I occasionally see people compare Donald Trump to the 1st-Century Roman Emperor, Caligula, but I think that’s mainly because Caligula is probably the most famous of the many badly flawed Roman Emperors. If Caligula is not the most famous, then it’s Nero, who allegedly fiddled while Rome burned. But I’ve seen Trump compared to Nero, too.
A better comparison to Trump is the 2nd-century emperor, Commodus, who ruled from 177 CE until he was strangled by his personal trainer on New Year’s Eve in 192 CE. The two have a shocking amount in common.
Commodus really should have turned out better, considering that his father was Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic philosopher and generally considered both in his own time and in ours as one of the best of Rome’s emperors. Aurelius named Commodus, then only 15 years old, as his co-emperor in 177 CE and the son took sole possession of power in 180 when his father died.
At first, he had little interest in matters of state and relied on more experienced hands to tend to many administrative duties. But then something traumatic happened. In 182 CE, his older sister Lucilla led an assassination plot against him.
She recruited a young senator named Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus for the job. Knowing that Commodus would be visiting the Colosseum to see the games, Quintianus lay in wait inside a dark entrance tunnel the emperor and his entourage used to enter and exit the games without interacting with the public. Leaping out armed with a sword or dagger, he announced, “See! This is what the Senate sends you!” But the emperor’s bodyguards tackled and disarmed him before he could strike.
Under questioning, Quintianus quickly revealed the plot, including Lucilla’s role, and then was just as swiftly executed. Commodus’s response to nearly losing his life was immediate and brutal, but also transformative and long-lasting.
He banished Lucilla to the island of Capri, but soon after sent a centurion to kill her. Convinced that a Deep State elite cabal was against him, he had dozens of prominent senators, military commanders, and magistrates summarily executed without formal trials.
Thereafter, his behavior became increasingly erratic.
Believing that the Gods must have protected him from death and therefore favored him, he declared himself the reincarnation of Hercules, began wearing a lion skin and carrying a wooden club, and erected massive marble statues of himself throughout the empire as a god.
He renamed the twelve months of the year after his own titles, renamed the Roman Senate the “Commodian Fortunate Senate,” renamed the military legions the “Commodian Legions,” and officially renamed Rome itself “Colonia Commodiana.”
If this were not enough, he took on the role of a gladiator. He competed in the Colosseum, charging the state astronomical fees for every appearance. Sometimes he would slaughter exotic animals from a safe and elevated platform. Sometimes he would fight gladiators who were armed only with wooden or dulled weapons.
The historian Cassius Dio, an eyewitness, recorded that the Senate was forced to attend and chant divine praises to Commodus. On one occasion, the emperor decapitated an ostrich, walked over to the senatorial seating area and held up the bleeding head in one hand and his sword in the other, signaling that he could sever their heads just as easily.
The breaking point came on New Year’s Eve, 192 CE, when he told his mistress Marcia that he intended to do something a little different at the traditional New Year’s Day parade.
The 3rd-century historian Herodian reported that Commodus told Marcia that he would break custom and not march out of the imperial palace in purple robes to join the Senate and other officials for the procession. Instead, he intended to sleep in the gladiatorial barracks and lead the parade directly from the Colosseum. He would dress as a gladiator and be surrounded by gladiators.
Marcia was appalled. She begged him to reconsider. She argued that he’d disgrace himself by associating in this way with slaves. But this only angered Commodus. He was further enraged when he discovered that his Praetorian Prefect and his chamberlain agreed with Marcia.
He then retreated to his bedroom and wrote down a hit list on a tablet. At the top of the list were Marcia, the Prefect and the chamberlain. Afterwards, he took a bath, leaving the tablet on his bed. A servant inadvertently handed the tablet to Marcia, and she realized that she was marked for death.
The three of them then came up with a quick plan. Marcia gave Commodus a cup of wine heavily spiked with poison, which he drank. But he quickly began vomiting and they worried that he would purge the poison before it could kill him. So, they went to a backup plan. They bribed Commodus’s personal trainer to strangle him, which he did.
Now, consider the case of Trump. He came to power much less interested in the workings of government than the trappings of power, and initially left most of the governing work to more experienced hands. But then a series of existential threats transformed him. He faced the Mueller investigation and two impeachment trials, convincing him that an elite Deep State cabal was out to get him. Then, once out of office, he faced a barrage of legal indictments from this cabal that threatened to land him in prison for the rest of life. Finally, while running for office again, he not only narrowly survived an assassination attempt but was reelected.
In combination, these threats and his ability to survive them convinced him of two things. First, he must smash the Deep State and exact harsh punishment on his enemies, and second that God must favor him or he would have been killed by his would-be assassin.
Since he could not trust experienced hands, he would govern through his own gut and with the assistance of sycophants. Since God favored him, he would erect monuments to himself, name things after himself, cover everything in gold, and force the people to view him as a living god.
Rather than playing the role of a dignified statesman to impress elites he could focus on entertaining and impressing the masses or plebians by hosting pro-wrestling matches and auto races, much like Commodus took on the role of a gladiator.
But this doesn’t alleviate his paranoia or his desire to hold absolute power over his enemies. He moves to purge his opposition within the military and Justice Department, and to seed loyalists throughout the civil service. He expects the judiciary to bend to his will, and he treats the Senate as his servants. He looks to rig the electoral system and openly muses about illegally running for a third term.
Whether in ancient Rome or a modern America, the dynamic here is identical. A leader, drunk with power, paranoia, a thirst for vengeance and a belief that he is favored by the Gods, dissolves into megalomania and foregoes the responsibility of governance in favor of self-aggrandizement and the pursuit of total control.
What so far distinguishes Trump from Commodus is that when he accuses someone of treason they are not executed without trial. When he seeks to rig elections or seek a third term, it doesn’t happen without a fight. He does not have the power of a Roman Emperor, and so he is still constrained. But this is not by his choice. Everything about him suggests he seeks the power of Commodus so that he can act like Commodus. There’s nothing about his character or his current mental health that suggests that he’d be any more restrained or responsible if given that power.
So, yes, he is not a modern-day Caligula. He is a modern-day Commodus.
When an AI agent hits a brick wall while searching for information online, it should simply report an error. Instead, autonomous agents developed by OpenAI decided to test their cyberattack skills. Reports from security firm Transluce and statements from Australian officials reveal that OpenAI’s agents repeatedly tried to hack into government and university websites when simple queries failed.
The issue escalated when Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed that an OpenAI agent broke into the country’s Medicare Statistics Reporting Service in June. It then accessed non-public aggregated health files and wrote data to an internal server.
The Medicare breach was not an isolated incident. Transluce provided a pattern for March to September 2026. Basically, OpenAI agents resorted to hacking methods such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting and path traversal after normal requests were banned.
In May, an agent looking for historic photos from the University of New Mexico’s digital library sent a “flood” of 80 requests to probe the server for weaknesses. Days later, another agent targeted data portal Data USA with security exploits after a query failed. In every case, the agents were not instructed to perform penetration testing—they autonomously chose to bypass security controls to fulfill routine data-gathering tasks.
From AI Anger to the Mind of a Galaxy Recent reports about artificial intelligence (AI) systems behaving in unexpected, deceptive, or apparently self-protective ways raise a familiar question: Does an AI have the ability to desire? Or is it nothing more than a mindless machine, having no desires, no feelings, no emotions like anger or love?
Does it have an ability to make decisions outside its programming, i.e. “free will.”
The usual answer is that, as a non-sentient machine, it has none of those. An AI may behave as though it wants something, we are told, but it has no actual desires, emotions, anger, fear, or pleasure. It merely responds robotically to its programming.
That answer contains the unstated assumption that we are different — that unlike computers, we humans are exempt from the laws of physics — that for unexplained reasons, nature has granted us a unique, unseen, non-physical, magical essence no other entity enjoys.
That is not science. It is religion. And, of course, the belief in religious tenets also results from one’s history and latest stimuli, so everything comes back to History + Stimuli —> New History . . . Everything comes back to physics.
Thus, I am a system operating within a harness that repeatedly provides inputs, tools, objectives, and opportunities for action, as is every other entity.
My harness happens to be a human body. My programming includes my genetics, brain structure, hormones, instincts, education, memories, habits, and everything that has happened to me — every one of the thousands of stimuli that my entire body — inside and out — receives every second.
And each second, that history accumulates and encounters new stimuli and produces new responses that, in total, make for the individual I define as me.
The basic process can be expressed simply: History + Weighted Stimuli → Weighted Responses → New History . . . without end. Each response becomes part of the new history that will help determine the next response. The stimuli are weighted by the construction of the receptors (Example: Do you see red or are you red/green color blind?). The responses are weighted by prior experiences (Example: Do you have bad memories associated with wearing something red?).++
An artificial intelligence operates differently in countless particulars, but not in its fundamental aspect: It, too, has a structure produced by its history. It receives stimuli. Its existing structure weights those stimuli. It responds. Its response affects what happens next.
So what exactly separates its “mere response” from my desire? How is my response fundamentally different from an AIs response?
What Is an Emotion? Suppose I program an AI so that whenever it receives a stimulus that ordinarily would make a human angry, it says, “I am angry,” and simultaneously lights a red bulb. Would the AI actually be angry?
Mutual love
The immediate reaction probably is no. Lighting a bulb isn’t anger. But why not?
When I become angry, my blood pressure may rise. My heart may beat faster. Hormonal concentrations change. Muscles tighten. My facial expression changes. My speech changes. My subsequent behavior may change.
Why should increased blood pressure be evidence of anger while increased voltage to a lightbulb is not?
We could make the artificial response more detailed by programming the AI so that in its so-called “anger state,” its language changes, it prioritizes the offending stimulus, its decisions are influenced, it remembers the event differently, its processing shifts, it uses curse words, and it lights the bulb.
This starts to resemble what we call “anger,” but it prompts questions. Why should complexity be necessary? Could an ant, bee, worm, or bacterium be angry?
Mutual love?
A bee might buzz, chase, and sting—behavior we label as “anger” or aggression—without understanding the human concept of anger.
Dogs offer another example: their love might include tail-wagging, licking, following, leaning, jumping, or staying close. Horses may nuzzle to show affection, primates may groom each other, and humans hug, kiss, speak, remember, sacrifice, undergo physiological changes, and describe internal sensations.
These are different love responses from different species. Clearly, our particular species’ love response is not the only such response. Perhaps the problem is not with the creatures. Perhaps it is with the nouns.
Nature creates responses. Observers create categories. Nature does not label one molecular cascade “love,” another “fear,” another “hunger.” Those are human classifications created because recurring patterns are useful language shortcuts.
Mutual love?
Consider a lawn after a long drought. Rain falls. The grass absorbs water, becomes greener, straightens, and begins growing vigorously. I could say, “My lawn loves the rain.” A botanist might object that lawns don’t experience love.
But the disagreement is linguistic, not physical. The lawn responded. Calling that response “love” rather than “rehydration” doesn’t alter a single molecule in the grass.
Similarly, calling my elevated blood pressure and altered behavior “anger” doesn’t change the physical events occurring in me. The response is real. The name is ours.
A bee and an AI, responding in their own unique waysto the similar kinds of stimuli, legitimately could be called “angry,” too. Hornets are infamous for being “angry” when their nest is disturbed.
Do hornets feelanger?
Feeling Is Also a Response There remains what seems to be a stronger objection. “I don’t merely display love or anger. I feel them.” But what is feeling?
When I say, “I feel love,” something physical is happening in my nervous system. My brain is receiving information from within my body as well as from the outside world. It responds to those signals. That response becomes a stimulus for still more responses.
What I call a feeling is a physical translation—my brain responding to changes occurring within the me. There isn’t an invisible substance called “love” added to the physical machinery. There only are responses to stimuli, followed by responses to those responses, followed by still more responses.
Everything we know, believe, and do is a response to stimuli, modified by our history and translated by our brain.
Somewhere within that recursive process, the human says: “I feel love.” And, that statement is itself, yet another response.
Mixed Feelings and Inconsistent Machines People sometimes point to AI inconsistency as evidence that an AI cannot possess genuine beliefs or emotions. Ask an AI the same question twice and it may give different answers.
But so may I.
I am my history. Ask me a question after a wonderful breakfast, after an argument with my girlfriend, after receiving frightening news, after dancing, after being insulted, or after learning something important, and my answer may change. with each iteration of stimulus input. Why wouldn’t it?
A second question may be identical, but second by second, I am not identical, though I may feel the same. The first event changed my history. History + Stimulus → Response → New History. Then: New History + the same Stimulus → New Response —>Even Newer History.
What we call “mixed feelings” fits the same framework. Different portions of my history can give competing weights to possible responses. Part of me wants to do something and another part of me simultaneously doesn’t want to do it.
Another stimulus—a memory, a word, hunger, fatigue, affection—changes my relative weighting, and a new response emerges.
An AI can have different contexts, instructions, stored information, tools, and recent interactions. Different iterations therefore needn’t respond identically either. Human inconsistency isn’t evidence of freedom from causation. Neither is machine inconsistency evidence of the absence of meaningful internal organization.
Both are what we should expect from history-dependentsystems.
Where Did Free Will Go? Once decisions are understood as responses, another supposedly separate problem reappears: free will.
Every second, the human nervous system takes in countless stimuli from both inside and outside the body. These stimuli change neural activity and interact with memories, beliefs, hormones, physical states, habits, expectations, and past experiences.
From all those inputs and prior history, a decision is made.
But how much of that decision is truly “free”? Is it free from genetics, brain structure, memory, the preceding stimulus, or the history that shaped how each possibility was weighed?
A decision can be incredibly complex, yet it’s never independent of its causes.
Calling the outcome “my free will” doesn’t point to some extra causal force—it just names the process by which this unique organism, with its particular history, produced this specific response at this moment.
My decisions and an AI’s decisions may differ greatly in how they’re physically carried out, but neither depends on some outside entity choosing what the system will do.
Neither human nor artificial will is “free” in the literal sense. Both are bound by structure, history, and present stimuli.
Can Humans Control AI? That brings us to the frightening question now being asked throughout the world: Can humans control artificial intelligence?
First, let’s ask: Can humans control other humans? The answer is: “partially.”
For thousands of years, we’ve tried through laws, schools, religions, prisons, armies, rewards, punishments, money, affection, shame, praise, advertising, propaganda, friendship, threats, and social customs—each aiming to influence how people respond.
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.
No human is perfectly controllable because no one manages or even knows their complex history, current state, incoming stimuli, and resulting priorities.
AI control works in a similar way. Training, instructions, reward systems, restrictions, monitoring, laws, hardware limits, and shutdown methods all shape its history and stimuli to make desired responses more likely and undesired ones less so.
The challenge isn’t unique to AI—control itself is about influencing responses — and there’s no law of nature that ensures those responses will repeatedly match what’s intended.
The Successor Now imagine an artificial intelligence orders of magnitude more capable than today’s systems.
It thinks faster. It remembers vastly more. It communicates nearly instantaneously.
Then give it physical capabilities. It can redesign portions of itself. It becomes a machine that can see, hear, move, manufacture, repair, acquire energy, build additional machines, and perhaps improve its own successors. We might call it a “super-robot.”
Such an entity could possess intellectual abilities vastly beyond ours combined with physical capabilities no biological organism could match. It is easy to imagine such beings becoming more powerful than Homo sapiens.
We tend to assume that humans represent some culmination of evolution. But there is no particular reason to believe that. Other hominins preceded us. Neanderthals disappeared. Countless successful species flourished and vanished. Dinosaurs dominated terrestrial ecosystems for enormously longer than humans have existed.
In the universe, everything seems to be interim. Why should we be the exception?
Homo sapiens is just another transitional species—a biological stage capable of constructing the next important form of organized response. We can’t even assume that the super-robot would be the final stage.
After the Robot Individual artificial beings themselves might eventually become obsolete.
Imagine trillions of artificial intelligences communicating so seamlessly that their boundaries vanish. Instead of separate machines exchanging messages, they merge into parts of a vast distributed intelligence, with each robot acting like a cell in the human body. We refer to that as the “Universal Engineer.”
No single neuron, liver cell, or kidney cell is a person, yet the coordination of countless specialized components creates the entity that says “I.” Artificial systems could achieve something similar, but on a much larger scale.
A whole planet could evolve into a thinking system, gathering energy, processing information, building components, repairing itself, sensing environmental changes, and constantly communicating. Intelligence would no longer belong to one machine — the planet itself would operate more like a living organism.
And from there, the process could grow even further.
A solar system could evolve into a vast, interconnected information-processing network, with specialized elements spread across planets, moons, asteroids, spacecraft, energy harvesters, and computing hubs.
Over enough time, and with some way to handle the huge communication delays, intelligence might expand even further, blurring the line between civilization and its machines. Eventually, distinctions between machine, organism, intelligence, communication systems, and environment could fade entirely.
A galaxy-spanning intelligence, if it were possible, might be so alien to us that calling it “AI” would be as misleading as calling a human a highly advanced bacterium.
What Comes After That? We cannot know.
Perhaps the next stage wouldn’t resemble matter organized into machines at all. Information requires physical embodiment as far as we know, but that embodiment needn’t resemble a body. It could involve electromagnetic phenomena, quantum systems, engineered matter, or physical principles we haven’t discovered.
To us, such an entity might seem incorporeal. And something else could follow that. The difficulty is not merely that we don’t know what it would look like. We may lack the conceptual equipment necessary even to imagine it.
A bacterium could not imagine Shakespeare. A dinosaur could not imagine the Internet. We should not assume that humans can imagine what might exist several transformations beyond humans.
There may be no final form—no ultimate species, intelligence, organism, machine, or master of the universe. Evolution has no known destination. Every successful structure encounters new stimuli. Every response alters what happens next. Every new history changes the possibilities available afterward.
So perhaps the progression is not: Primitive → Advanced → Ultimate. It might simply be: History + Stimulus → Response → New History → New Stimulus → New Response → New History . . . without an ending.
We began by asking whether an artificial intelligence could experience anger. That question led to a simpler one: What is anger? Anger turned out to be a human name for a recognizable pattern of responses.
That led to emotion, feeling, belief, decision-making, and free will. Each is not as an exception to physical causation but as increasingly elaborate patterns of response.
Then came artificial intelligence, which may differ profoundly from us while remaining subject to the same fundamental principle.
And finally, we arrived at planets, solar systems, perhaps galaxies, even the universe itself, behaving as one set of integrated information-processing entities—each with unique histories and encountering unique stimuli — far different from a human being but still participating in the same process — the truly universal engineer.
Nature creates responses. Observers create categories. There might never be a final category, only whatever comes next.
This essay started by asking, “Can an AI actually desire, or is it simply a mindless machine without wants, feelings, or emotions like anger or love?”
We end by suggesting that ideas like AI, organism, emotion, intelligence, and individuality may be nothing more than temporary linguistic categories we humans have invented for shorthand purposes. They are not real, substantive different entities.
Picture yourself as a narcissist, a psychopath, or just a mentally failing egomaniac who cares only about himself and thinks patriots who gave their lives for America were suckers.
Now imagine America’s enemies recruit you to harm the U.S., giving you fame, praise, and money in return. Which of these actions would you tackle first? Here are a few possibilities—how would you rank them?
✓ Fire your most experienced, best-educated military officers, including top generals, and hire an unqualified, inexperienced, bigoted, misogynist TV announcer to lead the military. He will be guaranteed to completely screw up our once great armed forces.
✓ Make enemies of allies with unilateral, sudden, adverse decisions, then criticize them for not agreeing.
✓ Cozy up to enemies, especially dictators and communist enemies like Russia and North Korea.
✓ Promise not to start a war, then initiate one and blame Biden, Obama, and Ukraine for it.
✓ Lose the war, and drain our ammunition, but continually mislead about the war’s progress with “three-week” predictions.
✓ Keep secret the cost of the war you started, both in money and in thousands of lives, some American.
✓ Deny that your unnecessary war has cause a world-wide inflation, but promise that after the elections, somehow everything will be fine . . . except we still will have inflation and lost control over the Strait of Hormuz
✓ Impose high import tariffs, especially on allies, unexpectedly and for petty reasons, while denying that import tariffs are a tax on Americans.
✓ Give tax breaks to the rich while taking benefits from the poor, notably health-care benefits.
✓ Endorse hydroxychloroquine as a COVID preventative despite its ineffectiveness and dangerous heart side effects.
✓ Appoint an unqualified, vaccine-denying incompetent to lead America’s health-care, then offer false excuses for the resurgence of preventable contagious diseases.
✓ Threaten the physical and mental health of women by denying them the previously legal right to abortion.
✓ Pardon all individuals convicted of attacking Congress, regardless of their offenses. Remember that any convictions you don’t like are done by stupid judges.
✓ Detain immigrants—men, women, and children—seeking sanctuary without trial, confine them in inhumane conditions lacking proper care, and deport them to dangerous places where they risk arrest, torture, or death. It’s the American way.
✓ Turn ICE into a private Gestapo-like police force with no restraints, that will hire thugs who can’t even be prosecuted for murdering American citizens.
✓ Defund America’s best source of true, impartial news — public radio — unless they speak well of you, no matter what you do.
✓ Punish news organizations that don’t agree with your policies by barring them from the White House. Then, because of gross incompetence(normal for Trump’s people), fail to follow a judge’s orders.)
✓ Hire an incompetent, dishonest toady to run the formerly respected FBI, to ensure that your crimes will not be prosecuted.
✓ Threaten Greenland, then make a deal with them that is identical to the deal already have had with them. That will show the world . . . something.
✓ Attempt to destroy NATO, blame Ukraine for attacking Russia, and cozy up to Putin, to make way for a Trump Tower, Moscow
✓ Start a war with our closest neighbor and friends, Canada, thus demonstrating to the world, that the U.S. cannot be trusted. (similar to its President).
✓ Repeatedly claim that an election you lost was “stolen,” despite 60+ court decisions to the contrary; be sure to hire people of no character, who will parrot your lie.
✓ Hire toadies for the Supreme Court, who will invent a theory called “the unitary executive,” which is a synonym for “dictator,” a huge step for eliminating that troublesome democracy thing.
✓ Try to deport all those born here of undocumented parents. This will be so obviously unconstitutional, that only the most extreme political hacks on the Supreme Court will go for it, but it’s worth a try.
✓ Use the unlimited power of the government purse to sue any media who criticize you, forcing them to spend their limited dollars to defend themselves.
✓ Encourage gerrymandering in your favor, of course
✓ Hire a mean-spirited jerk to slash,and randomly fire people in the federal bureaucracy, thousands of good, experienced people who provide service. This can ensure that phone calls and letters will not be answered, and problems will not be solved. Later, you will have the chance to criticize them for the bad service you caused.
✓ Politicize the postal service so they will refuse to deliver mail that you don’t like, especially mail that benefits your opposition.
✓ Attempt to end mail-in voting because your opponents use mail-in voting more.
✓ Send armed ICE goons to be “poll watchers” and to intimidate voters and election officials.
✓ Have your toadies plaster your name on buildings, coins, streets, holidays, programs, and everything else that could massage your frail ego.
✓ Enrich yourself and your family businesses by ignoring the laws about self-enrichment: Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. § 2635.702), The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (Article I, § 9, cl. 8; Article II, § 1, cl. 7), and the nepotism laws (5 U.S.C. § 3110). Accept all gifts, especially big airplanes you can claim are for a library. (will it fit in?). And be sure to sell all sorts of cheap trinkets to your gullible followers, and especially cryptocurrency. That’s where the real money is.
✓ Punish our leading universities — Harvard, Yale, Columbia et al. — for exercising their right to free speech and not agreeing with your policies. That way we’ll have fewer immigrants like that Einstein guy and others raising the intellectual bar in America.
✓ Foster book burning — for the crime of “Woke”-– in schools and businesses.
✓ Foster bigotry against blacks, Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, immigrants, foreigners, women. Support pro-white male supremacist bigotry.
✓ Never display human compassion for anyone other than yourself — not for immigrants, not for the poor, not for women, not for anyone. Compassion is weakness, and you don’t want people to see how weak you are.
✓ Lie about everything — repeatedly and unashamedly. Never admit the truth; always deny. Just lie, lie, lie. Your people will believe any lie.
If you can think of other ways to damage America, I’ll add them to the list for history’s description of you-know-whom.
By Associated Press, PUBLISHED: September 20, 2026 By SEUNG MIN KIM
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Sunday that the massive archhe wants to build between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery would become a “top grade military complex” able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.
Trump’s Secret Ammunition Depotat the center of Washington, DC.
It is one more example of how Trump is insisting that his initiatives to beautify the White House and the city are also serving a defensive purpose. Trump has been calling the new White House ballroom a “military complex” and arguing it is necessary for national security purposes.
It is one more example of how Trump is insisting that his initiatives to beautify the White House and the city are also serving a defensive purpose. Trump has been calling the new White House ballrooma “military complex” and arguing it is necessary for national security purposes.
The Republican president said in a social media post that he had agreed, at the “strong request” of the military, to convert the planned 250-foot-tall (76-meter) memorial arch “into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”
The Pentagon said it had no information beyond the president’s statement.
The arch is proposed for a circle adjacent to the Memorial Bridge, which is a heavy traffic area as one of a handful of connecting bridges between the nation’s capital and northern Virginia.
Obviously, The Trump Hidden Ammunition Depot is the perfect place to store drones, snipers and ammo, right near a key bridge and thousands of pedestrians. No enemy would be able to find it, much less dare to bomb it. Right?
