common social group. To borrow a popular phrase from the 1960s, Boomers need a “class consciousness,” predicated on inclusion and diversity.

Tribal partisan politics have inexplicitly moved us old folks away from being unified. Pro-business policymakers have seized this opportunity to push the burdens of aging back onto older Americans and their families.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL SUFFED UP AT THE BENEDUM

 

We were recently gifted tickets to see the Broadway musical Suffs at the Pittsburgh CLO Benedum Center. The theme is the story of the American women who organized, marched, and who were brutally jailed to procure a constitutional amendment so that women could vote. The slogan for the musical is “Behind Every Powerful Woman Are More Powerful Women.” The production was first class, and it was clear why it had won several Tony awards and been crowned best new musical by the Outer Critics’ Circle.

Suffs was written by Shaina Taub, artist-in-residence at New York City’s Public Theater. She single-handedly created the show's book, music, and lyrics. The musical has an all-female and non-binary cast that plays every character. This includes not only the historical female activists, but also all of the male historical figures such as President Woodrow Wilson and his chief aide Dudley Malone.

The Benedum was packed to the rafters with women of every age—from elementary school students to those with nose piercings and tattoos to ladies with walkers and wheelchairs. The scattering of men who accompanied the females could only admire and join in on their enthusiasm.

It reminded me of a Taylor Swift concert for women of all ages. Suffs was a celebration of womanhood and what it took to achieve the right to vote for half of America’s growing population.

While the suffrage movement shares many parallels with the Black civil rights movement, there were also major differences. Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, society viewed men as responsible for the public and political world, while women were expected to focus on the home and family. Some critics warned that permitting women to vote would lead to neglected children and the destruction of family values. Others argued that politics was a blood sport, too corrupt and immoral for women. Under this theory, women were kept away from politics for their own protection. Lastly, there was the widely held view that since a husband represented his entire family, the wife and daughters would never vote independently to express their own opinions.

It is difficult to imagine that only 100 years ago these perceptions were widely held. How could women be excluded from exercising the most basic right in a democratic constitutional republic?

Today, The League of Women Voters website proclaims: “We believe in the power of women to create a more perfect democracy. That’s been our vision since 1920, when the League was founded by leaders of the women’s suffrage movement. Women are more likely to vote than men. When women vote, organize, and engage in public life, they influence the direction of policies that affect millions of people nationwide.”

The suffragists’ battle was a seven-decade campaign of activism until the right to vote was achieved. The movement started in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention in upper New York state. Approximately 300 people, women and men, attended the two-day event at a local church. The African American abolitionist, Frederick Douglass was in attendance. Black men would win the right to vote well before any woman could cast a ballot.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott are considered the founders of the suffrage movement. For the convention, Stanton wrote the “Declaration of Sentiments” that would become known as the Women’s Declaration of Independence.

Sixty-eight women and thirty-two men signed the final document calling for many societal changes to ensure equality for women. The document begins by asserting the equality of all men and women. It reiterates that both genders are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It argues that women are oppressed by the government and the patriarchal society of which they are apart. The most controversial provision was the vote for women.

Several years ago, my spouse and I spent a day in the beautiful town of Seneca Falls. The main attraction is the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. There is an excellent visitor’s center and several historical buildings. We returned home with multiple copies of the Declaration of Sentiments. Each time a female family member or friend started her career, we framed a copy for her first work space.

After Seneca Falls, Susan B, Anthony joined the movement and was the face of women’s suffrage until her death in 1906. The musical Suffs covers the years 1913 to 1920. It focuses on the final seven-year fight leading up to the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

One of the final scenes in Suffs is a true event with high drama.  Tennessee state Representative Harry Burns receives an emotional letter from his mother, compelling him to think about equality as it affects the women in his family.  Burns cast the tie breaking vote, making Tennessee the 36^th and final state to ratify the 19^th Amendment.  National Secretary of State, Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever.

Initially, the turnout of women voters was lower than men’s. It would take decades for women to become equal in the electoral process. Suffs ends with a scene where the struggle for women’s rights is passed from the older suffrage movement to the younger members of the National Organization of Women (NOW).

The recent “Me Too” movement, focusing on sexual abuse and harassment, demonstrates that there is still work to be done.

 

 

THE PROPOSED SAVE ACT WOULD SUPPRESS VOTING

 

For months, President Trump and his administration have been fixated on one issue. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with ending the war in Iran or with the affordability of groceries and gasoline.

Trump’s primary goal this spring and summer has been the passage of the SAVE Act and its expanded version, the SAVE America Act (the Act). Trump is apparently convinced that these voter suppression measures would prevent some citizens likely to cast ballots for Democrats from exercising their right to vote in the November midterms. The proposed voter suppression law is intended to stem the tide of a blue Democratic wave that is poised to regain control of at least one chamber of Congress.

Trump is afraid that a Democratic landslide in the November midterms would mark the end of his unchallenged authoritarian rule. Moreover, if Democrats are in the majority and in control of Congressional committees, they would immediately begin investigations into Trump’s illegalities. This would include the blatant corruption of the Trump family and members of his inner circle.

For decades, mostly at the state level, a central tenet of Republican politics has been to win elections by making it difficult for their opponents to vote. Through enactment of laws that disproportionately burden minority voters (those requiring photo identification, restricting early voting, limiting registration opportunities, and purging voter rolls), Republicans have consistently sought to carve out of the electorate those that don’t support them. 

In 2016, North Carolina Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race. They then passed laws that restricted voting and registration in many ways that disproportionately affected African Americans, including cutting back on early voting. According to the ACLU, between 2008 and 2012, 70% of African American voters voted early in North Carolina.  After cuts to early voting, African American turnout in early voting was down by 8.7% (around 66,000 votes). The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court overturned this limitation on early voting.

Several states controlled by Republicans have attempted to suppress voting by requiring voter identification at polling places. It is common for states that have enacted these laws to demand forms of ID that are more often carried by white voters than minority ones, like drivers’ and gun licenses. Moreover, student IDs are often not permitted to lower the Democratic advantage in towns with colleges and universities.

Republicans have learned that they can suppress unwanted voters by intentionally causing long lines at voting places favored by Democrats. This is accomplished by limiting the number of voting machines or by excessively challenging voters to slow down voting in certain wards.

The purging of voter registration lists is a flawed process used to remove unwanted voters. The procedure is notorious for deleting valid voters. Purged eligible voters who recently got married or moved show up to vote on Election Day and find that they can’t cast a regular ballot.

Since Trump lost the presidency in 2016, MAGA election denial groups have been challenging voters’ eligibility on a massive scale. The groups pressure officials to investigate large numbers of voters based on unreliable information and conspiracy theories.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress took notice of the above suppression actions introduced by Republican state legislators. The original SAVE legislation was drafted by the ultraconservatives Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). While the Act has so far failed to gain traction, Trump refuses to give up on its passage.

Finally, on July 21, House Republicans voted to attach the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. This is a last-ditch effort before the midterms to pass unpopular and dangerous voter suppression measures by shoehorning it into unrelated legislation.

How will this Act suppress voting? 1) Under the bill, voters wouldn’t be able to register to vote with their driver's license alone because licenses generally do not indicate citizenship. Instead, they would need a harder to obtain form of documentation, like a U.S. passport or birth certificate. 

2) The Act would implement a national voter ID requirement that is more burdensome than current state voter ID laws. 

3) The bill would severely threaten mail registration and require online registration systems to be overhauled to fit the bill’s requirements. During Senate floor debate, the President filed a now included amendment to significantly restrict Americans’ ability to vote by mail.

4) The Act mandates that states conduct frequent voter purges, even those based on faulty data. In addition, every state would be required to submit its voter registration list to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comparison to the agency’s error ridden data base.

5) There is a provision that election workers could go to prison for up to five years if they help to register somebody without the correct documents, even if the registered voter is a citizen.

In March of this year, Trump told a group of Republican lawmakers that passing the Acts would “guarantee the midterms” for Republicans. The bottom line is that there is no proof of the types of fraud Trump has cited to justify the legislation. The only justification for passing the Act is to prevent eligible Democrats from voting.

The SAVE America Act is currently in the U.S. Senate. Concerned voters should immediately contact our Pennsylvania Senators and voice opposition to this flagrant attempt to impose voter suppression.

 

 

 

 

 

  

THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SATIRE

 

When a president is elected with whom you vehemently disagree, a four-year term can seem like a lifetime of pain and anguish. Thankfully, there is a bright spot when one’s political views are on the wrong side of an election outcome.

There is the constant stream of political satire against the party in power that has always been an important check and balance. The biting criticisms and humor against the elected officials you do not support can be uplifting. They provide a daily smile, and even thoughts of “I told you so.” Political satire provides entertainment while making a point.

Since the last national election, social media and newspaper op-ed pages have ceased satirizing a “demented” Joe Biden or a “crazy” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of whom I hold in high regard. Today, the latest occupant of the White House and his minions have given those who specialize in political satire plenty of ammunition with which to ply their trade.

This commentary will explore two topics that seem to have little in common, but which are now forever joined at the hip. First, what does it mean to be political, and how did this side of human nature come to be the focus of unrelenting attack and ridicule? Second, what is the history of political satire and how did it develop into a full-time pursuit for so many journalists, comedians and cartoonists?

From a civics class perspective, the political world is something to admire, not ridicule. “Political” describes anything related to government and how it operates. It broadly refers to how decisions, laws, and policies are made within societies, from democratic nations to authoritarian ones.

In describing the concept of “political”, a distinction is usually made between a “political system” and “political rights.” The former refers to how a country is officially managed and the latter refers to the level of freedoms citizens have to participate in their government.

For those that are interested in understanding the evolution of political institutions, the two books to read are The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay, by one of the leading public intellectuals of our time, Frances Fukuyama. By the conclusion of the second book, the reader comes away with an understanding of the chronological development of political order and of our choices now and for the future.

When I attend a family or social gathering and receive instructions to “not discuss anything political” it seems like an odd request. In my mind everything is political. All aspects of daily life are influenced by resource allocation, regulations and societal power dynamics that determine how we live.

Conversations about the weather are cloaked in the politics of climate change. Discussions on cultural matters including art, books, films and television all come with political opinions. Recently, even sports topics have crossed the line and now entail political debate.

The political realm does not receive the decorum and respect afforded to other broad human endeavors such as religion and science. Politics has been hijacked from being an important process of collective human problem solving into a zero-sum battleground.

In modern America politics, there is a tribal, all-out-fight for cultural dominance through the use of social media engagement. The goal is partisan political supremacy. Unlike religion and science, nothing is sacred or above reproach.  It has become more difficult for citizens to separate respect for the institutional authority of government from the actions of individual politicians.

This brings me to the subject of political satire which has a long and fascinating history. The book that helped me understand it all is State of Ridicule: A History of Satire in English Literature, by Dan Sperrin. The author traces the history of political satire through the timeline of English literature. This includes the work of Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, John Dryden, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and Charles Dickens.

For centuries English satire has dedicated itself to the recurring subjects of the legitimacy of rule, the succession of dynasties, the ambition of prime ministers, and the administration of government. The further back in time that a piece of satire was published, the more likely that the writing “goes about exposing the world’s political imbecility in indirect ways.” After all, the goal of each author was to get a point across while staying out of prison, or worse.

I enjoyed the approach in Sperrin’s book of describing each political period in full before turning to the satirists who entered the fray. What surprised me is that some early satirists pulled no punches. Thomas Nashe, from the Elizabethan period called himself the “evil angel” and hated Puritans.  Nashe articulated his take on satire: “Who feeds revenge hath found an endless Muse.”

The discussion on Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift is excellent. Swift’s imagination generated a satire on the entire human species. He had an unmatched command of irony and could create fictional personas that reflected his moral outrage against insincerity. He did this without lecturing the reader directly.

In the end, the connection between “the political” and “satire” becomes clearer. Satire hates corruption, ambition, arrogance, stupidity, depravity, futility and above all, hypocrisy. Unfortunately, politicians continuously supply examples of all of the above.

We need satire to continue to point out the ways in which political vices degrade the rest of human life. We can then work to bring respect back to the ‘political.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PARADOX OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

 

The “American Dream” is a timely topic to consider in this year of national celebration and reflection. On the surface the dream promises upward mobility and contentment for America’s citizens. However, as our history has unfolded, it is fair to ask whether the dream is a national creed worth celebrating or a disappointing mirage for millions of Americans.

The widespread use of the phrase is attributed to the historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author James Truslow Adams. In 1931, he published The Epic of America that solidified the phrase into our culture. He wrote, “There is an American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all of our citizens of every rank. A dream of a social order in which each man and women shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

The notion of an American dream was a novel idea in the development of western political philosophy and economic theory.  The concept emphasizes individualism, self-reliance, and social/economic advancement. Conversely, the European social-democratic model focuses on providing a generous baseline of needed benefits, independent of market forces. European nations seek to improve the collective “quality of life.” While America prioritizes personal success, Europe emphasizes universal security.

Journalist Hua Hsu has an interesting perspective in his recent New Yorker essay, Reflections: “The Curious Case of the American Dream.” Hsu finds that following the Civil War and again after WWII “the promise of a prosperous, socially mobile way of life unavailable elsewhere seemed to make sense. Gains were shared across socioeconomic strata, as people moved from farms to cities to suburbs.”

On the other hand, Hsu also points out that African Americans have long argued that they have been denied participation in the American dream. He also references a 2024 Pew Research Center report that “forty-seven per cent of Americans no longer trusted the American dreams’ promise of success through hard work and determination.” This negative position has provided an open door for MAGA populism to gain a foothold in our nation’s middle class.

The remainder of this commentary will consider two very different criticisms of the American dream as first expressed by minorities and, more recently, by the “left behind” middle class.

The abolitionist and former slave Fredrick Douglass provides an excellent starting point. In his famous 1852 keynote Independence Day speech he remarked, "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice; I must mourn." The message was that America's celebrations of liberty were a cruel mockery to enslaved people.

Following emancipation, the tone softened, but the opportunity to participate in the American dream remained elusive. In his historic 1965 Cambridge University debate against William F. Buckley Jr., James Baldwin argued that the American Dream “was built directly at the expense of Black Americans.” Baldwin asserted that the foundation of the nation's wealth and "dream" relied on the exploitation, enslavement, and continued degradation of Black people.

Martin Luther King Jr. viewed the American dream as a "dream as yet unfulfilled". He described it as a great, universal promise deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence. King argued America had defaulted on this promise for its Black citizens.

More recently, the late Black Congressman John Lewis weighed in on the American dream. Lewis viewed it not as a guaranteed reality, but as a “potential promise that must be continuously fought for.” The election of Barrack Obama as President was a hopeful sign, not an endpoint.

Lastly, my Cincinnati editor recently discussed this topic with his African American friend. She responded with her heartfelt observations. “I have never experienced America’s love—only its tolerance and even that had to be fought for. The current state of America is requiring me to fight a fight I have already fought. My sense of unity, hope, and shared responsibility is diminished.”

For members of the middle class that feel victimized by their inability to gain economic traction, the issue is a return to, not an initial participation in the American dream. The MAGA slogan and its policies promise a recapturing of lost economic opportunities. MAGA claims that the roadblocks to success are immigrants who take jobs, liberals who ignore the middle class, and our secular culture that removes Christianity from the complex brew that could revive the dream for middle class America.

While I agree that there are entrenched problems blocking middle class advancement, I disagree with both the reasoning and the harsh and vindictive solutions proposed by MAGA.

Is there a path forward that can eradicate racism and sexism, while repairing the declining middle class to make the American dream available to all? Can it be done without one faction attacking the other?

Thankfully, once the excesses of MAGA populism and progressive socialism are disregarded, there are fundamental points of agreement in establishing the American dream. All factions can work together to challenge the entrenched power of corporations, billionaires, and special interests. They can agree on an economic model that guarantees economic security for all Americans when “best efforts” fall on hard times. They can demand the removal of policies that exploit and replace them with ones that reward effort and good deeds.

Finally, with some common sense and compromise, the American dream can become more than a slogan and unite all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PA MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD CONSIDER MERGING

 

Pennsylvania is divided into 67 counties and features a remarkably high number of local governments. Each parcel of land within the commonwealth falls into a specific city (57), borough (956), incorporated town (1), or township (1546).

The large number of municipalities resulted from early settlement patterns that were fragmented by challenging mountain terrain and rivers. For centuries, under Pennsylvania law, small groups of residents could petition to split off and form their own localized government.

The time has come for financially distressed municipalities to consider reversing this historical trend. The small size of many Pennsylvania local governments presents major structural and taxpayer challenges. According to the last census, half of our municipalities are home to fewer than 1,893 people, and about 22% have fewer than 800 residents. Neighboring communities duplicate administrative services and public works.

Because municipalities rely heavily on local property and earned income taxes, wealthier suburbs thrive while neighboring “rustbelt” boroughs and cities (Pittsburgh, Washington) experience declining tax bases.  In much of Pennsylvania, small borough and township governments operate with part-time elected officials or a one-person administrative staff to oversee complex audit, legal, environmental, and financial regulations.

As a result of declining tax bases and unforeseen financial setbacks, at least twenty-seven municipalities have sought relief under Act 47, The Municipal Financial Recoveries Act. While the Act has kept distressed municipalities from completely melting down, it has rarely placed them back on solid financial footing.

There is another alternative that is now being considered and adopted across the commonwealth.

On June 23, the Post Gazette announced that “Adams Township and Mars Borough (Butler County) are one step closer to becoming one municipality. Township supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a joint merger agreement.” In the November election, voters will decide via referendum whether the proposal will merge the two municipalities.

In early 2026, the City of DuBois and Sandy Township (both in Clearfield County) officially combined to form a single, unified City of DuBois. This was the largest consolidation of its kind in the state.

What is the legal authority for these actions?  Municipal mergers and consolidations in Pennsylvania are governed by the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act. The process requires municipal boundaries to be contiguous. It must be approved by a majority of voters in each affected municipality. Mergers are more common. Under this model one or more municipalities are absorbed into an existing entity. With consolidations, two or more communities dissolve and create a new municipality.

What are the challenges to merging?  The potential loss of local identity and local government jobs, often dissuades residents and public officials from backing these proposals. The debate reminds me of the similar mindset when a public school district seeks to close underused campuses.

The remainder of this commentary will consider the question of whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County should merge into one entity. On a smaller scale, much of the discussion would also apply to the City of Washington and Washington County.

Over the years, the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Pennsylvania Economy League (and others) have supported efforts to combine the two entities. Allegheny County is a region with more local governments per capita than any other metropolitan area in America with one million or more people. Allegheny County’s poorer municipalities, including Pittsburgh, are confined to tax bases with limited prospects for growth. They struggle to pay for public safety, road maintenance, and other basic services with little hope of improving their financial standing.

What can be done? A report by the RAND Corporation found that with a city-county merger, “the region would gain unified leadership, more focused policy, and better coordination, which could have ‘a generally positive effect’ on economic development.”

One result of a city-county merger is that the city’s population would balloon overnight, catapulting it up national rankings. Pittsburgh would trade its 67th ranking for a spot among the 10 largest American cities without having to add a single person. Dennis Unkovic, an international corporate attorney was quoted on the topic, “Being four times bigger would be an enormous change in how we are perceived. And perception is the essence of what it is to be seen as a bigger, more powerful city.”

In reviewing all of the literature, my conclusion is that the largest obstacle to a city-county merger are the wealthy suburbs which are disinclined to allow their well-endowed tax bases to absorb all the legacy costs (city pensions, large non-profits who are not taxed) found in Pittsburgh (and Washington). These voters will not support a merger, notwithstanding all of the employment opportunities, cultural events, entertainment and sports venues, health care facilities, and social service organizations they rely on, located within underfunded city limits.

Suburban voters are happy to work and play within the city. They like to complain about the cost of parking, homeless people, and deplorable road conditions and then return to the country club. The Pennsylvania Economy League has noted it does not matter to suburban voters that, “municipal borders in the region often no longer reflect actual economic needs or the residents' ability to pay for services.” The League concluded that, “these boundaries restrict tax bases while concentrating poverty in a cage."

Urban mergers are a difficult sell and are complex to implement. This should not stop smaller, struggling communities from exploring the merger option to achieve cost savings and tax relief.

 

 

 

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM IN 2026?

 

What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250^th year of our nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today, with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot? How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future generations?

According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its principles, its people, and the betterment of society…It fosters a sense of unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”

Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence hover around 40 per cent. About twenty per cent remained loyal to the crown, and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped the cause.

Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.

America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism, and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and America is a winner.”  The Constitution was never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.

In my view, the better approach was advanced by the journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, How Problematic is Patriotism? Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the nation that one is trying to protect… Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”

As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”

A recent op-ed article in this newspaper had me scratching my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”

Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.

As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge. Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, meanspirited leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.

Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are the true patriots.

To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident, Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladamir Putin, the recent book, Patriot: A Memoir, describes patriotism very well, indeed.

Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist died at age 47, in a Siberian prison, under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition. The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native country.”)

Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine which he termed “criminal and immoral.”  Instead, he was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.

I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic, forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early twentieth century. If he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.

Our President has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial, authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no dignity, and patriotism is diminished.

 

 

 

 

 

SOME THOUGHTS ON FAMILY GATHERINGS

 

I would much rather pen a travelogue or an essay on an everyday, personal event than research and write a political commentary. Journalism is overburdened with too many of the latter and too few of the former. The truth is, personal essays are more fun to write.

For those familiar with the timeless works of Mark Twain, he appears to agree with me. In addition to his famous novels and political criticisms, Twain was a prolific essayist that covered his travel adventures, philosophy, literature, and humor, all based on observations.

Our recent family sojourn to Chincoteague, Virginia provided some new material for an essay on family gatherings. In anticipation of this task, I made notes during the week (excellent accommodations, weather, and seafood) and sought advice from two of my editors who were part of our assembly, (my spouse and her first cousin) to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.

Family gatherings have always provided a fertile platform on which to write a book, play, or movie script. One of my favorite novels, The Corrections, written by fellow Swarthmore graduate, Jonathan Franzen is a great example. This award-winning novel is a perceptive and darkly humorous look at an aging Midwestern couple. They desperately attempt to gather their dysfunctional adult children for one last holiday meal.

In the live action play and movie categories featuring family gatherings, it is hard to top August Osage County, by Tracey Letts. We saw the original on Broadway and enjoyed the movie version featuring Meryl Streep as the Weston family matriarch. Her brood, scattered across the country, is forced to reunite at the old Oklahoma homestead after a family crisis. What follows is a tragicomedy that showcases three generations of dark family secrets.

There are many other examples. Home for The Holidays, directed by Jodie Foster is a fun, chaotic movie involving the clash of personalities at a family Thanksgiving reunion. Knives Out, starring Daniel Craig as the impeccably dressed detective, solves a murder mystery following a tense family gathering to read the will of a wealthy mystery novelist.

Our coming together on Chincoteague Island did not involve any of the intense tragedy or comedy of the above paradigms. It did provide a week of insight on aging, relationships, and the open trading of information, based on our pre-retirement careers.

Unlike gatherings in previous decades, each year we come together now reveals signs of aging. All of us are over 70. The phrase “please repeat that” seemed to be uttered in every discussion. The group went to bed earlier, woke up later, took more naps, and scheduled fewer hikes than ever before. Our beach sitting was accommodated by high director’s chairs rather than the low-slung variety. Pill bottles were everywhere. Each time we left the condo, someone forgot something.

There was a new member of our party that added an upbeat element to the week. We were eager to show him our favorite eateries and activities on the island, which now felt rediscovered. His first close-up view of the famous wild Chincoteague ponies was a joy to behold. Eagles, ospreys, and oyster-catchers completed the experience for him. The jury is still out on his first raw oyster.

It became obvious as the week progressed that a gathering of older adults involves more story telling than a typical family gathering involving younger adults and children. My spouse and her first cousins re-lived their elementary and high school experiences. My best friend from high school (now married to my wife’s first cousin) and I did the same with our many childhood misadventures. The tales from New Jersey tended to be spicier than the ones from Washington County.

My friend from New Jersey is a retired engineer. I was able to review with him our upcoming home improvement projects. He had many excellent suggestions. We brought our new, baffling telescope, and he carefully explained how to reassemble and operate it.

The same friend had a number of estate issues involving his child and former wife that needed immediate attention. My knowledge was helpful in working through each of the legal matters.

Meals are the heart of family gatherings. Our dinners at the condo and around the island provided ample opportunities to further reminisce and to celebrate a birthday. I have rarely laughed so hard or as often. During the day, each of us felt free to go off on our own for some self-reflection.

Compromise was essential. I like to plan each hour of activities while most of the others were more spontaneous. I learned to step back, stop thinking, and to start enjoying. Making the most of the moments and “going with the flow” were important “mental medicine” for me. I compelled myself to let two cousins plan our boat excursion around the island. They took personal ownership and provided our best memories of the week.

Of course, not everything went according to plan. As we loaded into the bigger, brand-new vehicle for the beach, the battery had died. After an hour of researching dealerships, repair shops, and possible reasons a new battery would go dead, a good Samaritan on vacation saved the day. He had a portable starter that worked when our jumper cables failed.

New stories were created for next year—if we can only remember them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PENNSYLVANIA COAL MAKES A COMEBACK

Pennsylvania has experienced a long and varied relationship with coal. Bituminous (soft) coal was first mined in Pennsylvania at "Coal Hill" (Mount Washington), across the Monongahela River from the city of Pittsburgh.  By 1830, Pittsburgh consumed more than 400 tons of bituminous coal per day for domestic and light industrial use. As the industrial revolution gained momentum, the anthracite coalfields, or “hard coal” of eastern Pennsylvania, captured new markets.

Bituminous coal contains more volatile matter and moisture than anthracite. It generates more smoke and ash when burned. In recent years, bituminous has been used primarily as fuel for electric power generation and in industrial manufacturing. Today, bituminous mining operations remain active in 21 counties in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Because it is nearly pure carbon, anthracite is hard to ignite. It burns slowly, longer, and cleaner than bituminous coal. Historically, anthracite was used for residential and commercial heating.  Its modern usages focus on metallurgy, and water filtration as activated carbon. It is most often the type exported to other countries. Pennsylvania’s anthracite region is located in six counties in Northeastern Pennsylvania. This area contains the only reserves of anthracite coal in the United States.

As recently as 2022, Pennsylvania remained the third largest coal-producing state in the nation. According to COAL.ORG, in Pennsylvania the coal industry supported over 17,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributed billions of dollars to the state’s economy. The coal industry’s slogan was “Coal Powers Pennsylvania.” The claim was that “coal’s ability to provide baseload power was unmatched by any other fuel source.”  

Since 1938, we have known that there was a dark side to using coal. When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause global warming.  Global temperatures passed the critical 1.5°C milestone for the first time in 2024. Warming above 1.5°C risks further sea level rise, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, species extinction, and food scarcity. Scientists believe that continued warming will result in worsening health and poverty for millions.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel of them all. It is responsible for over 0.3°C of the 1°C increase in global average temperatures. This makes it the single largest source of global temperature rise. Pound for pound, coal emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel—generating roughly forty percent of global emissions from fossil fuel use.

 

In an effort to clean up the environment and combat global warming, federal regulations have consistently reduced coal use by enforcing stricter limits on pollution. For decades, these rules, combined with market shifts toward cheaper natural gas and renewable energy, accelerated the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants.

EPA standards under the Clean Air Act require existing coal-fired power plants that operate after 2039 to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent. Retrofitting with carbon capture and storage is extremely expensive. Many utilities planned to retire these plants rather than comply.

In addition to the environmental concerns, until recently, several other factors hastened the death knell of the coal industry in Southwestern Pennsylvania. First, plentiful natural gas became the dominant energy source. Hydraulic fracking in the Marcellus Shale made natural gas far cheaper and easier to access. Second, for those utilities that still required coal, bituminous supply in the Western States was far cheaper to mine.

Within the last 18 months, the prospects for coal have dramatically changed for the better.  It started when Trump returned to office. By executive order in April 2025, Trump implemented several aggressive administrative and regulatory actions to revive the coal industry. He cited national security and rising energy demand.

The Trump administration's core actions since 2025 have included (1) using “emergency authority” to prevent coal fired power plants from shutting down, (2) designating coal as a critical mineral and reversing mining restrictions, (3) providing federally backed financial subsidies to support the coal industry, and (4) reestablishing The National Coal Council to lobby for the industry.

Two current events have helped to support the President’s initiatives and have lowered opposition. Energy demand from AI and cloud data centers provided a lifeline to the coal industry. By overwhelming regional power grids, these energy “hogs” have compelled utilities to delay the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants to maintain reliable electricity.

More recently, the war in Iran has triggered a massive supply shock. Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz choked off vital Middle Eastern gas exports. Vulnerable nations were forced to restart mothballed plants and burn coal to keep their electricity grids operating.

In light of the power supply crisis, Governor Shapiro has also taken action to keep Pennsylvania coal operations alive. He has supported an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. This policy balances the concerns of environmentalists with energy grid reliability and economic growth. For the immediate future, he has taken steps to keep coal-fired power plants online.

Following the Trump presidency and the abatement of the factors that have increased the need for fossil fuels, what does the future of coal look like?

According to the think tank Energy Innovation, “Coal-fired power cannot compete economically with clean energy and will continue to lose market share across the United States.

Most energy experts agree that the probable long-term future for coal is a steady, structural decline in power generation, driven by the rollout of cheaper renewables and stricter emissions policies.