Most of us can remember at least a few troubling scenes from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: the mandatory love demanded for the spectral dictator Big Brother; the malleability of facts at the Ministry of Truth; or the ruling party’s memorably grim slogans, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.” But for me, the most disturbing image of all—and I first read the book in high school—was the “Two Minutes Hate,” aroused among the public by threatening images on giant video screens.

Within just 30 seconds, Orwell wrote, “A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.” As those moments of hate continued, what appeared was “the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched out of their seats.”

Finally, as “row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces… swam up to the screen” and brought those two minutes of Hate to their terrifying climax, the face of Big Brother appeared “full of power and mysterious calm,” prompting spectators to shout, “My Saviour!,” and to break into “a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!… B-B!’—over and over.”

In its totality, Trump’s vision is of a continental Fortress America, formed by annexing the northern lands of Canada and Greenland, while sealing off Mexico for ethnic reasons as a separate but subordinate state.

For, as Orwell explained, those people of Oceania were “at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia.” Officially, “Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia,” which “represented absolute evil.” Yet through some quirk of memory, the novel’s hero Winston “well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia.”

That was, in some fashion, Orwell’s ultimate horror: a world divided into three great continental blocs, with humanity held in thrall to omnipotent leaders like Big Brother through endless wars against an ever-changing enemy. Even though he published1984 nearly 80 years ago in 1948, just two years before he died, more than three quarters of a century later, in the age of U.S. President Donald Trump, his fictional fantasy is fast becoming an unsettling simulacrum of our current geopolitical reality and that couldn’t be eerier (at least to me).

A Tricontinental Strategy

Amid a torrent of confusing, often contradictory foreign policy pronouncements pouring forth almost daily from the Trump White House, the overall design of his de facto geopolitical strategy has taken shape with surprising speed. Instead of maintaining mutual-security alliances like NATO, President Trump seems to prefer a globe divided into three major regional blocs, each headed by an empowered leader like himself—with Russia dominating its European periphery, China paramount in Asia, and the United States controlling, in a version of fortress America, all of North America (including, of course, the Panama Canal). Reflecting what his defense secretary called a “loathing of European freeloading” and his administration’s visceral disdain for the European Union, Trump is pursuing that tricontinental strategy at the expense of the traditional trans-Atlantic alliance, embodied by NATO, that has been the foundation for American foreign policy since the start of the Cold War.

Trump’s desire for ultimate continental hegemony lends a certain geopolitical logic to his otherwise seemingly off-the-wall, quixotic overtures to claim Greenland as part of the United States, reclaim the Panama Canal, and make Canada “the 51st state.” On his sixth day in office, President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “I think Greenland will be worked out with us. I think we’re going to have it.” He then added, “I don’t know really what claim Denmark has to it. But it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen because it’s for protection of the free world.” After Vice President JD Vance made a flying visit to a remote U.S. military base in Greenland and claimed its people “ultimately will partner with the United States,” Trump insisted that he would never take military force “off the table” when it came to claiming the largest island on this planet.

Turning to his northern neighbor, Trump has repeatedly insisted that U.S. statehood would mean “the people of Canada would pay a much lower tax…They would have no military problems.” During his first weeks in office, he imposed a 25% duty on all imports from Canada and Mexico, which was quickly followed by a blizzard of similar tariffs that instantly sparked multiple trade wars with once-close allies. In response, Justin Trudeau, then Canada’s prime minister, whom Trump was already referring to as “governor” (as in the head of that 51st state), charged in an emotional speech that the American president wants “to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”

In his inaugural address last January, President Trump also complained that “the Panama Canal… has foolishly been given to the country of Panama after the United States… spent more money than ever spent on a project before and lost 38,000 lives in the building of the Panama Canal.” He added that “we have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken… And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China.” To a burst of applause, he insisted, “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.” No surprise then that, on his very first trip as secretary of state, Marco Rubio stormed into Panama City where he pressured its president, José Raúl Mulino, to placate Trump by withdrawing from Beijing’s global Belt and Road Initiative.

In its totality, Trump’s vision is of a continental Fortress America, formed by annexing the northern lands of Canada and Greenland, while sealing off Mexico for ethnic reasons as a separate but subordinate state. Then, sweeping aside what had long been a U.S. reliance on global multilateral defense pacts and, with the country’s Arctic approaches under its control, the administration would draw a defensive frontier around Greenland and through the North Atlantic Ocean, secure the Panama Canal as a southern bastion, and maintain military control over the entire Pacific Ocean. Every major component of such a strategy would, of course, be laden with the potential for conflict, particularly the administration’s plans for the Pacific, where the U.S. faces a continuing challenge from China.

Demolishing a World Order

Following his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump has pursued this distinctive tricontinental strategy by working with remarkable speed to demolish the institutional pillars of the “rules-based international order” the U.S. had supported and tried to advance since the end of World War II. Standing in the Rose Garden on his April 2 “liberation day,” Trump proclaimed a roster of tariffs reaching as high as 49% that, said Foreign Policy magazine, “will shatter the world economy” the U.S. has built since 1945, while the respected Economist observed that it “heralds America’s total abandonment of the world trading order.” After calling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) “corrupt” and falsely claiming that he had “stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas,” Trump abolished just about all the global humanitarian initiatives of that agency. He cut 5,800 programs that provided food rations for a million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, malaria prevention for 53 million people globally, and polio immunization for millions of children worldwide, among all too many other things. In a further flurry of executive orders, he also shut down the global broadcaster Voice of America, spuriously claiming that it was “radical” (though a judge has, for now, stopped that shutdown process), withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), and quit the Paris climate accords for a second time. Apart from the harm inflicted on poor communities across three continents, the closure of most USAID programs has crippled the key instrument of America’s “soft power,” ceding China the role as prime development partner in at least 40 countries worldwide.

In junking that Paris climate agreement, Trump has ensured that the U.S. would abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community, climate change and the potential devastation of the planet. In the process, he has left a void that China may readily fill by offering stable world climate leadership in contrast to the “aggressive unilateralism” of Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” second term.

With its military alliances compromised and its trade relations roiled by tariff wars, Washington’s international influence will, in all probability, be significantly reduced (or worse) by the end of Trump’s second term in 2029.

Reflecting his aversion to multilateral alliances, Trump’s first major foreign policy initiative was a unilateral attempt to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. On February 12, he launched peace talks through what he called a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, agreeing that “our respective teams start negotiations immediately.” By month’s end, tensions from that tilt toward Moscow had culminated in a televised Oval Office meeting in which Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”

That unilateral approach not only weakened Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, but also disregarded and even degraded NATO, which had, for the past three years, expanded its membership and military capacity by supporting Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion. Recoiling from the “initial shock” of that utterly unprecedented breach, Europeans quickly appropriated $160 billion to begin reinforcing their own arms industry in collaboration with both Canada (not eager to become the 51st state) and Ukraine, thereby aiming in the future to reduce their dependence on American weaponry. If his administration does not formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s ongoing hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to weaken if not eviscerate the alliance—even as, recently, Trump has also gotten “very angry” and “pissed off” at Russian President Vladimir Putin for not responding effusively enough to his gestures. Consider that an indication that American relations across much of Eurasia could soon prove all too unpredictably chaotic.

Fighting for the Pacific Penumbra

In the Asia-Pacific region, Trump’s new global strategy is already straining longstanding U.S. alliances. At the start of his second term, the American presence there rested on three sets of mutual-defense pacts: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense agreements stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan to the Philippines. However, Trump’s disdain for military alliances, his penchant for abusing allies, and his imposition of ever more punitive tariffs on the exports of all too many of those allies will undoubtedly only weaken such ties and so American power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan has been ambiguous. “I think Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June during the presidential campaign, adding, “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.” Once in office, however, his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, issued an interim strategic guidance stating that “denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan… is the department’s sole pacing scenario,” requiring that the U.S. shift some of its forces from Europe to Asia. In similar signs of a commitment to that island, the administration has noisily raised tariffs and technology controls on China, while quietly releasing $870 million in military aid for Taiwan. Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more probable in the future, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump could find himself faced with a difficult choice between a strategic retreat or a devastating war with China.

However it might happen, the loss of that island would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, possibly pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam, a major blow to America’s geopolitical position in the region. In short, even within Trump’s tricontinental strategy, the Western Pacific will remain at best a contested terrain between Beijing and Washington, fraught with the possibility of armed conflict in that continuing great-power rivalry, and war will remain a grim possibility.

A Residue of Ruin

With little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a grand Fortress America strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—corroding American global power, compromising the current world order, and harming countless millions worldwide who once benefitted from this country’s humanitarian aid. His attempt at consolidating control over North America has already encountered determined resistance in Ottawa, which responded to him with a strong bid to join Europe’s accelerated development of its own defense industries.

While the Trump administration’s aversion to formal alliances and its imposition of protective tariffs will likely weaken diplomatic ties to traditional allies in Asia and Europe, both China and Russia are likely to gain greater influence in their respective regions. From a strategic perspective, this start of a staged U.S. retreat from its military bastions at the antipodes of Eurasia in Western Europe and eastern Asia will weaken its longstanding influence over that vast landmass, which remains the epicenter of geopolitical power globally. With its military alliances compromised and its trade relations roiled by tariff wars, Washington’s international influence will, in all probability, be significantly reduced (or worse) by the end of Trump’s second term in 2029.

In the meantime, as he takes Americans on his own version of a succession of Two Minute Hates—of freeloading Europeans, prevaricating Panamanians, vile Venezuelans, Black South Africans, corrupt humanitarians, illegal immigrants, and lazy Federal workers—count on one thing: he’s leading us on a path eerily reminiscent of 1984. Unless, of course, like Orwell’s hero Winston, all too many of us somehow come to love Big Brother and so set aside our musty old Constitution and take Donald Trump’s often-repeated hints to elect him to a third term on a planet plunging headlong into a tempest of armed conflict, commercial chaos, and climate change.

Republican leaders in Congress have been working feverishly over recent days to renew the rich people-friendly 2017 Trump tax cuts set to expire at this year’s end. Both the House and Senate have now passed bills that do that renewing—and also add in some assorted new goodies.

All that remains before this latest giveaway to grand fortune becomes law: a bit of dickering between House and Senate GOP leaders over the tax cut’s particulars and then President Donald Trump’s John Henry on whatever legislation that dickering ends up producing.

Trump can barely wait for the signing ceremony. But he’s also pushing for much more than an extension—and expansion—of those 2017 tax cuts. His ultimate goal: erasing taxes on income from the entire federal tax code.

Some 48% of Americans say they worry “a great deal” about how “income and wealth are distributed,” a remarkably high share of the public given how seldom our media and politics directly address that distribution.

“You know,” Trump told a press conference this past Tuesday, “our country was the strongest, believe it or not, from 1870 to 1913. You know why? It was all tariff based. We had no income tax.”

Over those years, federal revenue most certainly did come mostly from tariffs. And those tariffs did work wonders—for the nation’s rich. Our original Gilded Age wealthy frolicked in an America where the rich and their corporations could essentially operate however they pleased. They could pay their workers precious little and cavalierly short-change consumers at every opportunity.

In that same America, the federal government did precious little to protect average Americans from greed and grasping—and even less to make their lives more economically secure.

Changing that profoundly unequal state of affairs took decades of organizing on the part of workers, farmers, and middle-class reformers. By 1913, that organizing had paid off. The ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that year gave Congress the authority to levy income taxes. By the end of World War I, America’s wealthy faced a 79% levy on their top tax-bracket income.

But the nation’s rich would come roaring back in the Roaring Twenties. America’s wealthiest flexed their political muscles enough to get that top tax rate down to 25%. They would go on to party hardy throughout that decade, right up until the 1929 stock market crash. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that Trump so likes to trumpet helped turn that crash into the Great Depression.

Amid that unprecedented downturn, America’s grassroots would rise up and break the plutocratic lockgrip on public policy. Working people would gain collective bargaining rights. Seniors would gain Social Security. The super rich would gasp as federal tax rates on their top-bracket income jumped to over 90%.

The end result? By the mid-1950s, over half America’s households had money left over after meeting their most basic living expenses. No modern nation had ever before reached that status.

That share-the-wealth momentum, unfortunately, would soon begin ebbing. Since the late 1970s, as the Economic Policy Institute has detailed, only Americans of substantial means have been sharing in Corporate America’s economic bounty.

How can we change this top-heavy state of affairs? Last week, at an unusual conference in Washington, D.C., activists highlighted a detailed agenda for making America start working for all Americans, not just the wealthiest among us. What made this confab so unusual? The people who put it together all just happen to rate as wealthy themselves.

The sponsor of this How To Beat the Broligarchs gathering: Patriotic Millionaires, the national group that’s been organizing Americans of means to “tax the rich, pay the people, and spread the power” since 2010. This past week’s broligarch-bashing conference gave these millionaires—and activists and scholars equally interested in creating a more equal United States—a vibrant forum for sharing information, insights, and, most importantly, an ambitious gameplan for ending rule by the rich.

“Our economy should be judged on how well it takes care of working people,” as Patriotic Millionaires founder Erica Payne notes, “not on how many billionaires it mints in a calendar day.”

To take better care of working people, the new Patriotic Millionaires economic plan, entitled America 250: The Money Agenda, proposes a “Cost of Living Tax Cut Act” that would exempt all annual income up to $41,600—the current cost of living for the typical American adult—from federal income tax.

Another Patriotic Millionaires-proposed piece of legislation, the “Cost of Living Wage Act,” would nearly triple the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 an hour to $20, a rate that would adjust every year to rising prices.

To help trim our richest down to something resembling democratic size—and offset the cost of exempting low incomes from income tax—the Patriotic Millionaires plan would also start subjecting millionaires to a surtax on their taxes due.

Another part of the plan would tax the capital gains millionaires pocket—their profits from buying and selling stocks and other assets—at the same rate as ordinary earned income. Still another plan section would essentially prevent the mostly tax-free intergenerational transfer of assets from the super rich to their super fortunate offspring.

What makes that prevention so important? Under current law, point out Patriotic Millionaires analyst Bob Lord and law professors Brian Galle and David Gamage in a new research paper, between 80 and 90% of the wealth “that rich families have set aside for their heirs will likely never be subject” to the over-a-century-old federal estate tax.

The first phase of the “Anti-Oligarchy Act” the Patriotic Millionaires plan is proposing would have all inheritances over $1 million taxed as ordinary income. This phase would also “impose a progressive tax on large sums of trust-held wealth to limit the accumulation of dynastic wealth.”

The second phase would seek to impose “a tax on the wealth of the richest Americans sufficient to reduce their wealth to a level in harmony with the ideals of democracy, amending the United States Constitution if necessary.”

The pollsters at Gallup have just asked Americans if they worry “a great deal”—or much less—about 16 different current-day concerns. Some 48% of Americans say they worry “a great deal” about how “income and wealth are distributed,” a remarkably high share of the public given how seldom our media and politics directly address that distribution.

The new Patriotic Millionaires tax plan obviously isn’t going to become the law of the land anytime soon. But the plan could help refocus America’s political debate onto the dynamics that are threatening to destroy our democracy. Let’s get that debate going. Soon.

On March 15, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz informed fellow Trump Administration officials through their now-infamous Signal chat that a U.S. missile attack had resulted in the collapse of an apartment building filled with Yemeni civilians. Vice President JD Vance replied, “Excellent.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill have since expressed outrage—not at the deaths of innocent civilians, or at the United States’ unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, but at the fact that the conversation was not more carefully shielded from the public.

The Trump administration claims to have resumed bombing in Yemen to stop the Houthi rebels’ attacks on shipping vessels in the Red Sea, despite the fact that the Houthis, who serve as the de facto government of much of the country, had ceased those attacks months ago. Scores of Yemeni civilians have died since the United States resumed the bombing last month. Air strikes have denied tens of thousands of people in this impoverished country access to electricity and drinking water. The Democratic leadership in Congress has refused to condemn this destruction or attempt to invoke the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted in 1973 to limit a president’s ability to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress.

Today, it is the majority of congressional Democrats who are allying with a Republican President to support war crimes and undermine international humanitarian law.

Those same Democratic leaders have expressed little opposition to President Donald Trump’s support of Israel’s ongoing occupation forces in Lebanon, which violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement made between Israel and Lebanon last fall. Nor have the Democrats objected to Trump’s support for Israel’s violation of its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria, or his defense of the ongoing large-scale seizure of Palestinian lands and destruction of villages in the occupied West Bank.

And it’s not just Israel. The Democratic leadership has also backed Trump’s arms shipments and other support for oppressive Arab dictatorships, including Morocco, whose illegal annexation of Western Sahara he recognized in 2020, violating a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions and a landmark ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Soon after Trump launched his war on Yemen, Israel’s far-right government tore up its cease-fire agreement with Hamas, which was the product of months of negotiations led by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the indicted war criminal feted this week in Washington, D.C., relaunched devastating air strikes as Israeli troops re-occupied large swathes of the territory, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people.

More than 1,000 Palestinians, primarily civilians, have been killed in these post-cease-fire attacks, including more than 300 children. The recent execution-style slaying of 15 paramedics and rescue workers in clearly marked ambulances by Israeli forces, who attempted a coverup by burying the victims and their vehicles in a mass grave, has sparked international outrage.

Meanwhile, both Netanyahu and Trump are pushing forward with their plan to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip of surviving Palestinians in order to develop resorts there, per Trump’s aspiration. Rather than try to force 2.3 million people out by bayonet point, the U.S. and Israel appear determined to drive out the population by bombing civilians and blocking food and medicines from entering the besieged enclave, forcing the remaining population to flee in order to survive.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has sponsored Joint Resolutions of Disapproval over some of Trump’s continued backing of Netanyahu.

“As a result of Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid into Gaza, many thousands of children there face malnutrition and even starvation,” Sanders said. “Sadly, and illegally, much of the carnage in Gaza has been carried out with U.S.-provided military equipment. Providing more offensive weapons to continue this disastrous war would violate U.S. and international law.”

Among the weapons included in the resolution are 35,000 two-thousand-pound bombs, which have caused thousands of civilian casualties over the past 18 months. The international outcry over these war crimes was so great that even President Joe Biden suspended their shipment last spring. Trump insisted that such arms shipments should be resumed, however, and the majority of Senate Democrats are supporting him.

Indeed, only 14 Democratic Senators voted for Sanders’ resolutions to block the transfer of these and other deadly weapons.

This was not a result of political pressure. Only 15% of Americans and just 5% of Democrats support additional military aid to Israel. Senate offices were flooded with calls to support the resolutions in a campaign organized by a wide array of peace, human rights, and religious organizations. Despite this, more than 70% of Senate Democrats sided with Trump and the arms industry over the wishes of their constituents.

The truth is that a number of Democratic members of Congress, whom millions of people see as leading the resistance, actually ally with Trump on foreign policy.

While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—a prominent supporter of Trump’s massive arms transfers—was widely praised for his marathon speech warning of the dangers of Trump’s policies, few pointed out that Booker expressed support for Trump’s backing of Israel’s far-right government and autocratic Arab allies during his address and joined the majority of Democrats if voting against limiting arms shipments.

Instead of challenging Trump’s Middle East policies, today’s opposition party resembles the so-called “Death Squad Democrats” who backed former President Ronald Reagan’s policy in Central America. The difference is that such Democratic militarists were then in the minority. Today, it is the majority of congressional Democrats who are allying with a Republican President to support war crimes and undermine international humanitarian law.

Had today’s Democrats been in office 40 years ago, they would have likely backed arming the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, the death squads in El Salvador, and the Guatemalan genocide against the indigenous Mayans. A few years earlier, they would have probably supported former President Richard Nixon’s carpet bombing of Vietnam.

Perhaps today’s Democratic Party leadership assumes that the threat to basic government institutions and our very democracy posed by the Republicans is so great that progressive voters will support their candidates even if they side with Trump on such issues as offensive military operations, arms control, human rights, and international law.

This is not necessarily the case, however. Polls have shown that Democratic support for Israel’s war on Gaza was the number one issue among the 6 million voters who backed Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Kamala Harris in 2024.

Indeed, a case could be made that, given the closeness of the presidential election and some key congressional races, Democratic support for Israel’s wars on its neighbors cost them the White House and both houses of Congress.

A growing number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters do see opposing ethnic cleansing, undeclared wars, massacres of civilians, and other crimes as a fundamental principle that’s worth defending. Even if that means standing up to the party’s leadership.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said that Kamala Harris lost 19 million voters who voted for Joe Biden in 2020. The actual figure is around 6 million. The piece has been updated to reflect this.

If there was ever a strong contemporary case for declaring that silence is complicity, consider the hush of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and even George W. Bush as they grind their teeth over the Donald Trump-Elon Musk wrecking of America. Trump is destroying freedom of speech and due process, abolishing democratic restraints, and establishing a criminal fascistic dictatorship.

Trump pounds Biden for the Trump administration’s blunders and failures an average of six times a day. These assaults go unrebutted by the Delaware recluse, nursing his political wounds.

The Clintons? Bill sticks to his private telephone wailings. While Hillary, who gave us Trump in 2016 with her smug, stupid campaign, penned a self-anthem op-ed in The New York Times on March 28, 2025. She writes: “Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (of group chat fame) are apparently more focused on performative fights over wokeness than preparing for real fights with America’s adversaries.” Trump is not belligerent enough for the war hawk Hillary Clinton who has been the pro-Iraq sociocider butcher of Libya and the ardent supporter behind provocative “force projection” of the Empire around the world.

What would all the GIs, who they caused to lose their lives in their presidential wars, think of their timidity?

Before turning to the excuses for essentially shutting themselves up during our country’s greatest political upheaval—unconstitutional and criminal to the core—here is what prominent former Democratic presidents and presidential candidates COULD do:

1. Tens of millions of Americans voted for our past presidents. They are waiting for their leaders to speak up, stand up, and mightily help lead the fight to stop Trump’s mayhem against the American people in red and blue states. The people want former Democratic leaders to galvanize the Democratic Party, still largely in disarray about confronting Trump.

Don’t they know they have a trusteeship obligation to citizens, many of whom are voicing their demands for a comprehensive plan of offense against the GOP in town meetings and other forums?

The media, threatened daily by Trump, is eager to give former Democratic Party leaders coverage.

2. They are all mega-millionaires, very capable of raising many more millions of dollars quickly with their fame and lists of followers. They know very rich people as friends. They could set up strike forces in Washington and around the country to provide needed, fighting attorneys, organizers, and other specialists to ride head-on against the proven damage to health, safety, and economic well-being of people here and abroad and counter Trump’s daily cruel and vicious assaults. They could end Trump’s unrebutted soliloquy of lies and false scenarios over mainstream and social media.
3. They could push the Democrats in Congress to hold constant “unofficial” public hearings and file resolutions and legislation that provide the daily evidence of this dictator and his recidivistic criminality and push for impeachment and Trump’s removal from office. Impossible, you might say with the GOP in narrow control on Capitol Hill. Look back at Richard Nixon who for far fewer violations was told by Republican senators that his time was up. Politicians save their political skin in approaching elections before rescuing an unstable, egomaniacal, vengeful politician like the one now camped at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Trump will be soon plunging in polls and stock market drops, inflation, recession, and more Gestapo-like kidnappings and disappearances to foreign prisons of targeted individuals. These conditions are not popular with the American people.
4. The former Democratic leaders could do what Bernie Sanders is doing and traverse the country supporting the fighting civic spirit of the American people who oppose the painful afflictions wrought by Tyrant Trump.
5. Gore is well-credentialed to show how the actions of Hurricane Donald, Tornado Trump, Drought Donald, and Wildfire Musk’s fossil-fuel-driven greenhouse gases are leading to a climate catastrophe. The facts and trends Trump omnicidally ignores need to be front and center.

Even George W. Bush, known for causing the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis and the destruction of their country by his criminal war of aggression has a beef. His sole claim to being a “compassionate conservative”—the funding of life-saving AIDS medicines overseas—has gone down in flames with Trump’s illegal demolition of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Bush may be mumbling about this, but he’s staying in his corner painting landscapes.

All this abhorrent quietude in the face of what they all believe is a mortal attack on the Republic has the following excuses:

First, they don’t want to get into a pissing match with a slanderous ugly viper, who unleashes his hordes of haters on the internet. That’s quite a surrender of patriotic duty at a time of unprecedented peril. What would all the GIs, who they caused to lose their lives in their presidential wars, think of their timidity?

Second, it wouldn’t have much impact. America doesn’t listen to “has-beens.” Then why is Obama still the most popular retired politician in America with over 130 million followers on Twitter? That attitude is just convenient escapism.

Third, plunging into the raucous political arena with the Trumpsters and Musketeers is just too disruptive of a comfortable daily routine life by politicians who believe they have been there, done that, and deserve a respite. Self-diminishment gets you nowhere with tens of millions of people in distress who seek powerful amplifiers from well-known leaders behind the demand that Trump understands: YOU’RE FIRED, ringing throughout the nation from liberals and betrayed Trump voters hurting in the same ways. That mass demand is what pushes impeachment of the most visibly impeachable president in American history.

In the final analysis, it comes down to their absence of civic self-respect and cowardliness in confronting Der Fuhrer. Aristotle was right: “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”

Attempts by the Department of Homeland Security to secure private information from the Internal Revenue Service on people who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is a violation of federal privacy laws that protect taxpayers. It is also a change that could seriously damage public trust in the IRS, which could jeopardize billions of dollars in tax payments by hardworking immigrant families.

The recent memorandum of understanding between the IRS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—which led to the resignation of the Acting IRS Commissioner—establishes procedures for requesting taxpayer information under IRC section 6103(i)(2) for criminal investigations. But that section is clear: Taxpayer information is confidential unless Congress specifically authorizes disclosure. No such authorization exists for routine immigration enforcement.

Using the IRS and its resources for immigration enforcement is a departure from the agency’s core mission, which is to administer tax laws. What’s more, federal privacy law unambiguously protects all taxpayer information, meaning tax returns and taxpayer information must remain confidential except under very specific circumstances that do not include immigration enforcement. This weaponization should worry all filers, because if this can be done without congressional authorization then it can be done to other groups as well.

Every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.

Besides the privacy implications, there are other important considerations when we look at how this will affect immigrant families.

We know that undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy research finds that undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, with more than a third of that amount ($37.3 billion) going to states and localities.

Deporting immigrants on a large scale would cause most of those revenues to vanish from public coffers. Both income and sales tax revenues would be reduced as these individuals would no longer be in the U.S. earning taxable incomes and making taxable purchases.

We predict a $7.9 billion reduction in annual revenue for every 1 million undocumented people who exit the country, with $2.5 billion of that coming out of state and local budgets.

But these figures almost certainly understate the true revenue cost of deportations. They don’t account for losses to business outputs and workforce declines in sectors like construction and agriculture. They don’t consider the effects these efforts will have on documented immigrants who may be erroneously swept up in this. And they don’t try to measure how deportations may lead immigrant families to retreat from public view, constrained to less formal, off-the-books employment at jobs less likely to withhold income tax from paychecks.

Our analysis suggests that every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.

On Saturday, April 5 hundreds of thousands gathered across the United States rallying under the banner of “hands off.” The protest was against the devastation wielded by the Trump government on public services, consumer protections, public healthcare, and trade freedom. The protesters’ ire turned especially to Elon Musk’s work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) radically downsizing U.S. government spending. “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Elon Musk has to go!” They chanted

The scenes of public dissent were in sharp contrast to the image of Musk, just a few months ago, taking the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington raising a chainsaw high in the air with boyish glee. “This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” he extolled, referring to his aggressively ruthless ambition to ax $2 trillion from the U.S. federal budget.

The April protests are a sign that Musk’s fresh-faced jubilance and billionaire-funded political luck might be running out at the hands of his own destructive impulses. As Musk wantonly fights against what he calls “civilizational suicidal empathy,” is it possible that by promising to end “death by bureaucracy,” he has willfully sowed the seeds of his own political demise?

He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.

Musk portrays himself as the billionaire version of the classic vigilante: the man (almost always) who takes the law into his own hands in search of a self-styled brand of justice and effectiveness. A significant part of Musk’s cultural cache is that he exploits the vigilante myth, portraying himself as the savior of an America dream destroyed by corrupt and inefficient democratic institutions.

President Donald Trump described Musk’s vigilante appeal well: “Elon is doing a great job, but I would like to see him get more aggressive. Remember, we have a country to save.” Destruction, redemption, and emancipation driven by masculine emotion is at the heart of Musk’s DOGE endeavor.

Vigilantes achieve their ambitions through self-justified law breaking, reflected in Musk’s DOGE being condemned as illegal. With unwavering confidence in their own convictions, vigilantes feel justified in using whatever powers they have to ensure what they think is right is enforced—and in Musk’s case that is a lot of power.

Unlike the vigilantes we see on television or in the movies, Musk is not a violent avenger seeking justice through the barrel of a gun (or even at the end of chain saw). His weapons are not firearms but money and power. He is portrayed as “the DOGEfather” in vigilante reference to Don Corleone, the eponymous anti-hero of 1972 gangster film The Godfather.

Musk acts out billionaire vigilantism par excellence. He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.

The aggression of Musk’s ambition to slash government and upturn the institutions of democracy appears to be turning against up him. His popularity is nosediving as his unpredictable and conflict-ridden behavior escalates. Musk may have taken the stereotype of the vigilante to such extremes that he is exercising a death wish not just on his own political career but on very idea of the heroic billionaire savior.

The tides are certainly changing. Musk may have used his wealth to influence the presidential election last year, but this month his $25 million spend could not secure Trump’s preferred candidate Brad Schimel in the campaign for as seat in Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Tesla’s sales around the world have plummeted, with people seemingly embarrassed at the prospect of being seen to be associated with Musk. Many are putting bumper stickers on their cars with slogans such as “I Bought This Before We Knew Elon Was Crazy.” In Britain social media campaigners Everyone Hates Elon orchestrated a public art project where people took sledgehammers to a donated Tesla Model S. Their purpose was “to create a debate about wealth inequality.”

Employees are not far behind. Musk practically begged them not to sell Tesla stock holdings. Meanwhile investors are calling for Musk to resign as CEO of Tesla as he gets more and more embroiled in political controversy and Tesla’s market value stumbles. In the the not too recent past conservatives rallied behind the slogan “go woke, go broke.” This is rapidly turning around to “go MAGA, go broke.”

Musk’s outlandish death drive might end up killing the vigilante myth he trades on rather than killing American democracy. Time will tell, but for now there are plenty of reasons to hope that it will.

In a blitz of destructive actions announced by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin last month, he specifically called for a reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. A formal proposal for reconsideration of the finding (and all the agency regulations and actions that depend on it) is expected this month.

The science underpinning the Endangerment Finding is airtight, but that won’t stop the Trump administration from setting up a rigged process to try to undo it and give a blank check to polluters. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) will fight back to defend climate science and protect public health safeguards.

In an earlier post, I laid out some of the history and context for the 2009 science-backed Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. These findings followed from the landmark 2007 Mass v. EPA Supreme Court ruling which held that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are unambiguously air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Together, these establish the clear basis for EPA’s authority and responsibility to set pollutions limits for heat-trapping emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources of these pollutants, under the Clean Air Act.

There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science.

Attacks on the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s Clean Air Act authority from industry interests are nothing new. Importantly, courts have repeatedly upheld both, including in a resounding 2012 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals–D.C. Circuit in Citizens for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. But those who have long sought to overturn or weaken regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions now have Administrator Zeldin in their corner. And he has shown himself to be an unbridled purveyor of disinformation and proponent of harmful attacks on bedrock public health protections, as my colleague Julie McNamara highlights.

The details of what will be included in the reconsideration proposal are unclear at this point. But we do know some of the trumped-up lines of attack the Zeldin EPA could advance to try to invalidate these findings because many of these tired arguments are outlined in EPA’s reconsideration announcement.

Here are the facts:

Fact No. 1: The Science Backing the Endangerment Finding Is Beyond Dispute

Every major scientific society endorses the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change driven by GHG emissions. The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report are two major recent authoritative summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, which show that the science on climate change has only become more dire and compelling since 2009.

The impacts of climate change on human health are also starkly clear and backed by overwhelming evidence. Here’s the main finding from the NCA5 chapter on public health, for instance:

Climate change is harming physical, mental, spiritual, and community health through the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events, higher incidences of infectious and vector-borne diseases, and declines in food and water security. These impacts worsen social inequities. Emissions reductions, effective adaptation measures, and climate-resilient health systems can protect human health and improve health equity.

As just one example, climate change is contributing to worsening extreme heat, which exerts a punishing toll on people’s health, including that of outdoor workers. Heat is already the leading cause of extreme weather-related deaths in the United States, and studies show that heat-related mortality is on the rise.

Looking around the nation, with communities reeling from extreme heatwaves, intensified hurricanes, catastrophic wildfires, and record flooding, climate impacts are the lived reality of all too many people. To deny that or obfuscate about the underlying causes is not only disingenuous, but actively harmful and outright cruel.

Fact No. 2: The Law Requires an Independent Scientific Determination of Endangerment, Unhindered by Cost Considerations

A Finding of Endangerment under the Clean Air Act is specifically focused on a threshold scientific determination of whether the pollutant under consideration harms public health or welfare. Costs to industry of meeting any subsequent regulations are not relevant per the statute.

The original Endangerment Finding was reached in the context of the vehicle emissions, per section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, partially excerpted below:

The administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In its 2012 decision, the D.C. Circuit was also clear is noting that “By employing the verb ‘shall,’ Congress vested a non-discretionary duty in EPA.” That duty is not circumscribed by cost considerations.

Of course, the impacts of climate change are themselves incredibly costly and those costs are mounting as heat-trapping emissions rise. Unsurprisingly, the social cost of greenhouse gases, a science-based estimate of those costs, is another metric that the Trump EPA is seeking to undermine in yet another blatant attempt to put a thumb on the scale in favor of polluting industries.

Fact No. 3: EPA Used Well-Established Methodologies in Its Assessment of Six GHGs

As noted in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA defined the pollutant contributing to climate change as “the aggregate group of the well-mixed greenhouse gases” with similar attributes. The attributes include that they are sufficiently long-lived, directly emitted, contribute to climate warming, and are a focus of science and policy.

The EPA used a very well-established scientific methodology to combine emissions of GHGs on the basis of their heat-trapping potential, measured in carbon-dioxide equivalents. In the case of passenger cars, light- and heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles—the transportation sources EPA considered for the original Endangerment Finding—they emitted four key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.

False, glib claims in the reconsideration announcement baselessly accuse the 2009 Endangerment Finding of making “creative leaps” and “mysterious” choices. There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science. Once again, relying on the mountain of evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature would make that readily apparent.

Fact No. 4: EPA Has the Responsibility and Authority to Regulate Major Sources of GHGs

The Cause or Contribute Finding—which specifically established that greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles contribute to the pollution that harms public health—may also come under attack. This finding has been extended to other major sources of GHGs, including power plants and oil and gas operations. However, the Trump administration could attempt to use accounting tricks to avoid regulating emissions—as it has tried before.

In its first term, the administration attempted multiple underhanded maneuvers along these lines, including in the context of methane and volatile organic compound regulations in the oil and gas sector. For these regulations, the administration split up segments of the source category, designated them as separate source categories, used that manipulation to claim inability to regulate certain segments, and asserted that methane emissions from the remaining segments were too small and regulating them would not provide additional benefits, so those too could not be regulated. Separately, in the final days of the administration, EPA released an absurd framework attempting to set thresholds for determining “significance,” trialed in the context of power plants.

This irrational approach could be used to artificially segment components of power plants or the power system, for example, and then claim no regulations are required. This kind of rigged math wouldn’t fool a kindergarten child, but there’s no telling where this administration might go in its desperate attempt to undo or weaken regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Zeldin’s Relentless Subversion of EPA’s Mission

Under Administrator Zeldin, EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment has been completely subverted. His shocking rhetoric lays bare how far he will go to protect polluters at the expense of the public. Here he is, for instance, crowing about going after 31+ EPA regulations and guidance, as well as the enforcement of pollution standards meant to protect all of us:

Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion…

EPA even set up an email address for polluters to send an email to get a presidential exemption from complying with regulations on toxic pollution, such as mercury emissions, regulated under the Clean Air Act!

Zeldin is fervently committed to dismantling public health protections and rolling back enforcement of existing laws passed by Congress. Going after the Endangerment Finding is an integral part of this all-out assault because, in the Trump administration’s harmful calculation, revoking the finding is a potential means to rolling back all the regulations that depend on it.

Ironically, some utilities and oil and gas companies have spoken out in favor of keeping the finding intact, as they fear a greater risk of climate damages lawsuits in the absence of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Of course, this just exposes that they know their products are causing damage. What they seek is the weakest possible exercise of EPA authority so they can continue to reap profits while evading accountability for those harms.

We Can Fight Back With Science

But none of this is a foregone conclusion. The legal and scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding is incredibly strong. The false claims Zeldin and other opponents have trotted out are full of bombast but weak on substance.

The science on climate change is so indisputably well-established, that it’s hard to see how any court would uphold a challenge to it. That’s not to say Zeldin won’t try to find a cabal of fringe “scientists” to try to attack it, but they’re unlikely to succeed on the merits.

Public comments on the proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding can help set the record straight on facts. And if the Zeldin EPA ignores them and finalizes a sham finding or revokes the finding with a faulty rationale, that will be challenged in court.

UCS will be closely following the details of EPA’s proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding when it is released. And we will let you know how you can add your voice to bolster this crucial science-based finding, and the public health protections that flow from it. So, stay tuned!

The Trump administration has assigned itself the mission of ruining education in the United States. From attacks on DEI to attaching themselves to conservative education activists, a blatantly obvious result of the Trump administration will be to make education inaccessible for anyone who is not wealthy and white.

A prime example is financial aid. The administration hasn’t yet stated where Federal Student Aid (FSA) and the application system it administers, Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA), would be placed if President Donald Trump succeeds in his entirely misguided assault on the Department of Education. FAFSA is the standardized form that students fill out every year to receive federal assistance in paying for college, grad school, med school, law school, etc. FSA, by way of the FAFSA, now services an estimated 17 million students per year. FAFSA ensures millions of students across the country can obtain an education and pursue a career of their choice. Without it, how can students who do not come from privilege pay some exorbitant amount of money in tuition?

Reportedly, President Trump is considering moving the agency (and thus the system) to the Department of Commerce, run by Howard Lutnick. Small Business Administration (SBA) Chief Kelly Loeffler, best known for her insider trader scandal, wants to move the program to her agency. This would more than quadruple the SBA’s loan portfolio after Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already cut “a few hundred” of SBA’s probationary staff.

Imagine AI trying to help students complete their financial aid.

Both Commerce and SBA disburse loans. SBA actually offers a myriad of different loans, even some specific to women. The problem is that with the massive reduction in the federal workforce, how can Loeffler and her skeleton staff manage to serve the needs of approximately 17 million students per year? Loeffler has only suggested moving FAFSA, not FSA (meaning the trained administrative staff) to SBA.

While the agency has grown over the years from serving just under 48,000 loans in 2022 to over 70,000 in 2024, especially after the cuts from DOGE, it does not have the dedicated workforce to service the needs of students in the way FSA can. SBA’s peak in 2024, prior to being kneecapped by Musk, was approximately 70,242 loans. That is nowhere near the average of 17 million students that FSA is used to aiding. Especially given the 2024 FAFSA mishap in which Education’s (well intentioned) attempts to streamline the application for students led to issues of communication between both students and the agency, and even an inability to process applications. It does not help that the Education Department already contracts out to lenders like Nelnet who already are keeping people in debt for longer than they should be. Students will be waiting for their federal dollars, and graduates will be forever saddled with debt.

For its part, Commerce (whose IT system similarly was hit with Elon Musk’s DOGE sledgehammer) offers flexible loans for mortgages and cars, but again, the type of loan servicing is entirely different for student borrowers. Commerce also has some issues with technology and modernization (include identity authentication and even its financial systems), which in the entirely digital landscape that is FAFSA would probably impact students in a way that would inhibit their ability to successfully complete their applications

A third and no more viable option for students is turning FSA into a government-owned enterprise. Rather than scrapping FSA, Project 2025 proposed spinning it off into a “new government corporation with professional governance and management.” A government corporation is a company created by Congress to achieve specific policy goals. This would turn FSA into something akin to Amtrak.

Now, Musk would make the argument that these loan serving agencies indicate why the federal workforce should be replaced with AI. Experts say this would be a terrible idea that would lead to chaos. CEO of the Work3 Institute, an AI advisory firm, Deborah Perry Piscione points out that while AI can streamline some paperwork, it just can’t replace civil servants. Piscione gave the example of an AI chatbot that does not understand the unique elements of a veteran applying for benefits. Imagine AI trying to help students complete their financial aid.

The Education Department already utilizes AI to answer rudimentary questions in their call centers. Last September, during the rollout of the new FAFSA, three-quarters of the calls were left unanswered. AI in its current form simply does not have the processing power to service the 17 million students who need aid.

A study from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection board MSPB) found that downsizing agencies ultimately undermined the mission they were supposed to accomplish. ED has the smallest federal workforces of the cabinet agencies, so rolling it into other agencies already saddled with existing duties would exacerbate these problems. Increasing the federal workforce, and curtailing the reliance on AI, probably would have ensured that three-quarters of phone calls would not have been missed.

The Trump administration seemingly does not believe a quality education is a right. Trump and his lackeys putting the Department of Education in limbo is probably part of the plan to eviscerate any sense of a national commitment to higher education for all. Leaving FAFSA in limbo will have a material impact on students. Just last year, almost 18 million students filled out this form, a slight uptick from the average of 17 million. The groups that are most likely to receive aid are Black students, women, and dependents (most likely to be minors).

A little history lesson for you: FSA was established under former President Lyndon Johnson through the Higher Education Act to ensure students could pay for college. Students would fill out the Common Financial Aid Form, which was later replaced by the FAFSA in 1992 during the HEA’s reauthorization. Even in the 1960s, Washington politicians knew that college was inaccessible to anyone who was not well off. The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle ED, and put millions of students at risk, will have dire consequences that will ripple across decades.

This spring my husband and I are moving three tenths of a mile and 200 years back in time.

We are moving from our super-energy-efficient, passive solar home built in 2001 to a farmhouse built in 1800. (And looking for someone to buy the cozy green home we raised our family in. Check it out here and spread the word!) We are excited to have more space to share with extended family. And, we will have a project on our hands! Regaining some of the features we are leaving behind—heat pumps, PV, a composting toilet, and more—will take time. A fun and satisfying challenge we hope!

The great news is that we will still be part of the experiment we have participated in for almost 30 years: Cobb Hill Cohousing, a multi-generational community of 23 families in Vermont’s Connecticut River Valley. The house we are moving to is located within Cobb Hill, just a bit further from the cluster of houses we’ve called home.

We will still share 280 acres of farm and forest and participate in community celebrations and decision-making. We’ll still have neighbors to help and to rely on. We’ll still have maple syrup, eggs, flowers, herbs, vegetables, milk, and cheese all produced by our neighbors on our shared land. We’ll have learning companions to navigate alongside in an increasingly destabilized world.

No one knows how to live sustainably and equitably in our current society or how to prepare for coming climate shocks. So we need to learn. And learning is faster with more minds in the mix.

A big move like ours prompts reflection. We had to move, but we didn’t want to go anywhere else. Here are six reasons that came to mind when we paused to ask ourselves why.

1. People: As disasters become more frequent and politics destabilizes, it feels more important than ever to live connected to other people. People who can be there in an emergency or help make sense of the tumult. But not just people, these specific people. We are connected to our neighbors by shared work, shared fun, and shared history. We are watching their children grow up and hopefully adding something to those kid’s lives. These are the people who brought soup when I broke my ankle, who loaned me a walker to get to the ER, who visited and cheered me up. These are the people I want to bring soup to when they need it!
   
2. Land: There’s the pleasure of coming to know a piece of land deeply. Of walking its paths in spring and summer and skiing them in winter. Of watching for the return of familiar birds and wildflowers with each season. There’s also the work and joys of stewardship, of seeing a once over-harvested forest slowly return to good health. And, by putting most of our shared land under permanent conservation easement and making it open to our neighbors for enjoyment, we find ways to share these gifts now and into the future, which is its own kind of satisfaction.
   
3. Learning: No one knows how to live sustainably and equitably in our current society or how to prepare for coming climate shocks. So we need to learn. And learning is faster with more minds in the mix. We took three tries to get a PV system at Cobb Hill. I led the first two, which ran aground. Then Sandy came in with new determination and a new path in mind. Every day when I walk past the solar-panel-covered barns I think about all three tries, how my “failures” and Sandy’s fresh eyes cracked the code. I think about the need to reinvent community meals after they paused for the pandemic (thanks Audrey!) or the need to wire EV charging ports on infrastructure that didn’t anticipate them (thanks Jesse!) And so on. We have a lot to learn at this moment in human history, but we don’t have to do it alone!
   
4. Food: There’s the taste of a fresh strawberry or an ear of corn moving from field to plate in five minutes. Then there’s the satisfaction of growing some of what you eat and knowing the people who grew more of it. In these times when the federal government’s ability to keep the food system safe is faltering, there’s also peace of mind in seeing at least part of the supply chain right outside your door.
   
5. Resilience: From the connections between good people, a well-loved bit of land, the capacity to learn, and the capacity to grow at least some food comes something bigger than any piece alone. It’s the capacity to cope. It is, hopefully, the capacity to help each other and offer support to wider circles when surprises come and the pace of change speeds up.
   
6. A link to the future: Many have passed through Cobb Hill. Some stayed for a growing season, some for their childhood, some for the length of a learning program. They’ve moved on to start (or join) other communities, farms, nonprofits. I like to think they’ve all taken something with them, a new skill, a lesson in what NOT to do, a belief that dreams can become physical stuff. Maybe in the end that’s the main reward of trying to do things differently—the encouragement to others that they can create the possibilities they see.

Cobb Hill isn’t the only way to find these six things, thank goodness. You’ll find them in smaller groups and larger ones, in cities, in the tropics, on the coast. In this time of transition and reflection in my own family, I hope that knowing they exist in one place might make it easier for you to imagine (or create) them elsewhere, too.

No media outlet has done a better job on reporting on the havoc that special government employee Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump have unleashed than Wired. Their outstanding reporting continued Friday as they scooped everyone by reporting that “the Social Security Administration will no longer be communicating with the media and the public through press releases and ‘dear colleague’ letters, as it shifts its public communication exclusively to X, sources tell WIRED. The news comes amid major staffing cuts at the agency.”

That’s right—all public information about Social Security will come via X. For example, in late March SSA announced that they updated their identification verification procedures via an announcement on their website. So in the future, SSA will have to put all of this into a 280-character post or SSA can go to 4,000 characters if they are willing to upgrade to Premium or Blue.

The first thing that came to mind with SSA’s announcement—wasn’t this a conflict of interest with Elon Musk’s role at X? Many other questions followed, such as the role of asking for feedback from Social Security stakeholders, members of Congress, and last but far from least in my mind—Social Security beneficiaries. I hope that congressional oversight or the press will be able to get some answers here.

According to Wired, SSA regional staff would be cut by 87%:

Today, the agency has 547 employees working in the nearly dozen regional offices (previously, the number was closer to 700, but many people have retired, a current employee with knowledge of the staffing numbers says). After the cuts, the number is expected to be closer to 70.

The Wired piece also raises what is a very ironic twist to this switch to X. SSA employees need to get special permission to access social media. Could the move to X make it harder for SSA employees to learn what their own agency was doing? Surely, this would hinder their ability to serve the public.

It looked like SSA was moving in a more positive direction this week as the agency retreated from its position of drastic cuts to the number of services beneficiaries could access over the phone. Had these changes gone into effect, they would have dramatically impact individuals’ ability to access their earned benefits. A deluge of phone calls from beneficiaries and heat from members of Congress forced SSA to change their course.

After SSA’s retreat on phone services, advocates and members of Congress may have thought that their efforts could have been, at least for the moment, deployed somewhere else. Sadly, this is not the case. The decision to move all public communications to X demonstrated that that Trump and Musk are focused on destroying Social Security. Supporters of Social Security cannot let up for one minute. They will need to fight every day for Social Security until January 20, 2029.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s shared goal of fully privatizing public services from the postal service to Social Security and Medicare will destabilize society, broadening the wide chasm of socioeconomic inequalities already haunting the nation’s politics.

Until the election of Trump and his appointment of Musk, the U.S. government, unlike giant corporations, did not summarily terminate large numbers of workers to achieve “efficiencies” to augment a “bottom line.” Indeed, the present elimination of legions of government workers is wholly arbitrary, having immediate destructive impacts on American society.

Now the administration wants to enhance even further the economic and political positions of the wealthy through tax reductions disproportionately benefiting the wealthy class.

Governments are not businesses nor should they be run as businesses. Historically, the role of government is to regulate those forces in society that would, if left to their own devices, advance their own interests at the expense of society. By moderating the social and environmental impact of these private entities and their direction, and by addressing the social inequities created by disparities in socioeconomic power, the government ensures the stability and security of society. Citizens are protected from the negative consequences of concentrated wealth and the political machinations employed to maintain and to increase the wealthy and corporate class’ power and privileges. Thus breaking down the legitimate power of government facilitates economic and political concentration, denying equal opportunity to resources and wealth. This is not only an assault on individual political rights; it leads to conflict and anarchy.

Not surprisingly, billionaires are leading the charge to undermine government’s vital roles. This is tantamount to letting the fox inside the hen house. While deregulating and privatizing public services—a movement that has gradually gained momentum with the rise of economic and political conservatism from 1980 to the present—is the general plan of Trump, Musk, and their conservative collaborators, it is these two billionaires who are already profiting from the enterprise. They are each positioned to accumulate multiple tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of greater wealth by promoting market products through their access to mass media, government contracts, and deregulation. And now the administration wants to enhance even further the economic and political positions of the wealthy through tax reductions disproportionately benefiting the wealthy class.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other public-supported services and investments—from providing funding to enable the University of Maine to improve industry and environment to veterans’ assistance—must be insulated against the vicissitudes of market forces. Government, with its broad taxing capacity, distributes the economic risk across these programs much more securely than publicly traded stocks. Social Security checks should not be directly and irrevocably tied to the market.

At the same time, those who prosper most from the publicly funded infrastructure (i.e. educated workforce, highways, ports, etc.) must pay substantially more taxes than ordinary citizens. With fully-levied progressive taxation the government will be able to transfer wealth to less wealthy Americans in the form of programs improving peoples’ livelihoods and welfare, ensuring greater economic, social, and political stability.

I need some help here. The Trump presidency and the “America only” future he’s hawking to the public like the world’s most arrogant snake-oil salesman feels beyond my ability to address right now, even though I consider doing so my life’s work.

But sometimes the news of the day simply feels too absurd, too strange, to seriously address, like President Donald Trump’s comment the other day as he sat next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House: “You know how I feel about the Gaza Strip. I think it’s an incredible piece of important real estate.”

Dividing the world into abstract chunks of real estate! This is lethal blather, without which war would be too complex to wage. First you have to sell the concept to the public, then do whatever is necessary—murder-wise—to claim the real estate itself

What does it mean that we live in a world that includes both generosity and greed, both love and genocide? Knowing this, how do we proceed?

Meanwhile, life goes on in minuscule bits for the average person, who is unaffected by (but perhaps in favor of) this war or that war or that war. The minutiae of life—my life, your life—goes on. Sometimes I take it upon myself to notice it. Or even learn from it—dig for the soul and spirit of the universe within it. To that end I welcome “The Cardinal,” a poem I wrote several years ago, in honor of everything that doesn’t matter.

I thank you god
if that’s your name
for the beauty and the trash,
the spill, the vomit, the love and
exhaust smoke of
this new most
amazing day.
Outside my window
a cardinal shocking
as a nosebleed
pecks the raw winter
ground beneath its feet.
I thank you for its
food and mine,
for my coffee and for these
words, these malleable
playthings of awareness,
which still birth
all I think and know.
Let them stroke
the trembling potential
of what I see and what’s
to come.
The cardinal lifts.
I salute it with
my cup
and swallow.

In honor of the cardinal, let me ask: What if he “mattered”—to organized human consciousness, to the global power structure that purports to control the future? What if we valued minutiae—that is to say, basic existence, the actual world we live in—in a way that transcended our valuing of power, dominance, ownership, and control? What if humanity, Planet Earth’s organizers in chief, could push their own evolution beyond exploitation of the planet to... God knows what?

What if those with power actually valued those without power, which includes Planet Earth itself?

Sorry, but here’s more President Trump, continuing to muse about Palestine:

Having a peace force like the United States there, controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be a good thing, because right now all it is for years and years, all I hear about is killing and Hamas and problems.

If you take the people, the Palestinians, and move them around to different countries—and you have plenty of countries that will do that... you call it the Freedom Zone, a free zone, where people aren’t going to be killed every day. That’s a hell of a place.

Yeah, an “incredible piece of important real estate” shouldn’t have genocide going on. But the cause of the genocide is the victims themselves, apparently, so we just have to move them to wherever. Maybe they’re physically, historically and spiritually connected to that land, which they call “home,” but in Trump World this is real estate—so, sorry, genocide victims, you’ll have to move. The issue here is money.

Pssst... don’t tell anyone, but this is the god we worship, fervently and thoughtlessly.

All of which leaves me feeling as lost as I did when I started this column. As I try to honor the minutiae of real life, I realize that also includes Donald Trump and all world leaders, or at least their flawed humanity, as well as earthworms and cardinals, sunlight, sky, rain and snow and everything else I can see beyond my kitchen window. What does it mean that we live in a world that includes both generosity and greed, both love and genocide? Knowing this, how do we proceed?

Slowly, I’d say, and with minimal certainty; the paradox is within all of us. The best we can do is keep our eyes and hearts wide open.

Sarah’s situation was one we see a lot in eviction court. Hers was among the 3 of every 4 households whose incomes are low enough to qualify for a federal housing subsidy but do not receive it because we underfund the programs so dramatically. So Sarah had been living for a few years in a dilapidated house where her absentee landlord charged her well below market-rate rent—just $650 a month. The implicit bargain was that Sarah would not complain to the health department or anyone else about the caved-in ceilings, mold, broken appliances, and mice that came in through the many holes in the house’s rotting exterior.

That unholy arrangement unraveled when Sarah’s landlord sold the property to a buyer who discovered Sarah had no written lease and wanted to demolish the house. We met Sarah (not her real name) in court after she had ignored multiple notices to move.

“I know the judge is going to order me out of there,” she told us. But she had looked around at available rental units and couldn’t find anything for less than $900 a month. Which was a problem, because Sarah’s entire monthly income was only a few dollars more than that. “How am I supposed to live now?” she asked.

It's a good question.

A significant portion of our nation’s unhoused population are SSI recipients, limited to an income that doesn’t come close to covering the costs of housing, food, transportation, clothing, and other necessities.

Like 7.5 million other people in the United States, Sarah is a recipient of Supplemental Security Income, known as SSI. SSI is a federal program for persons who have little to no income or assets and are living with severe disabilities that leave them unable to work. Sarah, 67 years old, is legally blind, uses a wheelchair, and has multiple other chronic, debilitating conditions. That allows her to qualify for SSI.

But, to her point, it doesn’t allow her to live.

Sarah’s monthly SSI check is the maximum program amount of $967. Couples who are both eligible for SSI are maxed out at $1,450 per month. SSI recipients have to comply with tight restrictions on how much income they can make or assets they can own. Most are like Sarah, fully unable to work and with no other income. So they are condemned to poverty.

As Sarah was on the cusp of learning, SSI often condemns people to homelessness, too. A significant portion of our nation’s unhoused population are SSI recipients, limited to an income that doesn’t come close to covering the costs of housing, food, transportation, clothing, and other necessities.

“I’ve had many clients who received a monthly SSI check but still can’t afford the rent,” says Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homeless Law Center. “When there is no housing, people have no choice but to sleep outside.” That grim reality of sleeping outside brings with it a significant chance of death from exposure, assault, and untreated health crises.

Mountains of evidence point to the main cause of homelessness being the problem faced by Rabinowitz’s clients and ours: a straightforward inability to pay monthly rent.

“I want to be absolutely clear that the reason people become unhoused is that they do not have access to housing that they can afford,” says Brian Goldstone, anthropologist and author of the new book, There is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America. “The answer isn’t addiction or mental illness; it’s that they didn’t have access to housing they could afford.”

SSI: Hard to Get, Hard to Live on Once You Get It

As Sarah was learning, life on an SSI check means there is essentially no safe housing that she can afford. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When Congress created the SSI program in 1972, the stated purpose was to “provide a positive assurance that the Nation’s aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below poverty level incomes.” But the current SSI maximum benefit is well below the federal poverty line. The official poverty level itself is an underestimate of the costs incurred by people like Sarah who pay a “disability tax” of higher medical, transportation, and housing costs. That math is not mathing in particular for the women and persons of color who make up a disproportionate number of SSI recipients.

Because SSI in theory could ensure that all who cannot earn significant wages would receive a monthly stipend, it is sometimes compared to a universal basic income. But no one who has ever applied for SSI confuses the two. The program’s onerous financial and disability eligibility requirements make damn sure that there is nothing “universal” about SSI income. Less than half of all SSI applications are granted—less than a third of them at the initial application stage.

My and other service providers’ experience is that these systematic refusals occur despite the fact that the majority of SSI applicants we see are clearly eligible for the program. But the same disabilities and poverty-caused barriers that lead them to need SSI contribute to them getting snared in the red tape of the application process.

Just as we know that housing is the best response to homelessness, countless research studies confirm that increased income is a silver-bullet remedy for poverty.

Those who do successfully get enrolled in SSI face restrictive rules that all but guarantee they remain destitute. They are not allowed to receive more than $20 in cash or in-kind assistance from family or others. If a couple with disabilities marry, their combined monthly benefits are cut. Caps on savings leave SSI recipients unable to respond to life’s unexpected expenses like an uncovered medical cost or car repair. Ironically, this paternalism comes at a significant cost to taxpayers. SSI benefits are only 4% of the Social Security Administration’s outlay, but policing the program’s many recipient restrictions means SSI takes up 38% of the agency’s administrative costs.

SSI’s low benefit levels and many restrictions have been heavily criticized by poverty research and advocacy groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for American Progress, and Brookings Institution. The organization Justice in Aging has long pushed for SSI reform.

“We need to improve the program by raising benefit levels, reducing barriers to access, and making it easier for people to afford the daily costs of living,” says Tracey Groninger, Justice in Aging’s director of economic security.

Legislation proposed in the last Congress aimed to do just that. The Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act, sponsored by 36 House members and endorsed by over 100 organizations, would have raised the SSI monthly benefit amounts to the federal poverty level and ratcheted back the prohibitive asset and outside income restrictions. In this Congress, the newly-introduced Savings Penalty Elimination Act would allow SSI recipients to keep more savings while retaining their eligibility.

The benefits-increase bill did not succeed, and has not yet been reintroduced. Hopefully, that changes soon. Just as we know that housing is the best response to homelessness, countless research studies confirm that increased income is a silver-bullet remedy for poverty. Increasing SSI benefits to a level that covers basic needs would have a dramatic effect on Sarah’s life, the lives of millions of others, and all of our communities.

America is not being lost. It's being taken.

Taken from the factory worker in Michigan whose job was shipped overseas. From the farmer in Indiana watching crops wither while markets close, subsidies disappear, and tariffs crush their bottom line. From the mother in Ohio who can't feed her children because her food stamps have been cut. From the young man in Kentucky forced to choose between insulin and rent. From the senior in Pennsylvania being told to drive to a Social Security office to collect their check—only to find their local office closed, and the nearest one hours away.

This isn't just mismanagement—it's betrayal.

We are not spectators. We are not statistics. We are the heart of this nation. And it's time we acted like it.

Major companies that were built by American labor—Ford, Caterpillar—are moving out. They're being driven out by a political agenda that's sent material costs soaring through reckless tariffs. To stay afloat, they chase cheaper labor overseas, leaving hollowed-out towns and broken families in their wake.

Meanwhile, politicians slash food assistance, threaten Social Security and Medicaid, and then have the audacity to tell us the economy is strong and it's in our best interest. They smile on TV while the working class suffers.

The elites in Washington tell us to be patient. To wait. That it's complicated. But we know what we see. Our communities are drying up. The jobs are gone. The wages are stagnant. Our groceries are more expensive. The promises are broken.

What we are witnessing is not just economic decline—it is a calculated transfer of power, wealth, and dignity from the people who built this country to the corporate and political class who believe they own it.

The Human Cost

Consider the typical of a lifelong resident of a small town in Ohio. A person who worked at the local manufacturing plant for over 20 years, a job that provided her family with stability and a sense of pride. When the plant closed due to outsourcing, she found herself unemployed, struggling to make ends meet. The ripple effect was felt throughout the community—local businesses shuttered, schools faced budget cuts, and the town's spirit diminished. Her story is not unique; it's a narrative echoed in countless towns across America.

The Illusion of Prosperity

Politicians tout stock market highs and corporate profits as indicators of economic health, but these metrics are detached from the reality most Americans face. While the wealthiest accumulate more, the average worker sees little improvement. The gig economy grows, offering precarious employment without benefits or security. The middle class shrinks as the dream of upward mobility becomes increasingly elusive.

A Call to Action

Enough.

We are not spectators. We are not statistics. We are the heart of this nation. And it's time we acted like it.

Rise Up.

Get off your knees. Don't just sit on the couch and watch it happen. Rise up! Use your voice. Post your grievances. Use social media. Call your representatives. Write letters. Talk to your neighbor. See what's happening. What they're doing isn't how a country should treat its people—and it damn sure isn't right.

Rise up by showing up. At the ballot box. At the school board. At the union hall. At the town meeting. Wherever decisions are made, do what you can. Your presence matters.

Rise up because this country wasn't built by the connected—it was built by the committed. By steelworkers and carpenters. Nurses and truck drivers. Teachers and veterans. People who worked with their hands, loved with their hearts, and built the greatest nation on Earth.

Reclaiming Our Future

It's time to take it back.

Take back our jobs. Demand fair trade policies that protect American workers and hold corporations accountable for outsourcing. Support local businesses and invest in community initiatives that foster economic resilience.

Take back our towns. Advocate for infrastructure projects that create jobs and improve our communities. Push for affordable housing and quality education that ensure a brighter future for the next generation.

Take back our dignity. Stand up against policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the working class. Demand transparency and integrity from our leaders.

Take back our rights. Protect the social safety nets that safeguard our most vulnerable. Fight for healthcare, fair wages, and the right to organize.

And take back America.

We are many. Let them hear us. Let them know—we will not be silent.

To the politicians in power—the ones slashing our benefits, outsourcing our jobs, gutting our economy—then turning around and telling us it's for our own good... I've got one thing to say to you:

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.

Take Back America.

It was the great Kris Kristofferson, whom we just lost last fall, who wrote that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” Is that what Trump meant by his “Liberation Day” of tariffs last week, which liberated America’s 401K investors of billions of dollars? At least millions of citizens felt the freedom to take to the streets over the weekend with their grievances, which should give all of us hope.

In an America that feels on edge right now, few things in the nation’s capital are more precarious than the GOP’s fragile hold on power in the U.S. House. The Republicans’ current 220-213 majority is one of the smallest in modern times. And with crucial votes just ahead on issues like President Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts that favor billionaires and corporations, every vote counts.

Well, unless you’re one of 800,000 Texans who live in Houston or its adjacent Harris County suburbs.

Voters who live in the Lone Star State’s 18th Congressional District, which is nearly 76% Black and Latino, have received a series of gut punches, beginning last year when longtime incumbent and civil rights icon Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee died in office. The district then went strongly for another well-known local, Houston’s 70-year-old former mayor Sylvester Turner, giving him nearly 70% of the fall vote, even after his disclosure he was suffering from a rare form of bone cancer.

Sadly, Turner’s career as a U.S. congressman lasted less than 10 weeks. In late winter, the Houstonian fell ill and died on March 5. The intervening weeks — a momentous time back on Capitol Hill, including a budget vote carried by Republicans by a narrow margin — saw a large crowd come together for Turner’s funeral and candidates stepping forward to replace him.

What was missing for more than a month was any effort by Texas’ right-wing GOP Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special election to fill the vacant seat. Last week, as residents in the 18th grumbled and at least one Democratic hopeful — along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — threatened to sue, Abbott finally spoke...

...not to call the election, but to say he was holding things up because of his ongoing complaints about how one of the few Democratic counties in a mostly red state conducts its elections. It is true that Harris County voters have experienced problems like long lines — often because of a lack of polling places and other restrictions imposed by the GOP-led statehouse. Meanwhile, Abbott cynically worked with state lawmakers to enact legislation that ousted one Democratic elections chief.

But Turner’s untimely death has given Abbott a MAGA two-fer: a chance to keep a safe Democratic seat vacant for as long as he can get away with it, and to stroke the Big Lie that any election that Republicans lose must involve voter fraud.

“Harris County is a repeat failure as it concerns operating elections,” Abbott insisted in a local interview. “Had I called that very quickly, it could have led to a failure in that election, just like Harris County has failed in other elections. They need to have adequate time to operate a fair and accurate election, not a crazy election like what they’ve conducted in the past.”

Monday night, as the impasse started getting more attention, Abbott did decide to declare a special election — not in June, when a statewide runoff is already scheduled, but during the Nov. 4 general election. That means citizens in and around Houston will go eight full months without a representative on Capitol Hill. It’s outrageous.

Abbott’s filibuster of giving Harris County a free, fair and prompt congressional election may offer an answer to the hottest burning question as spring 2025 dawns across the nation: How on earth do Republicans, who seem to be fueling a voter rebellion with Trump’s insane tariff scheme, consumer prices that are rising despite a campaign promise to bring them down, and the president’s popularity plunging, expect to win the 2026 midterms, let alone keep the White House in 2028?

The governor of America’s second-largest state just said the quiet part out loud: voter suppression.

If you spend too much time on social media, as I do, you frequently see liberals commenting on the next elections, only to add, “assuming we have an election.” It feels like extreme internet paranoia and in one sense it arguably is, because it’s impossible to imagine there won’t be balloting in 19 months.

Or, at least, something that resembles an election.

Although there may be few opportunities to as aggressively put a thumb on the scale of election fairness as Abbott is currently getting away with, it’s also becoming clear that Republicans — who’ve embraced anti-democratic tactics from closing polling places on college campuses to advocating for strict voter ID laws — are taking their war on voting to the next level.

Look no farther than North Carolina, where the Democratic candidate for the state’s Supreme Court, incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs, should have been sworn in for a full term months ago, after the 2024 results showed she’d defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by a scant 734 votes.

The moral of the story should have been that every vote counts, but instead it has been that Republicans can’t accept defeat in a democratic election. After losing a recount, Team Griffin went into state court asking that a whopping 60,000 ballots get tossed out because of a complicated technicality in the way these voters had initially registered, even though they had presented valid IDs to vote as required by law.

A federal court had ruled against this challenge before the election, and the proposed massive disenfranchisement was rightfully called “ridiculous” by Charlotte Observer columnist Paige Masten, who added: “But it seems to be the Republican playbook these days: If at first you don’t succeed, just try to throw the votes out.”

The challenge has dragged out deep into 2025, until last week when Republican judges on the intermediate Court of Appeals powered a 2-1 ruling that stunned the Tarheel State by siding with Griffin’s argument, although most of the potentially disenfranchised voters were given three weeks to prove their identity and make their votes count. Still, the ruling — which Riggs is appealing to a Supreme Court where her colleagues are mostly Republican — could cancel out enough Democratic votes to change the outcome. It’s a grim reminder of what was expected from Team Trump if he’d lost last November, and a warning of what’s ahead.

These miscarriages of democracy in Texas and North Carolina come at the same time that Trump has signed an executive order — arguably not worth the piece of paper he scribbled his name across — with the goal of suppressing future votes.

The sweeping diktat signed by the president late last month demands that would-be voters produce proof of citizenship, seeks greater cooperation between the federal government and states on finding and removing ineligible voters, and also to leverage federal dollars to prevent mail-in ballots received after Election Day from being counted. The order has been panned by legal scholars, who note that such rules are typically set at the state level, and is already the subject of a lawsuit by 19 states.

Still, Trump and the GOP have laid down a marker for the 2026 election, and beyond. The party’s recent actions make it clear that they will make it harder for regular folks to cast a ballot, by any means necessary, including a new wave of voter ID laws, constant legal challenges, and maybe cancelling elections where they can. And any efforts to fight back, by Democrats or other aggrieved citizens, will trigger more Big Lies about election fraud.

The hole in the Republican strategy is that as Trump continues to set America on fire with his unhinged presidency, even extreme suppression can’t stop a tsunami at the ballot box.