Is the president less scary now?

The president’s dark strength has been the ability to terrorize everyone and particularly all members of the Republican Congress. 

After the recent MAGA and Trump repudiation, that fear might be seriously eroded as the Senate Republicans don’t fear him as much following the 2026 midterms, where Democrats flipped control of both chambers of Congress to secure both a Senate and House majority. 

This already began some time ago when Senate Republicans—led by figures like Senate Majority Leader John Thune—have increasingly clashed with Trump over strategy, executive appointments, and legislative priorities. 

For instance, Thune and other leaders repeatedly refused Trump's demands to abolish the legislative filibuster. Following the 2026 midterm sweep, prominent Republicans and party operatives openly pinned the party's congressional losses and economic/foreign policy liabilities (such as the Iran war and rising fuel costs) directly on Trump and his second-term administration. 

Trump's swayed over Senate Republicans hit a second-term low as lawmakers balked at controversial administration funding requests—like his $1.8 billion fund the January 6 individuals and security funding for a White House ballroom—while some broke ranks on key votes like ending the Iran war. 

Today, as detailed by the Associated Press, high-profile Republicans have publicly described the election outcome as a "reckoning" and a "Watergate-level repudiation," with little consensus or fear stopping them from critiquing the direction of the party. 

Let’s hope this not just holds, but amplifies as some GOP Congress Members will be looking at recovering a modicum of “virginity” if they plan to survive in the US political universe. Another “we’ll see”!

Trump’s never ending surprises…

After having indicated that he would “work” with Democrats (with obviously an overt threat of a flood of vetoes), Trump appointed Stephen Miller as his White House chief of staff, signaling an aggressive doubling-down on his core MAGA and immigration policies following his crushing losses in the 2026 midterm elections. 

The man loves loyal supporters of his, and Miller the perfect incarnation of C. Montgomery Burns, the bad guy from The Simpsons, has been with him from day one in 2016. Following the GOP's midterm electoral rout, Trump conveniently “forgot” to follow a potentially more moderate posture to embrace a hardline, combative approach, in picking Miller for Wiles’ job as an ideological sidekick who believes in maximalist executive power. 

As the primary architect of Trump's aggressive deportation and border crackdowns, Miller represents the core populist and nationalist platform of MAGA that Trump wants to push forward during his final two years in office, despite criticism from some congressional Republicans and business leaders. 

The comparison between Stephen Miller and C. Burns from The Simpsons is a long-running pop culture joke based on physical appearance, facial expressions, and intense, severe mean demeanor. As Trump loses some of his sting, Miller will be the perfect new “Great Satan” that scares the bejesus out of all of us. We’ll see!

France’s presidential wildcard? (Part Two)

Again, I’m speculating that, in view of the current French political mess, it might not be totally out of place to see Christine Lagarde running for president next April. Although she’s repeatedly stated throughout 2026 that she was "not a candidate for anything," her own remarks and the backdrop of the ongoing crisis suggest a figure intent on exerting influence within the national political debate. 

In announcing her early departure from the ECB, Lagarde explicitly cited the obligation of neutrality that had prevented her from weighing in on major political issues. She indicated a desire to regain her "freedom of speech and expression" in order to defend European principles—implicitly targeting the rise of the Marine Le Pen’s “Rassemblement National” (National Rally). Also, France is now weathering a financial storm, with public debt approaching 120% of GDP and borrowing costs (on 10-year French government bonds, or OATs) hovering near 5%. 

By leaving the ECB in February, she avoids the untenable position of having to manage a potential default or bailout of her own country from Frankfurt. Indeed, she has firmly stated that "the solution to France's debt problems lies in Paris, not at the ECB." As a "wild card" candidate Lagarde would be a rallying figure for the centrist, pro-Macron camp that has struggled to find a natural leader capable of standing to Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. 

Christine Lagarde would tick many boxes as having an undisputed international stature as a former French Minister of the Economy, former head of the IMF, and current President of the ECB, she would embody the highest level of economic expertise at a time of fiscal crisis. Although she comes from the moderate right, she is perceived as being above the fray of traditional party politics. Public opinion polls consistently rank her among the most well-regarded public figures in France. 

As I discussed in my previous blog, she has a few skeletons in her closet and her image of technocratic elite with her highly international profile, closely tied to global financial institutions like the IMF and the ECB, could alienate a segment of the electorate, especially in a tense social climate marked by significant unrest. 

Obviously, lacking a political organization or "war machine", launching a campaign weeks before the April 2027 election might be insurmountable unless she is able “sell” or assuage long-established political figures like Édouard Philippe, Gabriel Attal, or Bruno Retailleau to step aside and support her as the “savior” of what might be a doomed political outcome. 

As expected, both the LFI (La France Insoumise) and the RN (Rassemblement National) immediately denounced her early resignation from the ECB as a strategic maneuver. They allege it was orchestrated in coordination with Emmanuel Macron to let him appoint a successor at the ECB before the end of his own presidential term, a move they see as a sign of disrespect toward the will of the French electorate. 

In summary, if Christine Lagarde is not (yet) an official candidate for the presidential election, her breaking free from the ECB job has deliberately positioned her as an essential moral and technical authority. Whether she emerges as a fallback candidate for the embattled political center or acts as a major influencer in the debate to block the extremes, she might be a key figure in France over the coming months. Let’s see what develops...

France’s presidential wildcard? (Part One)

When I see what goes on in France, I obviously wonder if Christianne Lagarde couldn’t become the “wild card”, or a centrist alternative in the face of France’s political and budgetary crisis, following her surprise announcement in late October 2026 that she would step down as President of the European Central Bank (ECB) on February 7, 2027—nine months before the end of her original term and just ahead of the April 2027 presidential election. 

Coincidence? Calculation? Your guess is as good as mine. Without questions, Christine Lagarde enjoys a highly respected international reputation, but her past in the French domestic politics closet contains several significant "skeletons" that political rivals could weaponize if she were to pursue a presidential bid. 

Her primary political baggage stems from her time as France’s Minister of the Economy, Finance, and Industry (2007–2011) under President Nicolas Sarkozy, alongside structural criticisms of her political identity. 

It starts with the Bernard Tapie’s negligence conviction by a special French court in December 2016. In 2007, Lagarde approved sending a long-running, multi-million-euro legal dispute between the state and controversial tycoon Bernard Tapie to a private arbitration panel rather than letting it proceed through the public courts. 

Tapie, my perennial “Bête Noire” was a flamboyant businessman who – when it suited him – was a vocal supporter of Nicolas Sarkozy, and had claimed he was defrauded by the state-owned bank Crédit Lyonnais during the 1993 sale of his stake in Adidas. In 2008, the private panel awarded Tapie a staggering €404 million in public funds (including €45 million in moral damages). Against the explicit warnings of her own ministry advisors, Lagarde decided not to appeal or challenge the massive payout. 

The arbitration award was later quashed by French courts as fraudulent and rigged. But in 2016, the Cour de Justice de la République (CJR), a special court that tries government ministers, found Lagarde guilty of "grave negligence". The court ruled that her hasty actions and failure to appeal showed an unpardonable lack of vigilance with taxpayer money. Though the court spared her from prison time or a fine due to her international standing, a "guilty" verdict for mismanaging public funds is an easy target for populist opponents. 

The left (LFI) and far-right (RN) would continue to paint her as a symbol of an unaccountable elite. The fallout from the Tapie case connects directly to a broader narrative used against her in France: that she is a creature of crony capitalism and acted under political pressure from Sarkozy to favor a wealthy political ally. For an electorate highly sensitive to economic inequality and the privileges of the ruling class, this remains a huge liability. 

Finally, as a former Finance Minister under Sarkozy and a chief architect of Eurozone policy, Lagarde cannot easily distance herself from France's current fiscal crisis. Some will also argue that a person who presided over early iterations of France’s deficit spending—and who has spent years lecturing nations from Washington and Frankfurt about fiscal discipline—lacks the credibility to solve the crisis at home. 

In a next blog we’ll see how she could manage to wiggle her way into the next French presidential election...

Why do we give up so easily ? (Part Two)

It’s clear that over the years we change, have different needs, develop new outlooks and with experience, accumulate much more wisdom too. We eventually learn to cope and deal differently with obstacles, impatience, unfamiliarity and a wide variety of pains or ordeals. We also learn that no situation is ever similar. 

We first do things for reasons that are not always important and valid and often this pushes us into dead ends that we couldn’t have imagined because we lacked imagination and a broader life experience. This observations lead to three particularly interesting reflections. First is all about persistence versus stubbornness. 

Knowing when to persevere and when to change direction is difficult to establish and to perceive. Giving up is not always a failure; sometimes it’s also how we acquire the wisdom that will light our path down the road. Then, there’s the undeniable role of accumulated experience as every time we overcome a difficult situation, we add to our personal database while building a little more confidence in our ability to face the next important decision along with its own challenges. 

To conclude, there’s the advantage of getting older and becoming increasingly more resourceful. It could be that one of the unexpected gifts of aging is that we become less frightened by temporary discomfort because we’ve seen enough of life to know that difficult periods don’t last forever and usually pass or become much more bearable. 

Finally, there is an idea that I think fits perfectly with my broader reflections on aging, curiosity and continuous self-improvement. Perhaps the real measure of personal growth isn't how many times we refuse to give up, but how much better we become at understanding when to hold on, when to let go, and when to start again. 

That intuitive flexibility is to me the real gem revealed as we discuss this subjet. It turns an essay about past indecision into something much more empowering: the possibility that we can keep learning how to persevere and get excellent at it, regardless of how many years we have already spent on this planet.

It's always with great interest that I scan my past experiences, hoping to uncover a little gem that I was unable to recognize or appreciate when certain events were actually taking place. More often than not, I come away with a treasure trove of insights that suddenly flash back into my consciousness, and I feel that this exercise is enormously beneficial. 

There is one particular trend that I have noticed, and it concerns how impatient, indecisive and unfocused I could be during many periods of my youth and early adulthood. 

I seemed to have a rather unfortunate tendency to give up on plans, projects and directions whenever pain, difficulty or discouragement began to cloud my judgment. My goals were there, but they were often too weakly defined and, more importantly, I was woefully unprepared for the obstacles standing between me and their achievement. 

Looking back, I realize that I spent far too much time navigating a world of doubt, fear and sometimes low self-esteem. I wanted to move forward, but I wasn't always equipped with the patience, determination or confidence to withstand the inevitable bumps along the way. 

Then I began asking myself: What was behind this behavior? Was it nature or nurture? Was I simply wired that way, or had my upbringing, environment and early experiences contributed to shaping these tendencies? I have often leaned toward the latter explanation, although I have never been entirely convinced. Perhaps the answer is more complicated than either explanation. 

Maybe it was a combination of temperament, circumstances, expectations and, above all, a lack of experience in dealing with adversity. I suspect that one of my biggest shortcomings was that I often fell in love with the destination without fully understanding the journey. I could picture what I wanted to accomplish, but I had little appreciation for the amount of patience, frustration, sacrifice and perseverance that might be required to get there. 

And isn't that one of the traps we frequently fall into? We confuse the difficulty of the journey with evidence that we have chosen the wrong destination. The moment things become uncomfortable, we start questioning our abilities, our decisions and sometimes even our original aspirations. 

Yet, difficulty is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong. Sometimes it is simply part of the admission price for getting somewhere worthwhile. One last question would be to see if over the years, age and experience make us respond in different ways to similar challenges. 

If this intrigues you, read the next blog…

Trump’s blindness and American exhaustion

For years, I’ve felt that Donald Trump’s leadership style — marked by bluster, self‑absorption, and an inability to imagine life from anyone else’s vantage point — was steering the country toward a breaking point. What finally caught up with him wasn’t just political opposition; it was the nation’s exhaustion. 

His presence saturated every corner of American life, every news cycle, every conversation, until people simply had enough. The recent election results were, in my view, a referendum on that fatigue. They were about him — unmistakably — and the public’s decision felt like a long‑overdue correction. It reconciled me with a majority of my fellow citizens who, at last, seemed to recognize the unsustainability of his approach. 

My own distrust of Trump began early, back in the 2015 primaries, when he chose insult over argument and spectacle over substance. I never believed in his claims of business genius, nor in the aura of infallibility he projected. His confidence often felt less like strength and more like a refusal to confront reality. 

The end of his first term offered a clear warning about the consequences of such leadership, and that warning only grew louder over time. Now, those in Congress and government members or big donors who aligned themselves with him face the difficult task of distancing themselves from the legacy they helped enable. 

Political stains are not easily washed away, especially when they come from years of enabling a leader whose style rewarded loyalty over judgment. I’ve always had a simple test for leadership: Would I trust this person to run my business? Even in 2015, the answer for Trump was an unequivocal no. 

Leadership requires persuasion, steadiness, and the ability to bring people along — qualities captured in the old saying that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. That wisdom feels more relevant than ever.