When Walter Cronkite anchored the CBS Evening News from 1962 until 1981, he closed with “And that’s the way it is.”

His substantial number of viewers readily accepted that conclusion as he was widely considered to be “the most trusted man in America.”

Fast forward to today. The media world has changed dramatically and changes constantly.

The three legacy national news providers who once had a monopoly on electronic news delivery, now have intense competition from other providers for viewers and for relevance.

These providers include, but are not limited to Fox News, CNN, CNBC, AL Jazeera English, The CW, MSNBC, and Blaze Media. They also include 24-7 podcasts, radio talk shows, blogs, X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, and countless other social media platforms.

Today, almost every American has access to electronic news outlets whose perspectives on the news range from far left, left of center, far right, and right of center. Some of their perspectives (read biases) are subtle, some are thinly disguised, and some are unapologetically obvious.

Some suggest more media is better.

They suggest in an increasingly diverse society, every American is now in a position to follow and support those electronic national news providers whose perspectives on the news most closely matches their own perspectives.

I agree, but only to a point.

I suggest too many electronic national news providers are not committed to providing balanced news, especially balanced political news.

Instead, they provide news in a targeted way that affirms what certain viewers already think.

That strategy generates a durable collection of viewers for that news provider, which in turn helps recruit and retain advertisers.

It does not generate trust.

Two months ago, the Gallup Organization released the results of polling Americans trust in the media. This polling exercise has been done regularly by Gallup for over half a century.

In this most recent report, Gallup noted that over the past three decades, public confidence in the mass media has collapsed.

They also noted Americans’ trust in the mass media is at its lowest point in more than five decades.

Trust levels are down with Republican voters, Democratic voters, and unaffiliated voters. These trust levels are even lower than for Congress, the presidency, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, not one national media individual is widely considered as the most trusted news provider in America as was Cronkite.

We are dealing with the consequences of William F. Buckley’s observation that some people claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there actually are other views.

As a result, these people will not even consider following news from media outlets other than those who present news with a perspective that most closely aligns with their own.

Now more than ever, we owe it to ourselves and to our society to explore and thoughtfully consider other points of view.

At the very least, I suggest if we get follow the news from a right of center or hard right media outlet, we take time to follow the news from a comparable left of center or hard left outlet.

Conversely, I suggest if we follow the news from a left of center or hard left media outlet, we take time to follow get news from a comparable right of center or hard right media outlet.

When we do that, we must give due consideration to other views and then make thoughtful and informed decisions on our current views.

Understanding and respecting other views is different from accepting them fully or in part.

In every case, we can choose to keep our current views, revise them, or replace them.

I further suggest we reject the notion that changing one’s mind is a character flaw and accept the notion that changing one’s mind is actually a character strength.

If or when you do revise or fully reverse your views, expect to be told you are inconsistent.

In any event, be true to yourself and stand firm.

Remember Winston Churchill’s guiding principle when he was told he was inconsistent (a regular occurrence in his long and successful life).

He said, “When I consider facts that challenge my current views, I will change my mind and be inconsistent and right, rather than be consistent and wrong.”

Excellent advice for all of us especially when we live in a VUCA world, a world with high levels of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

In such a world, regularly evaluating views with an open mind that may result in a changed mind, is always better than holding on to views with a closed mind.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

On the last day of the 2025 Maryland General Assembly session, a majority of General Assembly members and Governor Moore finally agreed on a $6.8 billion state budget package. 

The agreement includes approximately $2 billion in budget cuts, and a wide range of new taxes, tax increases, new fees, and fee increases. 

Taken together, the tax and fee changes are projected to generate approximately $1.8 billion in new state revenue.

One new tax that is the largest single source of projected new state revenue is a 3%

business-to-business sales tax for services provided by information technology (IT) providers. 

Current projections are this new tax will generate approximately $482 million in new revenue.

The key words here are current and projections. 

Achieving a balanced state budget for an entire fiscal year may be wishful thinking.

There is no guarantee if and when all the revenue from the new IT services sales tax will come in as projected.

Delegate Ben Barnes, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was asked if he was confident about the projected revenue from this new sales tax. 

He did not answer the question directly. Instead, he said, “We are super confident that the final budget compromise turns a massive structural deficit into a positive structural balance.”

It remains to be seen if that super confidence will hold until the end of the upcoming fiscal year.

Complicating matters is that between now and July 1 of this year, the Maryland Comptroller’s office will have to issue regulations to implement the new IT service sales tax. 

Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chair Guy Guzzone has already acknowledged, “It’s very complicated [the new IT service sales tax] and the comptroller will be figuring out how exactly that implementation occurs.” 

Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson has also said that he expects there will be a bit of a delay in the implementation of the regulations.

The budget bill compromise also includes a trigger for a special session to address the impact of any future Trump administration decisions that further reduce the historic and substantial flow of federal dollars into Maryland.

Largely missing during all the debate and deliberations on Annapolis leading up to the approval of this new IT service sales tax, was greater consideration of what-if questions.

What if greater consideration would have been given to estimates from the Cybersecurity Association of Maryland, that this new tax could result in IT service companies leaving Maryland?

What if this scenario is already being confirmed? 

Maryland State Delegate Brian Crosby is the owner of an IT services firm formerly based in Maryland. During a recent speech on the House floor, he told his House colleagues in anticipation of this new IT service sales tax being approved, he had already decided to move his IT service business from Maryland to Virginia. 

When asked later about how the new sales tax could impact his business, Crosby said, “All I can say is that within a year, we’d be bankrupt.”

Jacob Stokes, president of a fifty employee IT and software development company based in Columbia echoed that sentiment. He has said, “We’re going to have to leave the state. That’s our only option.”

What if greater consideration had been given to concerns raised by the Maryland Chamber of Commerce? The Chamber has suggested “Once Maryland starts taxing services, whether it’s tech, legal, marketing, or accounting, it becomes easier to expand these taxes to other sectors down the line.” They further suggest, “Today, it’s tech services. Tomorrow it could be any other service upon which Maryland businesses and consumers depend.”

What if greater consideration had been given to reports on all the businesses that have already have or are considering transferring their incorporation from Delaware due to what they perceive to be a hostile business climate there?

The current list includes Facebook, Walmart, AMC, Madison Square Entertainment, Pershing Square Capital Management, Simon Property Group, Dropbox, Meta, Trip Advisor, and Roblox.

What if final action on any tax legislation would be contingent upon the Maryland Comptroller providing legislators a report with details on the regulations and compliance standards for any new taxes, tax increases, new fees, and fee increases? 

That would help avoid the consequences of accepting the thinking of former U. S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” 

What if this new IT service sales tax, coupled with legislative leaders rejecting Governor Moore’s proposal to reduce the corporate net income tax, derails Moore’s goal to reverse Maryland’s sluggish economic growth by reducing tax and regulatory burdens on businesses?

Going forward, Maryland is best served when every policy decision maker in Annapolis has a commitment and an opportunity to consider what-if questions which in turn helps ensure no final decisions are made using a deeply flawed “ready-aim-fire” approach. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Shortly after the Maryland General Assembly convened in January for their 2025 session, I wrote a commentary with the title — Doing the right thing and consequences in Annapolis.

My example of doing the right thing was Democratic State Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes refusing late in the 2023 legislative session to vote for legislation in the House of Delegates favored by the House Democratic leadership.

When asked why she did so, she said simply that she was being respectful of and responsive to the views of her constituents who opposed that legislation.

My example of consequences for doing the right thing was Delegate Sample-Hughes being replaced on the first day of the 2024 session as the Speaker Pro-Tempore in the House of Delegates, the second highest leadership position for a member of the majority party.

It did not matter that she was eminently qualified for her former leadership position.

After serving two terms as a member of the Wicomico County Council, she has represented Dorchester and Wicomico Counties in the House of Delegates since January 14, 2015.

In the House, she has served as a member of following key Committees — Economic Matters, Judiciary, Rules and Executive Nominations, Health and Government Operations, Spending Affordability, and the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review.

She has also served as the House of Delegates representative to the Rural Maryland Council. This council focuses on bringing together citizens, community-based organizations, federal, state, county, and municipal government officials, as well as representatives of the for-profit and non-profit sectors to collectively address the unique needs of rural Maryland communities.

This Council also provides a venue for members of agriculture and natural resource-based industries, health care facilities, educational institutions, economic and community development organizations, for-profit and non-profit corporations, and government agencies to cross traditional boundaries, share information, and address in a more holistic way, the special needs and opportunities in rural Maryland.

When asked how she felt about her abrupt dismissal as Speaker Pro Tempore, Delegate Sample-Hughes said, “Where we are today, is that I stood by my convictions and stood up for my constituents. The phone calls and the emails that I received last session on three bills that were, you know, top bills in the state, but I still had to vote my district.”

Adding insult to injury, Delegate Sample-Hughes’ replacement as Speaker Pro Tempore was and is delegate from a district in Baltimore.

Last week, Delegate Sample-Hughes again stood up for the two counties of her Eastern Shore district as well as for all of the Eastern Shore.

In a floor speech described by one observer as passionate and fiery, she spoke against the House version of a $67-billion state budget, in part because the current version of the bill needs a wide range of new taxes, tax increases, new fees, fee increases, and budget cuts to meet the state constitutional mandate that the state budget be balanced.

In her remarks, Delegate Sample-Hughes challenged a once oft-stated guiding principle in Annapolis — always do what is best for everybody in Maryland. She said bluntly, “This institution is not for everybody. This proposed budget will disproportionately impact rural counties, like those on the Eastern Shore.” As one example she noted the Dorchester County Public Schools has cut summer school programs in order to fund state mandates to implement the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, often referred to as the Kirwan plan.

Delegate Sample-Hughes did more than speak against a budget crafted and embraced by the Democratic leadership in the House of Delegates.

She “walked her talk.”

She was one of only three Democratic members in the House of Delegates to join all the House Republican House members in voting NO on the House version of a state budget.

In a media interview following her speech, she was asked if she feared retaliation for again voting against legislation crafted and supported by her party’s leadership.

She replied with a blend of disheartening realism, resignation, and defiance to those who choose to punish, rather than respect her commitment to listen and respond to the concerns and opinions of her constituents. She reiterated her belief expressed earlier in her floor speech. “History repeats itself. I’m sure there will be [retaliation]. But at the end of the day, I’m going to be fine. I’m going to continue to be me. I’m not going to change who I am.”

We can hope she will never change who she is.

As I write this the protracted battle on state budget matters is almost over. A compromise version of a state budget and funding sources for it will be approved by the General Assembly sometime before midnight on Monday April 7 (today).

Next up is Governor Moore. He can sign all or some of the budget bills as written, veto line items in all or some of them, or allow all or some to become law without his signature.

That is not the end of the story.

Next year the General Assembly and the Governor are expected to face state budget deficits.

Now more than ever, we need to support Delegate Sample-Hughes and like-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Annapolis for their unwavering commitments to do the right thing despite the potential for consequences.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Following World War II, Winston Churchill was facing two daunting political and governing challenges in pivoting from serving as a war time to a post war time leader of Britain. 

The first challenge was how Britain should deal with Germany, whose leaders were ruthless adversaries who inflicted massive amounts of death, pain, and suffering on Britain during a six-year war; including bombing raids on London that killed and injured innocent civilians. The second challenge was how Britain should deal with the Soviet Union whose leaders were key allies during that same war, but post war; those same leaders were pursuing, maintaining, and expanding the Soviet Union’s spheres of influence and their communist ideology worldwide.

Churchill’s guiding principle forward was pragmatic. In a VUCA world, a world characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, he would not expect permanent allies or permanent adversaries. He would pursue permanent interests.

Recently, two U.S. Senators from Pennsylvania embraced Churchill’s guiding principle in American politics in a relatively small, but very instructive way. What makes this instructive is these two Senators have deeply held and stark differences in their political allegiances and political philosophies. 

John Fetterman is a left of center Democratic Senator who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders in his successful Senate primary election campaign and his successful general election campaign. 

In the 2024 Presidential election, Fetterman strongly supported Joe Biden’s re-election and strongly defended Biden when there were widespread calls for him to withdraw from the race.

When Biden did withdraw and was replaced by Kamala Harris as the Democratic standard bearer, Fetterman endorsed her and campaigned for her throughout Pennsylvania.

David McCormick is a right of center Republican Senator who was endorsed by Donald Trump in his successful Senate primary campaign and his successful general election campaign.

In McCormick’s challenge to Pennsylvania’s then incumbent left of center Democratic Senator Robert Casey, Fetterman endorsed Casey and campaigned for him. 

Since those elections, their differences have not stopped the two Senators working together on select issues of shared interest, shared thinking, and mutual respect. 

One example is the role of mentorships in changing lives.

Both McCormick and Fetterman have a deep commitment to mentoring based on their respective firsthand experiences.

While in college, Fetterman’s best friend died in a car accident. Immediately following that tragedy, Fetterman volunteered to be a mentor for Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America. He was assigned to an eight-year-old boy whose father had died from AIDS and whose mother was dying from cancer. Fetterman promised the boy’s mother he would continue to be his mentor after her death. 

In high school, McCormick was a mediocre bench warmer on the football team. A new coach saw promise in him, mentored him, and made McCormick one of the team’s co-captains. That experience helped McCormick boost his low self-confidence and graduate from West Point.

During the Covid pandemic, McCormick and his wife, Dina Powell McCormick, concluded that too many Americans, including their six daughters, suffered greatly from a lack of mentors.

As a result, they co – authored Who Believed in You? a book that includes interviews with successful leaders who had a mentor who saw something in them they may not have seen in themselves and helped them find and achieve their purpose in life.

Those interviewed include Governor Wes Moore, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Tory Burch, chief creative fashion designer and executive chairperson of Tory Burch LLC, as well as founder of the Tory Burch foundation, Hollywood producer Brian Grazer, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As a result of their mutual appreciation of the value of mentoring, McCormick, Fetterman, and their spouses (both of whom also have personal positive mentoring stories to share), agreed to three events where they would discuss their experiences and promote Who Believed in You?

McCormick, Fetterman, and their spouses also met for a dinner, a most effective way for people to get to know, understand, and respect each other. Following that dinner McCormick said “I trust him. I think he’s a very authentic guy. I think he’s going to be a good partner.”

Sadly, the first two of the mentoring events were postponed due to “unforeseen logistical issues” and the third event was cancelled due to a “scheduling conflict.” I believe the reasons were concerns over peaceful outcomes from protests before, during, or after the events. 

This is a prime example of how a tyranny of the loud is regularly disrupting much needed efforts to advance the cause of civil political discourse in our society.

This unexpected turn of events is also a call to action for elected officials and citizens in our community, our region, our state, and our country to commit to doing two things.

We can, and we must replicate the actions of two U.S. Senators with efforts to get to know, understand, trust, respect, and seek common ground with others who have opposite political affiliations and opposite views on many local, state, and national public policy issues. 

More importantly, we can, and we must commit to maintaining a permanent interest on civil and respectful dialogue, which will help us coexist in a society where even when we have inevitable disagreements on a wide range of public policy issues, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

After every presidential election cycle, political pundits do a deep dive analysis on campaign strategies that were effective before the campaign launch and during the campaign. 

One of the most insightful and thought  provoking analyses I have seen was written by Michael  Grynbaum and John Koblin, published in the New York Times the day after the  election. 

In their article — Master of the Media Evolved Yet Again, Grynbaum and Koblin wrote, “In his improbable journey to the apex of American power, President-elect Donald J. Trump has always adapted to the media tool of the moment.”

Former president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, echoes that conclusion: “He’s always looking to the next venue that’s best suited to his instincts for generating support. It’s part of Trump’s extraordinary record of instinctively finding ways to viscerally connect with voters. He’s a master of evolving media.” 

These observations are not a surprise based on reviewing Trump’s career before his running for the presidency three times.

Well before he ran for president the first time in 2016, Trump generated substantial name recognition in New York City and beyond with regular coverage in the New York Post. The Post,  a daily tabloid newspaper, has the fourth-largest circulation of a printed newspaper in  America. Its readership goes well beyond New York with a subscription-based online version. 

In 2004, Trump recognized and seized an opportunity for even greater public exposure as the co-producer and host of the reality TV show The Apprentice. 

During a long run on NBC TV, Trump worked hard to be viewed as a successful and decisive business mogul, willing to dismiss apprentice contestants with a memorable — “You’re Fired!” 

The result of that name recognition together with his” take charge” personality, was a key element in Trump defeating a large field of candidates in the 2016 republican presidential primary elections. That led to a widely unexpected Electoral College win in November 2024.

Grynbaum and Koblin wrote, “Trump recognized the power of Twitter long before other politicians and in 2016, he started doing cable news interviews”.

They also wrote that he bypassed traditional media gatekeepers like “60 Minutes” on CBS, in favor of select online celebrities and podcasts that were especially popular among young men.

As an example, Grynbaum and Koblin noted  that “Bryson DeChambeau, a two-time U.S. Open golfing champion and YouTube star, did a video with Trump that had almost 13 million views.“ 

More important than the always critical role of positive name recognition in any election, Grynbaum and Koblin suggested that bypassing the main street media allowed Trump to avoid confrontational interviews where he might have faced tough questions, fact-checks, and detailed policy debates. 

By contrast, they suggested the carefully selected influencers Trump met rarely challenged him and often lavished him with praise.

The political wisdom of that strategy was affirmed in the one debate hosted by ABC news. Donald Trump did not do as well as expected and Kamala Harris did better than expected. 

Following that debate, Trump declined to participate in a second debate and also pulled out of a planned interview with 60 Minutes. His decision not to appear was the first time since the late 1960s, when the program did not include host the two major-party presidential candidates. 

Trump’s ignoring 60 Minutes was one of many based on his lack of trust in and disdain for many traditional legacy media outlets that he believed were left of center and hostile to him.

Despite the risk of a negative voter reaction to his positions on the traditional media outlets, Trump assumed correctly that there it would energize and mobilize his base if he regularly ignored and aggressively criticized the media, especially the legacy media. 

Even before that decision on 60 Minutes was made, Trump was showing up on podcasts, widely viewed as unconventional and even odd in the context of a presidential campaign. 

His first podcast with online star and wrestler Logan Paul met that profile. Trump and Paul discussed boxing, immigration, and the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. 

Some may say this commentary is all about Trump. I agree. The reasons are simple. 

Donald Trump has been elected president twice. This commentary includes my thoughts and others’ thoughts on how effective communication strategies contributed to those outcomes. 

Kamala Harris has not yet been elected president and maybe never will be. In any event, I expect to do another commentary that will include my thoughts and the thoughts of others on how flawed communication strategies contributed to her loss in 2024.

For now, campaign communications strategies covered in this commentary, may or may not be relevant in upcoming elections in 2026, 2028 and beyond. 

That said, I suggest there is one timeless lesson for all political candidates going forward. That lesson is: never fail to thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of and use best practice in campaign communications strategies, especially those that are yet to emerge. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

 

In a world where there is constant talk about more transparency and openness in government at all levels, now is a time to reflect upon an observation by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Moynihan was once described in The Almanac of American Politics as “the nation’s best thinker among politicians since Lincoln, and its best politician among thinkers since Jefferson.” Prior to three terms in  the U.S. Senate, he served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. 

One of Moynihan’s enduring guiding principles was, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” 

With technology, the options for everyone to get facts are virtually unlimited. 

The challenge is to get reliable and trustworthy facts on government issues and plans.

Locally, two options are now available to get facts that are reliable and trustworthy. 

One option is Engage Talbot, an initiative of the Talbot County Government.

It is not only a source of facts, it also allows citizens to share their thoughts, ideas, and feedback on such issues as growth, public safety, conservation, and recreational programming.

The user-friendly site is accessible 24/7, so everyone can contribute at their convenience. 

The first project available for public comment, the 2024 Report of the Review, can be viewed at https://engage.talbotcountymd.gov/rotr. Later this year, Engage Talbot will play a key role in gathering public input for the County’s Comprehensive Plan update.

The launch of Engage Talbot coincides with the introduction of GovDelivery, the County’s new email and text notification platform. GovDelivery allows residents to stay updated on County news, events, and initiatives. 

Individuals can register at https://talbotcountymd.gov/subscribe and customize their experience to receive updates about topics they care about. They can also visit  https://engage.talbotcountymd.gov to share their thoughts. 

The Town of Easton is also moving forward on initiatives to increase access to information, and a way for citizens to share their opinions with government officials.

Recently, Easton’s Zoning Department produced an Engage East End webpage that provided a comprehensive look at the goals for the East End Small Area Plan. This webpage also provides news on events such as a neighborhood walkaround and updates on the status of  this project. 

All Town Council meetings are live-streamed and recorded at https://eastonmd.gov/129/Agendas-Minutes. Meeting agendas can also be found on this page. Most public workshops and board meetings are also live-streamed and available from this page. A full schedule of these events is available on the homepage at www.eastonmd.gov.

Major Town news, announcements, project updates, events and more can be found on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter). These sites also regularly provide timely information about day-to-day and week-to-week Town projects, with photo galleries and short video packages. The Town “handle” across all of their platforms is @townofeastonmd. When ordinances are passed and public hearing notices are announced, the Town runs notices in the local newspaper of record and puts them on Facebook, Instagram, and X. 

Easton is currently updating the website with a fresh look and more functionality. Coming later this year will be ease of navigation, and more accessibility features. 

A complete overhaul of the Parks and Recreation website “module” is expected to be added this year. This new module will allow for online bookings and reservations, and a comprehensive listing of events and projects across all Town-owned facilities.

A new web-interface will allow for user-friendly ways for the Planning and Zoning Department (and other departments) to collect public input on projects and initiatives. Polls, surveys, forums, and more will be tools at their disposal to gather meaningful discourse and ideas on  and procedures for future development in Easton. 

Ultimately, technology alone will not result in greater transparency, openness, and public input on a wide range of public policy dialogue deliberations and decisions in our local governments. 

Ultimately, the value of and success on greater openness and transparency will be determined by two things. 

One is citizen commitment to access engagement opportunities fully and regularly. The second is citizen acknowledgment that majority votes will prevail on decisions in legislative bodies. 

Accordingly, citizen commitments to be informed and to be involved do not guarantee that final outcomes will match everyone’s informed position and their level of involvement. 

When decisions are made, there are winners and losers, especially on polarizing issues. 

While that may frustrate those who do not prevail, the alternative is worse. Outcomes responding to the most vocal supporters of any position is simply tyranny of the loud. 

We are all best served when all informed and involved parties are willing to accept majority vote rule outcomes with civility, even if they disagree with those outcomes. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

 

To date, more than two dozen lawsuits have been filed challenging the authority, power, goals, plans, initiatives, and actions of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

No doubt many more lawsuits will follow.

The rulings by lower court judges on the already filed lawsuits are mixed.

Some lower court judges have ruled a president has broad constitutional authority to fire, demote, or reassign federal executive branch employees without input from, or approval of Congress.

Other lower court judges have ruled a president does not have broad constitutional authority to fire, demote, or reassign federal executive branch employees without input from or approval of Congress.

Appeals of lower court judge rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court are not a matter of if, but a matter of when, as well as exactly how they will be addressed.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, has already predicted a majority of the justices will support a ruling in approving DOGE’s authority, plans, and actions.

In a recent commentary, The Supreme Court is Poised to Restore the President’s Executive Power, Shapiro writes, “Article II of the U.S. Constitution begins with a simple declarative sentence: ‘The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States.”

He also writes “A majority on the Court now seems set to return to that view.’”

That majority of the Court referred to by Shapiro is presumably Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett.

These six justices are often referred to collectively as a right of center bloc.

Shapiro gives special attention to Chief Justice Roberts.

He refers to a 2005 Supreme Court majority opinion written by Roberts on presidential authority. In it, Roberts explained Article II authority in the U.S. Constitution “generally includes the ability to remove executive officials.” He also says that is “a power that is necessary to ensure the accountable and effective execution of federal policy.”

Shapiro also notes that Roberts has stated, without the power to remove executive-branch officers, “the president could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

The key word in Chief Justice Roberts thinking is “generally.”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines “generally” as often or regularly.

It does not define “generally” as “always.”

That is affirmed by recent actions by Chief Justice Roberts on two lower court rulings on DOGE.

In the first action Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court’s left of center bloc of Justices in blocking President Trump’s efforts to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid funding and temporarily blocking budget cuts.

In the second action, Roberts and Coney Barrett agreed with a majority of their left of center colleagues on a decision that the court would not overrule a temporary order from a lower court to stop Trump from firing the head of the Office of Special Counsel.

These two actions refute the idea that members of the conservative bloc are unified and consistently unable to reach agreement with members of the left of center Justices.

It also demonstrates that Roberts and Coney Barrett are willing to side against Trump in legal challenges on certain DOGE Issues.

Most importantly, it affirms that the issue of presidential authority and power will require extraordinarily intense dialogue and deliberations amongst all the justices on the short term and long-term ramifications of their ultimate decisions.

Payvan Ahdout, a law professor at the University of Virginia, suggests the court is “open to a role for judicial review of these [DOGE] decisions, but they just have not yet reached consensus on what that judicial role should be.”

Going forward, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Coney Barrett could be part of majority member rulings that all, most, some, or few of DOGE actions are unconstitutional or could be constitutional with revisions.

If both do so, the outcomes will be 6-3 majority rulings for DOGE.

If only one does, it will still be 5-4 rulings for DOGE.

Conversely, if both join again with three of left of center Justices to sustain lower court challenges against DOGE it will be 5-4 rulings against DOGE.

Ultimately, every Supreme Court review and ruling on every lower Court DOGE ruling will determine the future scope of DOGE’s constitutional authority, plans, efforts, success, or failure to meet projected results.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

 

Hardly a day goes by without continuous updates from Washington DC on plans of and actions by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, commonly referred to as DOGE.

President Trump created DOGE with an executive order on the first day of his second term, affirming it is a key element of his second term agenda. Elon Musk is heading DOGE as a Special Government Employee.

Strong resistance to DOGE started immediately and has not slowed since then. A lawsuit challenging the legality and authority of was filed the same day DOGE was created. Since then, numerous lawsuits have been filed, including those charging DOGE’s efforts to access federal agency data violate federal privacy laws.

As of now, questions on how many and exactly how the U.S. Supreme Court will address these lawsuits is anyone’s guess.

One question not receiving much attention is the history of and possible lessons learned from past efforts on improving government efficiency and reducing government spending.

The first such effort occurred in 1947 when Congress created the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, commonly referred to as the Hoover Commission, as former President Herbert Hoover chaired it.

In 1953, Congress approved the Second Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government also commonly referred to as a Hoover Commission, as former President Hoover chaired it.

In 1982, former President Reagan created The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, commonly referred to as the Grace Commission, as it was chaired by corporate executive J. Peter Grace, who was an industrialist and CEO of W.R. Grace and Company, a diversified chemical company.

In 1993, former President Clinton launched the National Performance Review (NPR), also commonly referred to as Reinventing Government. Leading it was former Vice President Gore.

Former President Obama established three groups. They were the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform whose co-chairs were former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, the Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction Task Force, chaired by former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Office of management and Budget and former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chair. The third group, Campaign to Cut Waste, was a large group of Obama administration officials with the stated goal of “hunting down and eliminating misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.”

In a recent article on President Trump’s DOGE initiative, John Kamensky, Emeritus Senior Fellow at the IBM Center for The Business of Government, and Mark Abramson, President at Leadership Inc. suggest the following key elements are important for success in federal government spending change efforts:

“Making government work better can gain significant support in Congress as was seen in the first Hoover Commission and the Reinventing Government initiatives. When recommendations need congressional approval, being fast can make a difference. When a reform initiative spans the life of more than one Congress – and there is a chance that either house may flip to the opposing party – then bolder recommendations can be jeopardized. Moving fast also allows more time to focus on implementation. This was a strength of the Reinventing Government initiative.

Reform efforts that try to make government cheaper, such as by eliminating programs or reducing headcount, necessarily involve Congress. Such an emphasis was a stumbling block for the Second Hoover Commission and the Grace Commission. Including career civil servants in the work of a reform initiative can increase the success of the “improving program” initiatives since they can gain “buy-in” from the civil service. In contrast, the ‘eliminating programs’ approach has been predominately staffed by individuals outside of government, and civil service ‘buy-in’ was not sought.”

Kamensky and Mark Abramson conclude with writing, “At the time of this writing, DOGE has not been operating like any of these past reform efforts, where the need for change is assessed, and recommendations are made for the President and Congress to act upon.”

I suggest there is a crucial omission from their observations on the underlying rationale on President Trump’s decisions to move quickly and aggressively on the DOGE agenda. Those decisions include bypassing Congress for input on and approval of DOGE goals and operations.

I suggest Trump’s thinking reflects a sense of urgency on addressing the steadily increasing national debt. In 2000, that debt was $5.659 trillion, approximately fifty-six percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2010, the national was $13.562 trillion, approximately ninety-three per cent of GDP. It is projected to reach $37 trillion in June of this year.

Despite current and yet to be filed court challenges to DOGE, it remains to be seen what the final decisions will be on those court challenges, especially any rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suggest any mandates on congressional involvement on DOGE plans and actions may not be relevant going forward, even if the courts rule that a president cannot implement DOGE activities without some levels of congressional input and/or approval.

The current Republican majorities in Congress have been relatively uninvolved in any efforts to slow down or stop DOGE plans and actions.

If court rulings do limit the scope and authority of DOGE, I suggest Congressional Republicans will move to approve whatever is deemed legally necessary to allow DOGE plans and actions to continue.

As always, that could change based on the results of the 2026 midterm election cycle, which is already underway.

I further suggest, if Republicans retain control of Congress in the 2026 mid-term elections, they will be even more inclined to approve future DOGE plans and actions at least through the end of Trump’s second term.

If the Democrats regain control of the House, the Senate or both, DOGE will be no more than a footnote in the history of Trump’s second term.

David Reel is a public affairs and public communications consultant in Easton.

Forty-five years ago this month, a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island electric power generating station in central Pennsylvania experienced a partial nuclear meltdown.

It is the worst accident involving nuclear power generation in American history.

On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), it is rated as a Level 5 event — an “Accident with Wider Consequences”.

One of those wider consequences was a dramatic and long-lasting shift on the public perception on the safety and feasibility of nuclear power plants, even with post TMI design and operating improvements for new nuclear power plants.

Despite those improvements, some concluded that accident and how it was mismanaged marked the beginning of the end of nuclear power as a source for electric power in America.Ultimately, the accident did not result in the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry, but it did halt its historic growth.

Fast forward to today.

Unexpected and extraordinary increases in electric bills are a huge issue throughout Maryland.

They are generating extensive media coverage and massive statewide public outrage greater than the proposals to increase taxes and cut spending in order to balance the state budget. 

Former U.S Senator Everett Dirksen once said: ‘When I feel the heat I see the light.”

Presently, the heat is being felt by elected public officials, including legislators in Annapolis.

Based on that heat they are increasingly open to a wide range electrical generating options that could result in lower electric bills. 

One option was succinctly captured in a recent headline for a Capital News Service article –

 Craving more energy, Maryland looks to nuclear power.

That “craving” has led to a four-bill package of legislation introduced by the Democratic leadership of the in the General Assembly at the request of Governor Moore. 

One of the bills proposes a procurement framework to support the development of both traditional nuclear power plants and small modular reactors (SMRs) in the state.

If and when that occurs, any new reactors would join the Calvert Cliffs plant in Calvert County, Maryland’s only traditional nuclear power plant. 

Owned and operated by Baltimore-based Constellation Energy since it became operational in 1975, Calvert Cliffs is the largest nuclear power plant on the East Coast. It generates about 40% of all electric power used in Maryland an amount equal to another 40% that is generated and imported from outside of Maryland.

Support for increased use of nuclear power in Maryland is not universal. 

Jorge Aguilar, a regional director at Food and Water Watch, a national environmental advocacy organization, has said, “Maryland should be alarmed that state leaders want to build out these astronomically expensive and dangerous nuclear plants in Maryland to meet the state’s energy needs. These plants would be expensive to build and produce hazardous nuclear waste. Maryland should be pushing the grid operator to approve renewable energy projects faster. I think Maryland leaders really need to double down on truly clean energy, like wind and solar, as well as batteries. Not nuclear.”

That message will resonate with many of the progressive members in the General Assembly but will not with the small but vocal Freedom Caucus in the state House. 

That caucus is suggesting the following changes in Maryland’s energy: reopen closed and keep currently open coal-fired power plants scheduled to close, stop “EmPOWER Maryland” fees on electric bills, repeal or revise the state law that requires higher margins of clean energy to be used statewide and reduce spending $180-million dollars on a state climate department.

While this approach of the Freedom Caucus may be helpful in increasing public awareness of the caucus and its proposed energy agenda, it will not move the needle with the Governor or the steadily increasing numbers and power of progressive legislators in Annapolis.

Regardless of the levels of support or opposition to more nuclear power, there are two realities that will determine its impact on higher electric bills for now and in the future. 

The first reality is the 90-day General Assembly session ends on April 7, 2025. 

Between now and then, the Governor and General Assembly leaders will be fully engaged in efforts to secure consensus and a majority of votes on a balanced state budget.

The second reality is, even when new policies on approving and encouraging greater use of nuclear power, the schedule for building and opening new nuclear power plants is a long one.

The period from proposal, approval, building, and opening can range from six years to twelve years. Construction time alone for the Calvert Cliffs plant was seven years.

Accordingly, nuclear power will not provide immediate or short-term in lower electric bills. 

What is urgently needed is the Governor and General Assembly leadership to agree on all the underlying causes of higher electric bills and then pursue short term and long-term solutions.

On the question of more nuclear power plants in Maryland, the answer is — probably yes, but not a given, and most certainly, not soon. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Next month is National Kidney Month.

According to information posted on the National Kidney Foundation website, thirty-seven million adults in America have chronic kidney disease.

Ninety percent don’t know they have it.

Approximately seven hundred and fifty thousand individuals have irreversible kidney failure that requires regular dialysis or a kidney transplant just to survive.

Almost one hundred thousand of those critically ill individuals are on transplant waitlists.

The average wait times for a transplant range from three to seven years, depending on where the patient lives.

For some, that wait is ultimately futile.

The Kidney Foundation reports that only one in five on the waitlist receive a kidney transplant every year and every day an average of ten people who need a kidney transplant die.

Until recently, I had no more than a vague awareness of the tremendous need for kidney donors.

The catalyst for learning more about this matter resulted from a chance encounter at a recent meet-and-greet event.

While chatting with another event attendee, I noticed she was wearing one of the ubiquitous “ribbon pins” that are used by many to express support for countless causes.

The color of her ribbon was green.

I had never seen that color before, so I asked her about it.

She smiled and said quietly, “I’m an organ donor. I donated one of my kidneys”.

I told her I knew two individuals who were kidney transplant recipients, but never met a live-organ donor.

I asked her if she donated it to an immediate family member, a relative, a close friend or someone she knew.

Her unexpected reply shocked me.

She said, ” I have no idea who received it. I never asked and they never told me. All I know is someone desperately needed lifesaving help and I wanted to provide it.”

I finally recovered enough to state the obvious — her selfless actions were a wonderful thing for her to do.

It was much more than wonderful thing to do but at that time more appropriate words escaped me.

I finally followed up with telling her I was glad I saw and asked about her ribbon.

She smiled again and said, ‘‘I too am glad you saw it and asked about it. I don’t wear it for recognition or compliments. I wear it as a way to raise awareness of how important it is to be a live organ donor and the wonderful lifelong feeling it provides on making a real difference in this world.”

Before we went our separate ways, she said thank you for listening and learning more about this cause.

I have not seen her or talked to her again, nor do I know who she is.

I will never forget her and her story.

I have since learned that green ribbons are not just for live kidney donors.

They can be worn by anyone as a symbol of support for those giving hope and sharing life through organ, eye, and tissue donations.

I realize now, the best way to honor the green ribbon wearer I met is to share her story in this commentary.

I know recognizing her by name is not possible, nor is it the proper thing to do.

She already told me she was not seeking recognition or compliments for her compassion and extraordinary gift.

This commentary is not a call to action to become a live organ donor. I have no doubt I ever will and respect all those who choose not to do so.

My hope is this commentary will help advance her goal of raising awareness of the need for live organ donors and the wonderful feeling it provides her in making a real difference in this world.

All of us can do that by simply remembering and perhaps even telling her story to others.

We can also watch for those wearing green ribbons.

When we do see them, I suggest we take a minute to listen to their unique story, whatever it may be.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.