The Geopolitical Irony: Funding a Freedom We’re Losing at Home

dominiquemellow.com

There is a growing, uncomfortable paradox in American foreign policy that has nothing to do with tanks or missiles and everything to do with the doctor’s office. As of 2026, the United States continues to provide a massive financial bedrock for Israel—averaging roughly $333 million per month in base security assistance—while the two nations move in opposite directions on the most fundamental of human rights: bodily autonomy.

The contrast is nothing short of jarring. In the post-Roe United States, your access to reproductive healthcare is a lottery based on your zip code. In nearly two dozen states, abortion is a criminalized act, a legal minefield that has turned doctors into defendants and patients into fugitives.

Yet, the very same U.S. government that allows these domestic restrictions to flourish is the primary financier of a nation where abortion is treated as a subsidized medical right.

In Israel, the "termination committee" system—once a bureaucratic hurdle—has evolved into a streamlined, high-tech facilitator. With an approval rate of 99.5%, the Israeli government has signaled that it trusts women to make their own choices. Since the 2022 reforms, Israeli women can apply for abortions online and receive medication at local clinics. Perhaps most striking is the financial aspect: while many Americans struggle to afford basic reproductive care, Israel’s national "health basket" provides abortions free of charge for a wide swath of the population.

This creates a staggering disconnect in American tax dollars. Under the Hyde Amendment, the U.S. federal government is strictly prohibited from funding abortions at home. Yet, by providing billions in military and economic support to Israel, the U.S. effectively bolsters the budget of a state that provides universal, state-funded abortion access.

We are, in effect, subsidizing a level of socialized medical freedom in the Middle East that we are actively stripping away from citizens in the Midwest.

As we look at the $4 billion annual aid package for 2026, we have to reckon with this irony. The U.S. is exporting "security" to a partner whose internal laws do not meet the restrictive standards currently being championed by a large portion of the American political establishment. Israel has managed to balance a complex religious landscape with a pragmatic, science-based approach to healthcare.

The question for American taxpayers isn't just about where the money goes, but why the "freedom" we fund abroad is so increasingly unavailable at home.

dominiquemellow.com

One thing I can’t wrap my head around is how the United States manages its priorities. They are spending an estimated two billion dollars every single day on the war in Iran, and now lawmakers are asking for another $200 billion to keep it going.

At the same time, Hegseth’s department has burned through $5.9 billion on IT and telecommunications — including $3.5 billion just for cable TV and tech support — and set a new record with $6.6 billion in purchases from foreign vendors.

But the real jaw-dropper is the spending spree on luxury foods. In September 2025 alone, more than $25 million went toward high‑end meals:

• $15.1 million on ribeye steak

• $1 million on salmon

• $6.9 million on lobster tail

• $2 million on Alaskan king crab

All of this is happening while the government claims it can’t afford to properly fund TSA staffing, healthcare, or countless other basic services that millions of Americans rely on. The contrast is staggering — and it raises a simple question: how can a nation that finds billions for war and luxury dining somehow come up short when it comes to its own people?

Decency

dominiquemellow.com

I am someone who strives to measure life by the standard of decency. Yet, after years of attempting to find even a semblance of decency in Donald Trump’s words and actions, I must admit that the effort is futile. He is not deserving of my attention or my attempts to understand him. In my experience, he is the most dishonest person I have ever encountered, and I would add that anyone who accepts his statements at face value is profoundly foolish.

Britain’s Convenient Neutrality Is No Neutrality at All

dominiquemellow.com

There is a particular kind of political posture that seeks moral credit without paying the moral cost. The United Kingdom appears, once again, to have perfected it.

Faced with the escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, Britain has chosen what it presents as a cautious middle path: it has refrained from openly joining offensive military operations, while simultaneously allowing American forces to use British bases to conduct them.

This is not neutrality. It is participation by proxy.

By granting access to installations such as RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall, the British government is not merely offering logistical convenience—it is enabling military action. War does not begin at the moment a pilot crosses into hostile airspace; it begins where the infrastructure that makes that mission possible is provided, approved, and sustained.

To claim distance from the consequences while facilitating their execution is, at best, a contradiction. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability.

The government may argue that this arrangement reflects long-standing defence agreements with the United States, or that it preserves strategic alliances in a volatile world. Those points are not without merit. But they do not resolve the central tension: if a war is deemed too dangerous, too escalatory, or too politically fraught to join, then on what ethical basis is it acceptable to assist it from the sidelines?

This dual posture—refusal in principle, support in practice—creates the illusion of restraint while preserving the substance of involvement. It allows Britain to speak the language of de-escalation in public while contributing, however indirectly, to escalation in reality.

Meanwhile, other countries have made clearer choices. Some have declined participation outright, unwilling to risk entanglement in a widening conflict. Others have aligned openly with one side or the other. These positions may be debated, even criticised, but they possess a clarity that Britain’s stance lacks.

Clarity matters. Especially in war.

Because the consequences are not abstract. Civilian casualties in Iran continue to mount, and the risk of a broader regional confrontation grows by the day. In such circumstances, ambiguity is not prudence—it is evasion.

Britain cannot indefinitely occupy this middle ground. If it believes the conflict is justified, it should say so and accept the responsibilities that follow. If it believes the conflict is misguided, it should withhold not only its troops, but also the means that make those operations possible.

Anything else is a carefully managed contradiction.

And contradictions, in times of war, have a way of collapsing under the weight of reality.

Generals, conspiracies, and broken oaths

dominiquemellow.com

 A nation’s people must be able to trust their armed forces—above all, their generals. In the case of the United States, if military leaders were to carry out unlawful orders or engage in a war driven by political pressure—such as a decision influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu persuading Donald Trump to align with Israel against Iran—then those generals would share responsibility. They would be complicit in the problem and in failing to uphold their oath to the Constitution.
While a nation may, at times, lose confidence in its president, losing trust in its generals signals something far more serious—a deep and troubling erosion at the core of the state.

The deficit of intelligence

Allow me to recall what Pete Hegseth recently said: “The only thing preventing transit through the Strait of Hormuz right now is Iran shooting at ships. It is open for transit—if Iran were not doing that.” One is left wondering how such reasoning can be presented with a straight face, as it effectively states that the route is “open” except for the very condition that renders it unusable. How stupid can he possibly be?

Troubling words on age in politics

During a speech on 9 March 2026 at the Republican Members Issues Conference, Donald Trump delivered a line that quickly circulated across media and social platforms: “Your daughter, she has to be of age, like above 6 years old.”

Even if intended in the narrow context of discussing voter identification rules, the wording was deeply troubling. The phrase “of age” has a clear and widely understood meaning in English: it refers to legal adulthood. Placing it next to “above 6 years old” produces a disturbing juxtaposition that no responsible public figure should casually make, particularly when referring to children.

Political leaders carry a responsibility not only for the policies they promote but also for the language they use. Words matter. When the language surrounding children becomes careless or ambiguous, it invites confusion at best and outrage at worst. In public life, precision is not a luxury—it is an obligation.

This episode illustrates a broader problem that has come to define Trump’s political style: rhetoric delivered with little regard for clarity, context, or consequence. Supporters may dismiss the remark as a verbal slip, but the pattern of careless phrasing from someone occupying the highest office in the United States should concern anyone who values responsible leadership.

A president’s words shape public discourse. They set the tone for the country and often echo far beyond the moment they are spoken. That is precisely why those words must be chosen with care. When they are not, the damage is immediate—and entirely avoidable.