When the election results came in on November 5th, I felt a pain in the pit of my stomach, similar to what I experienced when Ronald Reagan rode to power in 1980, or with George W. Bush’s tainted victory over Al Gore in 2000. After some grieving, the first question that came to my mind was: What will a Trump presidency mean for the movements for peace and social justice? I offer what follows as just one person’s view, knowing that a genuine strategy for coping in this new era will have to be a distinctly collective process.

As a start, history offers some inspiration. On issues of war and peace, the trajectory of the Reagan administration suggests how surprising hope can prove to be. The man who joked that “we begin bombing [Russia] in five minutes,” and hired a Pentagon official who told journalist Robert Scheer that America would survive a nuclear war if it had “enough shovels” to build makeshift shelters, ended up claiming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” He even came tantalizingly close to an agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to abolish nuclear weapons altogether.

To his credit, Reagan developed a visceral opposition to such weaponry, while his wife, Nancy, urged him to reduce nuclear weapons as a way to burnish his legacy. A Washington Post account of her role noted that “[s]he made no secret of her dream that a man once branded as a cowboy and a jingoist might even win the Nobel Peace Prize.” Such personal factors did come into play, but the primary driver of Reagan’s change of heart was the same thing that undergirds so many significant changes in public policy — dedicated organizing and public pressure.

Reagan’s presidency coincided with the rise of the largest, most mainstream anti-nuclear movement in American history, the nuclear freeze campaign.

Along the way, in June 1982, one million people rallied for disarmament in New York’s Central Park. And that movement had an impact. As Reagan National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane pointed out at the time, “We took it [the freeze campaign] as a serious movement that could undermine congressional support for the [nuclear] modernization program, and potentially… a serious partisan political threat that could affect the election in `84.”

Reagan’s response was twofold. He proposed a technical solution, pledging to build an impenetrable shield against incoming missiles called the Strategic Defense Initiative (more popularly known as the Star Wars program). That impenetrable shield never came to be, but the quest to develop it deposited tens of billions of dollars in the coffers of major weapons contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon.

The second prong of Reagan’s response was a series of nuclear arms control proposals, welcomed by reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, including a discussion of the possibility of eliminating the two sides’ nuclear arsenals altogether. The idea of abolishing nuclear weapons didn’t come to fruition, but the Reagan administration and its successor, that of George H.W. Bush, did at least end up implementing substantial cuts to the American nuclear arsenal.

So, in a few short years, Reagan, the nuclear hawk, was transformed into Reagan, the arms-control-supporter, largely due to concerted public pressure. All of which goes to show that organizing does matter and that, given enough political will and public engagement, dark times can be turned around.

Trump at Peace (and War)

Donald Trump is nothing if not a top-flight marketeer — a walking, talking brand. And his brand is as a tough guy and a deal maker, even if the only time he’s truly lived up to that image was as an imaginary businessman on television.

But because Trump, lacking a fixed ideology — unless you count narcissism — is largely transactional, his positions on war and peace remain remarkably unpredictable. His first run for office was marked by his relentless criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a rhetorical weapon he deployed with great skill against both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. That he failed to oppose the war when it mattered — during the conflict — didn’t change the fact that many of his supporters thought of him as the anti-interventionist candidate.

To his credit, Trump didn’t add any major boots-on-the-ground conflicts to the conflicts he inherited. But he did serious damage as an arms dealer, staunchly supporting Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, even after that regime murdered U.S.-resident and Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In a statement after the murder, Trump bluntly said that he didn’t want to cut off arms to the Saudi regime because it would take business away from “Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors.”

Trump also did great damage to the architecture of international arms control by withdrawing from a treaty with Russia on intermediate-range nuclear forces and the Iran nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If those agreements were still in place, the risks posed by the current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East would be lower, and they might have served as building blocks in efforts to step back from such conflicts and return to a world of greater cooperation.

But there is another side to Trump, too. There’s the figure who periodically trashes the big weapons makers and their allies as greedy predators trying to line their own pockets at taxpayer expense. For example, in a September speech in Wisconsin, after a long rant about how he was being unfairly treated by the legal system, Trump announced that “I will expel warmongers. We have these people, they want to go to war all the time. You know why? Missiles are $2 million apiece. That’s why. They love to drop missiles all over the place.” And then he added, referring to his previous presidency, “I had no wars.” If past practice is any indication, Trump will not follow through on such a pledge. But the fact that he felt compelled to say it is at least instructive. There is clearly a portion of Trump’s base that’s tired of endless wars and skeptical of the machinations of the nation’s major defense contractors.

Trump has also said that he will end the war in Ukraine on day one. If so, it may be the peace of the graveyard, in the sense that he’ll cut off all U.S. support for Ukraine and let Russia roll over them. But his support for peace in Ukraine, if one can call it that, is not replicated in his other strategic views, which include a confrontational stance towards China, a pledge to further militarize the U.S.-Mexican border, and a call for Benjamin Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza.

The last thing to consider in assessing what Trump’s military policies might look like is his administration’s close association with the most unhinged representatives of Silicon Valley’s military tech surge. For instance, Peter Thiel, founder of the emerging military tech firm Palantir, gave J.D. Vance, Trump’s vice president, a job at one of his companies and later donated large sums to his successful run for the Senate from Ohio. The new-age militarists of Silicon Valley loudly applauded the choice of Vance, whom they see as their man in the White House.

All of this adds up to what might be thought of as the Trump conundrum when it comes to war and peace and, to deal with it, a peace movement is truly needed.

Peace Resistance

For any peace movement, figuring out how to approach Trump will be like shadow boxing — trying to imagine what position he’s likely to take next.

The biggest problem in working for peace under a Trump presidency may involve whether groups are even allowed to organize without facing systematic government repression. After all, in the past, Trump has labeled his opponents with the Hitlerian-style insult “vermin” and threatened to jail any number of those he’s designated as his enemies.

Of course, the first job of any future peace movement (which would have applied as well had the Democrats taken the White House) will simply be to grow into a viable political force in such a difficult political climate.

The best way forward would undoubtedly be to knit together a coalition of organizations already opposing some aspect of American militarism — from the Gaza ceasefire movement and antinuclear groups to unions seeking to reduce the roles their members play in arms production, progressive veterans, big-tent organizations like the Poor People’s Campaign, groups opposed to the militarization of the Mexican border, organizations against the further militarization of the police, and climate activists concerned with the Pentagon’s striking role in pouring greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. A coordinated effort by such movements could generate real political clout, even if it didn’t involve forming a new mega-organization. Rather, it could be a flexible, resilient network capable of focusing its power on issues of mutual concern at key moments. Such a network would, however, require a deeper kind of relationship-building among individuals and organizations than currently exists, based on truly listening to one another’s perspectives and respecting differences on what end state we’re ultimately aiming for.

Even as peace and justice organizations paint a picture of what a better world might look like, they may be able to win some short-term reforms, including some that could even garner bipartisan mainstream support. One thing that the American roles in the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza and plans to arm up for a potential conflict with China have demonstrated is that the American system for developing and purchasing weapons is, at the very least, broken. The weapons are far too costly, take too long to produce, are too complex to maintain, and are often so loaded with unnecessary bells and whistles that they never work as advertised.

A revival of something along the lines of the bipartisan military reform caucus of the 1980s, a group that included powerful Republicans like former Georgia representative Newt Gingrich, is in order. The goal would be to produce cheaper, simpler weapons that can be turned out quickly and maintained effectively. Add to that the kinds of measures for curbing price gouging, holding contractors responsible for cost overruns, and preventing arms makers from bidding up their own stock prices (as advocated relentlessly by Senator Elizabeth Warren), and a left-right coalition might be conceivable even in today’s bitterly divided Congress and the Trump era.

After all, the most hawkish of hawks shouldn’t be in favor of wasting increasingly scarce tax dollars on weapons of little value to troops in the field. And even the Pentagon has tired of the practice of letting the military services submit “wish lists” to Congress for items that didn’t make it into the department’s official budget submission. Such measures, of course, would hardly end war in our time, but they could start a necessary process of reducing the increasingly unchecked power of the Lockheed Martins and Raytheons of our world.

There are also issues that impact all progressive movements like voter suppression, money in politics, political corruption, crackdowns on free speech and the right of political assembly, and so much more that will have to be addressed for groups to work on virtually any issue of importance. So, an all-hands-on-deck approach to the coming world of Donald Trump and crew is distinctly in order.

An invigorated network for peace, justice, and human rights writ large will also need a new approach to leadership. Old-guard, largely white leaders (like me) need to make room for and elevate voices that have either been vilified or ignored in mainstream discourse all these years. Groups fighting on the front lines against oppression have already faced and survived the kinds of crackdowns that some of us fear but have yet to experience ourselves. Their knowledge will be crucial going forward. In addition, in keeping with the old adage that one should work locally but think globally, it will be important to honor and support local organizing. Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign and the progressive feminist outfit Madre have been working along such lines and can offer crucial lessons in how to link strategies of basic survival with demands for fundamental change.

Last, but not least, while such organizing activities will undoubtedly involve real risks, there must be joy in the struggle, too. I’m reminded of civil rights activists singing freedom songs in jail. My favorite of that era isn’t “We Shall Overcome” — although overcome we must — but “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Round,” which includes the lyric “gonna keep on walkin’, keep on talkin’, gonna build a brand-new world.” That may seem like a distant dream in the wake of the recent elections, but it’s all the more necessary because of that.

Victory is by no means assured, but what alternative do we have other than to continue to fight for a better, more just world? To do so will call for a broad-based, courageous, creative, and committed movement of the kind that has achieved other great transformations in American history, from securing the end of slavery to a woman’s right to vote to beginning the process of giving LGBTQ people full citizenship rights.

Time is short, when it comes to the state of this planet and war, but success is still possible if we act with what Martin Luther King, Jr., once called “the fierce urgency of now.”

Since so much that is bizarre is currently being normalized (Matt Gaetz, in an effort to get out of Congress before it could publish its report on his sex scandals, is taking a new job as… attorney general) let me just say that the strangest thing of all remains in plain view. The incoming president of the richest country on Earth believes climate change—the deepest challenge that our species has faced—is a hoax.

This obviously has endless policy implications, which we’ll spend the next four years working through—but the simple fact is what’s so amazing. Every single one of the structures we’ve built over the centuries to help us understand the world, from the National Academy of Science to the land-grant universities with their huge labs, to NASA with its satellites keeping an eye on planet Earth, have told us the same thing: Fairly simple physics means that burning fossil fuel is warming the Earth, a warming now painfully confirmed in rainfall totals, melting ice, rising sea level, and deadly heatwaves. The entire world is plunging into an inferno.

And yet the person at the putative head of that entire pyramid of reason and evidence, the person with instant access to any scientist on Earth, and the person with the power to do the most to prevent it, simply rejects it. Jaded as we are, that should stun us.

Oil companies are a scam, pushing antiquated technology to keep you hooked. They don’t care if you breathe dirty air as long as it makes them money.

It’s not news, of course. President-elect Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords last time around, and he will soon do so again. He’s busy finding allies—the first foreign leader to visit Mar-a-Lago post election was Argentina’s Javier Milei, a libertarian beloved by far-right leaders around the world, who joined Trump in doing the YMCA dance (the picture of authoritarian leaders bouncing to a gay anthem is one of the few saving graces of the moment). Milei announced that he too thought climate change was a “socialist lie” and hinted that Argentina too would soon be leaving the Paris pact. Even the host of the current global climate talks, Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev (named as “Corruption’s Person of the Year” in 2012 by a global NGO) used his opening address last week to explain that fossil fuels were “a gift from the god.” (Climate activists, an unpopular species in Azerbaijan, were prevented from chanting at the global talks, so they hummed)

Obviously the underlying motive for all of this is the wealth and power associated with fossil fuels. (The country of Fossil Fuel Lobbyists sent more representatives to the climate talks than almost any other). Trump on Friday appointed a fracking executive, Christopher Wright, as his new energy secretary, surprising absolutely no one. Wright of course rejects the idea that there is a climate crisis, that we need an energy transition, or that there is any such thing as clean energy.

But he goes further, and in a way that I think helps illuminate how the right gets away with its denial. He tweeted recently that following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the “left” needed a new “north star.”

Enter climate change. The solution to top-down control’s existential challenge came in the form of problem. The climate “problem” fit the bill perfectly. It was global and centered on the two core industries of society, energy and agriculture. It was crowned “existential” by alarmist activists, and left-of-center politicians fell in line.

And here, for me, is the key part. Wright says that the core view of the left is that

those uneducated rubes (the citizenry) surely can’t be left free to exercise their own preferences through purchasing and employment decisions.

I have no idea how Argentine politics works, and I imagine that Azerbaijani politics mainly involves staying on the right side of Mr. Corruption, but I get American politics well enough to recognize the power of Wright’s worldview. There’s always been in our character a strain of “You’re Not the Boss of Me.” (Indeed, I spent my boyhood giving tours of Lexington Green where this attitude had its first real expression). But for much of my life it was a fairly fringe part of our discourse: Long before RFK Jr, for instance, there were oddball right-wing opponents of fluoride in our water supply, or of making motorcyclists wear helmets.

But most of us aren’t motorcyclists interested in traumatic brain injury, nor conspiracy theorists eager to increase our dental bills. So things like that stayed on the fringe—the changes demanded by, say, seatbelts were so small and so obviously beneficial that we just got used to them, and there was no real cost to any industry big enough to matter.

Climate change was a different matter. Taking it seriously would require enormous change from one group of people—those who made fortunes in coal and oil and gas. (Wright’s aptly-named Liberty Energy fracks one-fifth of the onshore wells in America). So the mere fact that science has demonstrated we’re wrecking the Earth with fossil fuel couldn’t be allowed to dictate policy—something that became more likely as the alternatives became cheaper and easier.

The easiest way to marshal opposition was to lean on this tired trope: Someone who thought you were a ‘rube’ was trying to tell you what to do. Trump, of course, goes on repeated diatribes about people being forced to use windpower and then being unable to watch tv because the breeze has dropped, or forced to buy an electric car that only runs when the sun has shining. Though no one has ever proposed banning gas stoves, the mere fact that scientists were pointing out its dangers to the lungs of children was enough to turn on the machine. The Texas representative Ronny Jackson tweeted, with his usual restraint:

I'll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!

and his Senate colleague Ted Cruz chimed in

The Biden administration is waging a multifaceted attack on popular appliances.

This kind of ‘thinking’ was supercharged by Covid-19—instead of appreciating the difficulties posed by a novel virus (or remembering the piles of dead bodies in the early months), lots of Americans pouted. Someone was telling them not to do something (eat in a crowded restaurant) or to do something (cover their mouths). So they rebelled; absent that anger, I doubt a January 6 could have happened.

I think this strain in our national character is wrongheaded—the danger of authoritarianism in America has always come from the right, not the left, and never more so than now. I devoutly wish that affection for one’s neighbors and a love of the generations that will come after us would persuade us to make the not-very-hard changes required of us. But I don’t think those reasons will be sufficient—they’re not strong enough to override the constant chatter about “mandates” pressed by the fossil fuel industry and its media and political harem.

So we have to broaden the appeal of the things that could save us. In the next few years the main task of the environmental movement in America (because so many other options are foreclosed) is going to involve pushing for a rapid transition to clean and renewable energy. We’re going to have to persuade people that solar and wind energy, and the devices that go with it, are what we want. And it won’t do sufficient good to argue on environmental grounds—“you’re not the boss of me” is a teenager’s argument, and teenagers are focused on themselves. So we better be too.

Here’s some of the arguments, then, that we can spend more time on. (And this is not theoretical—we’ll be rolling out the plans to make these arguments scale, as movements adjust to the new political reality).

Solar power is cheaper. (and those who oppose it know so, and are conspiring to make sure you keep paying them for energy when the sun provides it for free)

It’s more reliable. (and you can plug your EV to your house after a hurricane and run everything for a week).

It’s the ultimate liberty to have your own powerplant on your roof.

It’s far better to have a wind farm in your county than to rely on Saudi Arabia (or Chris Wright).

An electric car goes zero to 60 far faster than your antiquated gas model, and it costs half as much to run. (Rich guys in their Teslas are laughing at you)

Because it has fewer moving parts, you don’t have to visit your mechanic nearly as often. You can drive right by the gas station.

Oil companies are a scam, pushing antiquated technology to keep you hooked. They don’t care if you breathe dirty air as long as it makes them money.

Their shareholders are getting rich while you pay for repairing roads and bridges everytime there’s a new climate disaster.

We’ve already reached the percentage of the population that cares deeply about carbon emissions, and we obviously need more. We need to understand the darker sides of the American brain as well as the lighter ones, and we need to play to them.

So remember: If you have some solar panels and a heat pump and an EV, you’re the boss of you. Pass it on.

While votes are still being counted in some states, turnout for the 2024 general election continues to near (although not quite yet reach) 2020 records, despite our country’s incredibly polarized voting landscape. In our current environment, these levels of participation are a testament to the tenacity of organizers to overcome voter suppression and ensure all voters can fully participate in our democracy.

However, this success cannot lull us into a false sense of security in our push to make voting more accessible. The fight to protect unrestricted access to the ballot box is a year-round effort and responsibility. And now, given the results of this election, future political contests in our country face heightened threat levels that demand our vigilance and action.

The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy.

Over the last four years, anti-voting rights extremists have made their mission clear: to turn back the hands of time and further disenfranchise Black and brown communities and other historically targeted groups to ensure their continued grip on power. In nearly half of the country, it is now harder for people in Black and brown communities to vote compared with the most recent midterm elections. Yet, Black and brown voters persist. However, as the new administration prepares to reenter the White House for a second term, anti-democratic forces are, once more, being given an opportunity to radically dismantle and change election administration in our country.

And Project 2025 is their blueprint to do just that.

Project 2025 is the extremist playbook laying out the tactics to dismantle critical democratic infrastructures and rights, including the right to vote. Among its multi-pronged approach to accomplish this, Project 2025 would criminalize the voting process, shifting the responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. This move would allow for ill-intentioned individuals and leaders to intimidate state and local election workers, and cobble up sham investigations that could lead to the prosecution of voters and election officials.

Policing voters to this magnitude would transform our elections into a system of fear and oppression, severely weakening our country’s electoral integrity.

Yet, that’s not all.

Speaking of lowered electoral integrity, another key provision of Project 2025 would end all federal-level measures to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns online. These toxic narratives, meant to discourage voter participation, are already widespread and known to target Black and Latino communities disproportionately. By choosing to abandon any federal responsibility to protect these groups from falsehoods, extremists are choosing to make the truth an option rather than a right in election cycles so the outcomes can favor their camp.

Lastly, and perhaps most insidiously, Project 2025 would allow the federal government to access voter rolls by creating stipulations of eligibility that would force state and local recipients of Department of Homeland Security funding to turn over DMV and voter registration databases. This tactic would open the door to justifying aggressive voter roll purges that would further target Black and brown communities. Furthermore, based on the Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative and extreme ideology, we cannot rely on the court to hold the line and protect voters from such an egregious move.

In addition to federal rollbacks, we can also anticipate a flood of anti-voter bills to be introduced as soon as legislative cycles commence. Fueled by misinformation and this recent electoral win, these bills will more than likely work to chip away at voter access among the youth, people of color, those in rural areas, and those living with disabilities. These bills, like Project 2025 itself, aim to limit who can cast a ballot to dictate who has a say in the future of this country.

Both State Voices and Common Cause are proud members of the Election Protection Coalition, a national coalition working year-round to ensure that all voters, regardless of their race, sex, and location, have an equal opportunity to vote and their ballots are counted. Our coalition is made up of more than 300 local, state, and national groups united under one profound belief: Democracy requires constant, committed protection. We understand that our democratic systems do not come under attack every four years, but every day there’s an opportunity to weaken them.

Now, with Project 2025, we have an opportunity to not only identify the threats but begin to mobilize against them. It is imperative that we remain vigilant in our fight against anti-voter legislation and work together to combat any proposed administrative changes designed to undermine how elections are conducted and how votes are certified.

The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy. We are only as strong as our willingness to protect the rights of all people and not just a few. This moment calls us to action—we cannot afford paralysis in any shape or form. We are called to stand on the shoulders of the activists who came before us so that the elections of the future remain fair and free. We know that Black and brown communities will, once again, lead the charge to protect this precious right, but the moment will call for all of us to do our part to push back against anti-democratic extremism. The future and everything we hold dear depends on it.

One century ago, when Western European powers were planning to carve up the Arab East, the US attempted to convince them to take a different path. Supporting the belief that the peoples recently freed from colonial rule should have the right to self-determination, the US sent a commission of prominent Americans to survey Arab public opinion to discover what they did and did not want for their future. The commission concluded that the overwhelming majority of Arabs rejected division or partition of their region, European mandates over them, and the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine. What they hoped for was a unitary Arab state.

The commission report also warned of conflict if the planned partition moved forward. The British Lord Balfour rejected these findings saying that the attitudes of the indigenous Arab population meant little to him, especially when weighed against the importance of the Zionist movement.

In the end, Lord Balfour got his way, and the dire prediction of the US commission has been borne out. The Arab East was partitioned, and a Mandate was established in Palestine, which the British used to foster Jewish immigration leading to the establishment of Israel. Since then, Palestinians have been dispossessed, displaced, and subjected to unceasing violence. Because they have resisted, the last century has been one continuous conflict culminating in the unfolding genocide in Gaza and crushing repression on the West Bank.

At present, the problem faced by the Palestinian people is that during the past three decades they have lost even more control over the circumstances of their lives. Since signing the Oslo Accords, Israel has taken steps to make impossible the establishment of a unified Palestinian state in the territories they occupied in 1967. The Israelis have severed what they call East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, distorting its economy and forcing its population to become dependent on Israel for employment and services. In the West Bank, the Israelis followed a plan to expand settlements and use “Jewish only” roads, infrastructure, checkpoints, and security zones to divide the Palestinian territory into small controlled areas. Gaza has been de-developed and subjected to economic strangulation for decades. It too has been cut off from the rest of Palestine. The dream of what had been hoped for after Oslo has been crushed.

Still, the Western world pays little attention to the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people. Instead, led by the US, plans are being put forward to govern the future of the Palestinians without the consent of the governed. What is being proposed is a Gaza ruled by a “reformed” Palestinian Authority, with security provided by an Arab-Islamic force, and nothing more than a commitment to negotiate a future two-state solution. The proposal is a non-starter for two reasons.

Despite being designed to meet Israel’s needs, Israelis themselves have rejected the terms of this “day after” concept. They refuse to leave Gaza or allow Palestinians to return to areas of Gaza from which they have been “cleansed.” The Israelis also reject the role of outside forces to provide security. And they are refusing to entertain any discussion of a Palestinian state that involves connecting the divided Palestinian areas, especially if that includes ceding land, removing settlers, surrendering security control, or expanding the role of the Palestinian Authority.

More importantly the “day after” plans fail to take into account Palestinian views.

Instead of prioritizing what Israel (or the US) wants or requires and imposing plans on the Palestinians to meet Israel’s security needs, a shift is needed to an approach that challenges those Israeli policies that have led to Palestinian displacement and anger; distorted Palestinian political and economic development; and made it impossible to build Palestinian institutions that can earn respect.

The place to start is to demand a cease-fire and end the crippling occupation. Palestinian views should be heard. The burden should be placed on Israel and its policies that created this mess and not on victims.

There are some encouraging signs that public opinion in the US is shifting in a more pro-Palestinian direction. Americans are more supportive of Palestinians, and more opposed to Israeli policies that violate Palestinian rights. They are receptive to changing policies that would help Palestinians. But this where the conversation gets stuck, precisely because there is no clear Palestinian vision for the future and no leadership that can articulate it.

With this in mind, a group of Palestinian businessmen commissioned Zogby Research Services to measure the impact of Israeli policies in Gaza, the threats facing those on the West Bank, and to ask Palestinians what they identify as the best path forward to achieve their rights and peace.

What the poll reveals is that despite the different circumstances the Israelis have imposed on the Palestinians in each of the three regions under their control, there remains the common threads of identity, desire for freedom, and unity that continues to bind them together. What they want is that the knee of the Israeli occupation be lifted off their backs so that they can finally have freedom and independence in land of their own. Because they have lost faith, in varying degrees, with the performance of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, they favor: holding a popular referendum to elect a new generation of leadership that can advance a new vision for Palestine; unifying the Palestinian ranks to create a functioning government that can earn respect and recognition; while continuing to hold Israel accountable for its crimes in international bodies.

Of course, all of this must be developed further, but it is the better path to take precisely because it recognizes that instead of continuing to impose “solutions” on Palestinians, the place to begin is to ask them what they want, listen to what they say, and then work to make their aspirations a reality.

Of all U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s choices for his foreign policy team, Marco Rubio is the least controversial to the neoconservative foreign policy establishment in Washington, and the most certain to provide continuity with all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy, from Cuba to the Middle East to China.

The only area where there might be some hope for ending a war is Ukraine, where Rubio has come close to Trump’s position, praising Ukraine for standing up to Russia, but recognizing that the U.S. is funding a deadly “stalemate war” that needs to be “brought to a conclusion.”

But in all the other hot spots around the world, Rubio is likely to make conflicts even hotter, or start new ones.

1. His Obsession With Regime Change in Cuba Will Sink any Chance of Better Relations With the Island

Like other Cuban-American politicians, Marco Rubio has built his career on vilifying the Cuban Revolution and trying to economically strangle and starve into submission the people of his parents’ homeland.

It is ironic, therefore, that his parents left Cuba before the revolution, during the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whose executioners, secret police, and death squads killed an estimated 20,000 people, according to the CIA, leading to a wildly popular revolution in 1959.

While Rubio’s virulent anti-leftist stands have served him well in climbing to senior positions in the U.S. government, and now into Trump’s inner circle, his disdain for Latin American sovereignty bodes ill for U.S. relations with the region.

When former President Barack Obama began to restore relations with Cuba in 2014, Rubio swore to do “everything possible” to obstruct and reverse that policy. In May 2024, Rubio reiterated his zero tolerance for any kind of social or economic contacts between the U.S. and Cuba, claiming that any easing of the U.S. blockade will only “strengthen the oppressive regime and undermine the opposition... Until there is freedom in Cuba, the United States must maintain a firm stance.”

In 2024 Rubio also introduced legislation to ensure that Cuba would remain on the U.S. “State Sponsor of Terrorism List,” imposing sanctions that cut Cuba off from the U.S.-dominated Western banking system.

These measures to destroy the Cuban economy have led to a massive wave of migration in the past two years. But when the U.S. Coast Guard tried to coordinate with their Cuban counterparts, Rubio introduced legislation to prohibit such interaction. While Trump has vowed to stem immigration, his secretary of state wants to crush Cuba’s economy, forcing people to abandon the island and set sail for the United States.

2. Applying His Anti-Cuba Template to the Rest of Latin America Will Make Enemies of More of Our Neighbors

Rubio’s disdain for his ancestral home in Cuba has served him so well as an American politician that he has extended it to the rest of Latin America. He has sided with extreme right-wing politicians like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina, and rails against progressive ones, from Brazil’s Ignacio Lula da Silva to Mexico’s popular former President Lopez Obrador, whom he called “an apologist for tyranny” for supporting other leftist governments.

In Venezuela, he has promoted brutal sanctions and regime change plots to topple the government of Nicolas Maduro. In 2019 he was one of the architects of Trump’s failed policy of recognizing opposition figure Juan Guaido as president. He has also advocated for sanctions and regime change in Nicaragua.

In March 2023, Rubio urged President Joe Biden to impose sanctions on Bolivia for prosecuting leaders of a 2019 U.S.-backed coup that led to massacres that killed at least 21 people.

Rubio also condemned the government of Honduras for withdrawing from an extradition treaty with the United States this past August, in response to decades of U.S. interference that had turned Honduras into a narco-state riven by poverty, gang violence, and mass emigration, until the election of democratic socialist President Xiomara Castro in 2022.

Rubio’s major concern about Latin America now seems to be the influence of China, which has become the leading trade partner of most Latin American countries. Unlike the U.S., China focuses on economic benefits and not internal politics, while American politicians like Marco Rubio still see Latin America as the U.S. “backyard.”

While Rubio’s virulent anti-leftist stands have served him well in climbing to senior positions in the U.S. government, and now into Trump’s inner circle, his disdain for Latin American sovereignty bodes ill for U.S. relations with the region.

3. He Believes the U.S. and Israel Can Do No Wrong, and That God Has Given Palestine to Israel

Despite the massive death toll in Gaza and global condemnation of Israel’s genocide, Rubio still perpetuates the myth that “Israel takes extraordinary steps to avoid civilian losses” and that innocent people die in Gaza because Hamas has deliberated placed them in the way and used them as human shields. The problem, he says, is “an enemy that doesn’t value human life.”

When asked by CODEPINK in November 2024 if he would support a cease-fire, Rubio replied, “On the contrary. I want them to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals.”

There are few times in this past year that the Biden administration has tried to restrain Israel, but when Biden begged Israel not to send troops into the southern city of Rafah, Rubio said that was like telling the Allied forces in World War II not to attack Berlin to get Hitler.

Marco Rubio expects Americans to believe that it is not genocide itself, but protests against genocide, that are a complete breakdown of law and order.

In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in August 2024, Rubio criticized the Biden administration’s decision to sanction Israeli settlers linked to anti-Palestinian violence in the occupied West Bank.

“Israel has consistently sought peace with the Palestinians. It is unfortunate that the Palestinians, whether it be the Palestinian Authority or FTOs [Foreign Terrorist Organisations] such as Hamas, have rejected such overtures,” Rubio wrote. “Israelis rightfully living in their historic homeland are not the impediment to peace; the Palestinians are,” he added.

No country besides Israel subscribes to the idea that its borders should be based on 2,000-year-old religious scriptures, and that it has a God-given right to displace or exterminate people who have lived there since then to reconquer its ancient homeland. The United States will find itself extraordinarily isolated from the rest of the world if Rubio tries to assert that as a matter of U.S. policy.

4. His Deep-Seated Enmity Toward Iran Will Fuel Israel’s War on Its Neighbors, and May Lead to a U.S. War With Iran

Rubio is obsessed with Iran. He claims that the central cause of violence and suffering in the Middle East is not Israeli policy but “Iran’s ambition to be a regional hegemonic power.” He says that Iran’s goal in the Middle East is to “seek to drive America out of the region and then destroy Israel.”

He has been a proponent of maximum pressure on Iran, including a call for more and more sanctions. He believes the U.S. should not reenter the Iran nuclear deal, saying: “We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”

Rubio calls Lebanon’s Hezbollah a “full-blown agent of Iran right on Israel’s border” and that wiping out Hezbollah’s leadership, along with entire neighborhoods full of civilians, is a “service to humanity.” He alleges that Iran has control over Iraq, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and is a threat to Jordan. He claims that “Iran has put a noose around Israel,” and says that the goal of U.S. policy should be regime change in Iran, which would set the stage for war.

While there will hopefully be leaders in the Pentagon who will caution Donald Trump about the perils of a war with Iran, Rubio will not be a voice of reason.

5. He Is Beholden to Big Money, From the Weapons Industry to the Israel Lobby

Open Secrets reports that Rubio has received over a million dollars in campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups during his career. The Pro-Israel America PAC was his single largest campaign contributor over the last five years. When he last ran for reelection in 2022, he was the third largest recipient of funding by pro-Israel groups in the Senate, taking in $367,000 from them for that campaign.

Rubio was also the fourth largest recipient of funding from the “defense” industry in the Senate for the 2022 cycle, receiving $196,000. Altogether, the weapons industry has invested $663,000 in his congressional career.

Rubio is clearly beholden to the U.S. arms industry, and even more so to the Israel lobby, which has been one of his largest sources of campaign funding. This has placed him in the vanguard of Congress’s blind, unconditional support for Israel and subservience to Israeli narratives and propaganda, making it unlikely that he will ever challenge the ongoing extermination of the Palestinian people or their expulsion from their homeland.

6. He’s so Antagonistic Toward China That China Has Sanctioned Him—Twice!

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2022, Rubio said: “The gravest threat facing America today, the challenge that will define this century and every generation represented here, is not climate change, the pandemic, or the left's version of social justice. The threat that will define this century is China."

It will be hard for our nation’s “top diplomat” to ease tensions with a country he has so maligned. He antagonized China by co-sponsoring the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which allows the U.S. to bar Chinese imports over alleged Uyghur rights abuses, abuses that China denies and independent researchers question. In fact, Rubio has gone so far as to accuse China of a “grotesque campaign of genocide” against the Uyghurs.

His underlying attitude to foreign relations is, like Trump’s, that the United States must get its way or else, and that other countries who won’t submit must be coerced, threatened, couped, bombed, or invaded.

On Taiwan, he has not only introduced legislation to increase military aid to the island, but actually supports Taiwanese independence—a dangerous deviation from the U.S. government's long-standing One China approach.

The Chinese responded to Rubio by sanctioning him, not once but twice—once regarding the Uyghurs and once for his support of Hong Kong protests. Unless China lifts the sanctions, he would be the first U.S. secretary of state to be banned from even visiting China.

Analysts expect China to try to sidestep Rubio and engage directly with Trump and other senior officials. Steve Tsang, the director of the China Institute at the U.K.’s School of Oriental and African Studies, told Reuters, “If that doesn't work, then I think we're going to get into a much more regular escalation of a bad relationship.”

7. Rubio Knows Sanctions Are a Trap, But He Doesn’t Know How to Escape

Rubio is a leading advocate of unilateral economic sanctions, which are illegal under international law, and which the United Nations and other countries refer to as “unilateral economic coercive measures.”

The United States has used these measures so widely and wildly that they now impact a third of the world’s population. U.S. officials, from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Rubio himself, have warned that using the U.S. financial system and the dollar’s reserve currency status as weapons against other countries is driving the rest of the world to conduct trade in other currencies and develop alternative financial systems.

In March 2023, Rubio complained on Fox News, “We won’t have to talk sanctions in five years, because there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar, that we won’t have the ability to sanction them.”

And yet Rubio has continued to be a leading sponsor of sanctions bills in the Senate, including new sanctions on Iran in January 2024 and a bill in July to sanction foreign banks that participate in alternative financial systems.

So, while other countries develop new financial and trading systems to escape abusive, illegal U.S. sanctions, the nominee for secretary of state remains caught in the same sanctions trap that he complained about on Fox.

8. He Wants to Crack Down on U.S. Free Speech

Rubio wants to curtail the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In May, he described campus protests against Israel as a “complete breakdown of law and order.”

Rubio claimed to be speaking up for other students at American universities. “[They] paid a lot of money to go to these schools, [but are being disrupted by] a few thousand antisemitic zombies who have been brainwashed by two decades of indoctrination in the belief that the world is divided between victimizers and victims, and that the victimizers in this particular case, the ones that are oppressing people, are Jews in Israel,” said Rubio.

The Florida senator has said he supports Trump’s plan to deport foreign students who engage in pro-Palestinian campus protests. In April, he called for punishing supporters of the Israel boycott movement as part of efforts to counter antisemitism, falsely equating any attempt to respond to Israel’s international crimes with antisemitism.

And what about those crimes, which the students are protesting? After visiting Israel in May, Rubio wrote an article for National Review, in which he never mentioned the thousands of civilians Israel has killed, and instead blamed Iran, Biden, and “morally corrupt international institutions” for the crisis.

Marco Rubio expects Americans to believe that it is not genocide itself, but protests against genocide, that are a complete breakdown of law and order. He couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.

Students are not Rubio’s only target. In August 2023, he alleged that certain “far-left and antisemitic entities” may have violated the Foreign Assistance Registration Act by their ties to China. He called for a Justice Department investigation into 18 groups, starting with CODEPINK. These unfounded claims of China connections are only meant to intimidate legitimate groups that are exercising their free speech rights.

Conclusion

On each of these issues, Rubio has shown no sign of understanding the difference between domestic politics and diplomacy. Whether he’s talking about Cuba, Palestine, Iran, or China, or even about CODEPINK, all his supposedly tough positions are based on cynically mischaracterizing the actions and motivations of his enemies and then attacking the “straw man” he has falsely set up.

Unscrupulous politicians often get away with that, and Rubio has made it his signature tactic because it works so well for him in American politics. But that will not work if and when he sits down to negotiate with other world leaders as U.S. secretary of state.

His underlying attitude to foreign relations is, like Trump’s, that the United States must get its way or else, and that other countries who won’t submit must be coerced, threatened, couped, bombed, or invaded. This makes Rubio just as ill-equipped as Antony Blinken to conduct diplomacy, improve U.S. relations with other countries, or resolve disputes and conflicts peacefully, as the U.N. Charter requires.

Dear Secretary Pete Buttigieg,

I understand you and your top-level appointed officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation are preparing to leave their positions given the results of the November 5 elections. Again, I am pleading with you to fully resolve the highway flooding problem and secure the funds for binding commitments to cover flood damages to homes, businesses, and property in Elba, Alabama’s historically Black Shiloh community before the Biden-Harris administration comes to an end on January 20, 2025. We have two months to get justice for the Shiloh community. Let’s not fail them. Remember, they have been flooded for six-plus years.

Again, the matter of highway flooding in my hometown of Elba is no stranger to you and the USDOT. On February 27 this year, the Bullard Center sponsored a small delegation of Shiloh leaders to meet with Assistant Secretary Christopher Coes and high-level USDOT officials in Washington, D.C. And on April 3 of this year, you and several high-ranking members of your staff, including Assistant Secretary Coes and Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt (who has already left FHWA), participated in our “Journey to Justice” tour of the Shiloh community, talked with flood impacted residents, and saw firsthand the devastation left behind by six-plus years of highway flooding. It’s not a pretty picture—a shameful and dark reminder of misuse and abuse of federal transportation tax dollars.

Yes, racism created the highway flooding problem in Shiloh and it will require environmental justice to fix it.

Through no action or fault of their own, Shiloh residents are helpless as their beloved community becomes a small lake after a rainstorm—all due to racism, reckless design, and expansion of U.S. Highway 84 (that began in 2018 by the Alabama Department of Transportation or ALDOT) under the first Trump administration USDOT. And worse, lack of government response to the Shiloh residents’ complaints about flooding and damage to their homes and property add to growing mistrust of government—including restrictive covenants ALDOT attached to residents’ deeds and an unconscionable property settlement agreement that limits the ability of current and future residents to file actions against the state. The persistent flooding is also responsible for causing residents to lose homeowners insurance coverage, making them even more vulnerable to future economic losses due to climate change.

There is an abundance of documentation and irrefutable evidence to show flooding was not a problem in Shiloh before the Alabama DOT (ALDOT) widened U.S. 84 from two lanes to four lanes and elevated it, placing the once-flat land in the Shiloh community in a bowl and forcing stormwater downhill to flood its residents. To understand this highway flooding problem, one need not be a highway planner, engineer, hydrologist, or lawyer. It’s common-sense knowledge that gravity is forcing water downhill—in this case forcing highway stormwater into the Shiloh community.

By applying the widely accepted “polluter pays principle,” it’s clear who caused the problem and where the responsibility for addressing the flooding problem rests. ALDOT caused highway flooding in the Shiloh community and should be tasked with fixing the highway and required to pay for the damages and losses suffered by the Shiloh home, business, and property owners.

The hard-working Shiloh residents deserve better. They should not have their hard-earned tax dollars used to build a highway project that’s destroying their community and stealing their inheritance and intergenerational wealth. It would be shameful and immoral to allow the flooding problem in Shiloh to carry over into the second Trump administration, when it could be fully resolved on your watch under the Biden administration. I doubt you would want your legacy to read, “USDOT Secretary Pete let the Black Shiloh community and homeowners drown.” Yes, racism created the highway flooding problem in Shiloh and it will require environmental justice to fix it.

The October 4 Voluntary Resolution Agreement (VRA) between FHWA and ALDOT was reached on a civil rights discrimination complaint filed by Shiloh homeowners against the tate agency more than two years ago. The VRA represents binding commitments to fix the highway stormwater drainage system. It’s understandable why Shiloh residents see the VRA only as a partial civil rights victory, since the agreement does nothing to resolve or compensate residents for property losses or damaged homes and businesses. This is a textbook example of highway robbery. A just solution requires putting in place binding commitments to fully compensate Shiloh residents for more than six-plus years of flood losses and damages to their homes, businesses, and property, and offering voluntary buyouts and relocation for those who seek it. That’s the just, fair, and equitable thing to do.

Again, it is important the VRA fix the highway stormwater drainage problem. And it is equally important that binding commitments and an agreement to address damaged homes, property, and businesses be reached before this administration ends because it is unlikely the next USDOT under a second Trump administration would be inclined to resolve highway flood damages and losses of Shiloh residents that were caused by ALDOT under the first Trump administration USDOT.

Finally, ALDOT caused the problem and ALDOT should be held accountable to pay for a comprehensive solution—not a “partial fix” as contained in the VRA. The pressure is mounting for Secretary Pete to act as the clock is ticking for you to step up and make the flooded Shiloh community residents whole before this administration’s time runs out for them on your watch. It’s the just thing to do and the right time to do it. And you need to act with the urgency of now! Let’s not have the record show “you left Black people in Shiloh to drown” on your watch.

Congress is once again attempting to silence pro-Palestinian voices and restrict free speech. After failing to secure a two-thirds majority last Tuesday, House leaders are bringing HR 9495 back for a vote today, attempting to pass it with a simple majority. It is deeply concerning that they are doubling down on this dangerous bill—one that would deal a severe blow to free speech and place pro-Palestinian nonprofits and other advocacy organizations in peril. We must unite to defeat this legislation.

Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire for retribution against those he perceives as adversaries. On the campaign trail, he has alluded to taking aggressive actions, joking about being a dictator on "day one" in office, pledging to jail journalists, and threatening to retaliate against political foes. As his return to the White House looms, Congress is moving to hand a Trump administration a powerful tool that could be wielded against ideological opponents in civil society.

Up for a potential new vote as early as today in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as HR 9495, would grant the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization." The bill's vague and overreaching language lacks clear definitions and safeguards, effectively empowering the federal government to investigate and penalize nonprofits based solely on their First Amendment-protected advocacy for human rights. This bill is not just a threat to pro-Palestinian organizations; it endangers any group that engages in dissent or challenges government policies.

The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy.

For me, this fight is deeply personal. Over 113 of my family members have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. This tragic loss has driven me to dedicate my life to advocating for peace, justice, and an end to the suffering that plagues the region. Yet, instead of honoring the rights of individuals who have lost loved ones to violence, Congress is attempting to silence us by pushing bills like HR 9495 that effectively criminalize our grief, our commitment to peace, and our calls for justice. Such legislation adds insult to injury and undermines the principles of freedom and democracy that America professes to uphold.

The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy. It sets a chilling precedent, blurring the line between political dissent and terrorism in ways that erode our democratic freedoms. By threatening to silence voices advocating for Palestinian human rights, Congress is betraying the constitutional values it claims to uphold, including freedom of speech, association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy.

HR 9495 would be a powerful tool to stifle crucial debate about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East if enacted. It would discourage honest conversations about our nation's role in impacting human rights abroad and inhibit the exchange of ideas necessary for a healthy democracy. For families like mine, this bill adds another layer of trauma—stripping us of the right to speak out about the suffering we have experienced firsthand. It sends a message that our pain is inconsequential and that advocating for peace and justice is unwelcome or, worse, punishable.

Historically, efforts to suppress dissent have never boded well for democracy. From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security. Such actions often lead to the marginalization of minority communities and the erosion of civil liberties for all. HR 9495 threatens to repeat these dark chapters of our history by giving the Treasury Department unchecked power without adequate oversight or accountability.

From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security.

We must ask ourselves: what kind of nation do we want to be? Do we want to uphold the principles of freedom and justice enshrined in our Constitution, or do we want to drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is punished and minority voices are suppressed? Advocating for peace should never be a crime, and punishing those who do so only deepens the injustices we strive to confront.

We urge members of Congress to reconsider this dangerous path and vote down HR 9495 and any similar legislation that may arise in the future. Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy. By defeating HR 9495, Congress can reaffirm our nation's commitment to justice, free speech, and the power of peaceful advocacy.

In addition to legislative action, we call upon civil society, community leaders, and everyday citizens to raise their voices against this bill. Contact your representatives, write to your local newspapers, and engage in peaceful demonstrations to show that we will not stand by while our rights are eroded. It is through action and solidarity that we can safeguard our collective freedoms.

The biblical Book of Job chronicles a string of catastrophes relentlessly plaguing the main character, Job, who loses his prosperity, his home, his health, and his children. Eventually, an agonized Job curses his own existence as well as the god that created him. Issues of evil, justice, and divine wisdom are explored, and while the Book of Job surrenders divine wisdom to God, it recognizes that the work to be done here on Earth is our own.

Numerous interpretations of the story exist, and more than one version has circulated through the ancient Near East. One version concludes with Job avowing repentance: “I know that my redeemer liveth, and so I repent in dust and in ashes.”

The Latin root for the word “repent” is pensare—to think. “Repent” suggests an effort to rethink.

Job’s surprising repentance has been on my mind as calls increase, in 2024, for the United Nations to rethink its relation to Israel as a member state. Increasingly, civil society groups are pressuring Permanent Missions to the U.N. to eject Israel as a voting member of the General Assembly.

In a way, Israel has already removed itself from norms maintained by the U.N. Charter as it has consistently flouted U.N. treaties, resolutions, and advisery opinions.

To paraphrase Pankaj Mishra, writing for The New York Review of Books, a stunned world has watched with disbelief as the United States provisions Israel with weapons enabling a mass murder spree across the Middle East.

Palestinians in the West Bank have recently urged all organizations demanding U.N. compliance with the International Court of Justice ruling of July 2024 to sign a letter available at World BEYOND War which urges Member States of the United Nations General Assembly to fulfill their duties.

Following up on the potential of this letter, a new coalition, “Global Solidarity for Peace in Palestine,” has issued a letter to His Excellency Mr. Philemon Yang, the president of the United Nations General Assembly asking him to convene an urgent meeting of the General Assembly to demand an immediate and permanent cease-fire, establish and secure humanitarian aid corridors, and ensure the complete withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

The letter additionally requests:

• The revival of the U.N. Committee Against Apartheid to address systemic violations of international law and human rights in the OPT;
• Consideration of targeted boycotts, sanctions, and divestments, particularly against illegal operations in the OPT;
• The establishment of an arms embargo on Israel; and
• Exploration of suspending Israel from the General Assembly until it complies with international law.

To further support these efforts, the letter calls for the establishment of an unarmed U.N. peacekeeping mission in the OPT under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter to ensure the safety and dignity of all civilians.

In a way, Israel has already removed itself from norms maintained by the U.N. Charter as it has consistently flouted U.N. treaties, resolutions, and advisery opinions. We must not forget that Israel refuses to acknowledge to the U.N. its possession of nuclear weapons.

I felt startled, during an initial planning call held with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, when one of them spoke of the evacuation he and his family faced, that very day, and said, “We are facing the final solution. Israel is imposing the final solution on us.” Other participants spoke of having shuddered during bombings, day and night.

Journalist Mehdi Hasan, writes movingly in The Guardian of how absurd it is that the United Nations General Assembly agrees to seat Israel as a U.N. member nation.

Israel’s abusive repudiation of the very idea of the United Nations; its escalating and lethal violation of countless international norms; its repeated, deadly attacks on U.N. sanctuaries and peacekeepers all justify its expulsion. Hasan reminds us that Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the United Nations shredded the U.N. Charter while standing at the General Assembly podium. This is the charter that declares the U.N. mission to eradicate the scourge of warfare for future generations.

It is time for the clouds to part above the burning lands of West Asia—for the suffering there to be comforted and their pitiless accusers rebuked by the gathered voice of humanity, by the agent that created Israel and can, when it wishes, “let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” The work here is ours, and so let our United Nations demand, and not beg, humanity from Israel and from its imperial sponsor, the United States.

“America is for Americans—Americans only!”

The words are those of Stephen Miller, speaking last month at the infamous Madison Square Garden rally, but they define Donald Trump. This is the message—the cry from the mountaintop—he brought to the country... at least to approximately half of it. It’s the unifying force behind his campaign, both pragmatically and spiritually. It transcends politics and cuts to people’s deepest values and deepest fears.

It’s why he won: Donald the Outsider, standing up to the Washington status quo, opening the doors of the American government and letting its citizens flow in (legally this time, without breaking doors and windows). America is for Americans—sieg heil!

The irony of Miller’s concern about the fictional deaths of little American girls is the Trump team’s beyond-Biden embrace of the actual U.S.-funded slaughter of Palestinians, including multi-thousands of children.

God save America! Are we on the brink of fascism? There’s a great deal to be concerned about as Trump prepares for his second term—as he prepares to carry out whatever it is that he actually plans to carry out. One obviously looming concern is this: How nutball crazy-serious is he about deporting millions of non-white (allegedly illegal) residents—all those people who are “different from us”?

At the very least, Trump’s focus on emigrants and walling off the American border was his gift of a new “other,” a new enemy, to so many confused Americans who have been uncertain whom to hate and fear ever since the civil rights movement undid Jim Crow and our good old tradition of racial segregation. Trump and his team clearly understand the value of an enemy to unify the base.

Here, for instance, are more words from Miller, the soon-to-be White House chief of staff for policy: Trump, he said, has fought for our right “to live in a country where criminal gangs cannot just cross our border and rape and murder with impunity. Think about how corrupt and hateful and evil a system is that allows gangs to come into this country and rape and murder little girls. I’m not just saying that. You’ve read the stories. It happens every day!”

Be afraid, America! Be very afraid! Our new enemy is still people of color, but now they’re flowing across our porous border. They’re also... fascinatingly, occupying swaths of land God had given to Israel. The irony of Miller’s concern about the fictional deaths of little American girls is the Trump team’s beyond-Biden embrace of the actual U.S.-funded slaughter of Palestinians, including multi-thousands of children.

America is for Americans and Planet Earth is for white people. As Michel Moushabeck wrote at Truthout: “President-elect Trump even went as far as saying President Joe Biden was ‘like a Palestinian,’ using the word as a slur or an insult to prove his greater love of Israel.”

Yeah, the irony is almost beyond comprehension. Biden’s enabling of Israel’s assault on Gaza—and beyond!—is small potatoes compared to what Trump would do. Trump’s anti-Biden rhetoric continued. Acknowledging that Israel has no intention of instituting a cease-fire, he said: “...you should let them go and let them finish the job. (Biden) doesn’t want to do it. He has become like a Palestinian. But they don’t like him because he is a very bad Palestinian. He is a weak one.”

And here we come to the crippling paradox of the Democratic Party. They’re wedded to militarism and the military-industrial complex as much as the Republicans, but they purport to acknowledge both sides of these global issues. They speak with responsible lesser-evilism, you might say. Thus: “Israel has the right to defend itself.” But (unrelatedly): “Too many Palestinians are dying.”

The Dems have trapped themselves in what might amount to a neoliberal cluelessness. In essence, they stand for nothing—or at least for not much, as compared to the Republicans under Trump. As Marianne Williamson put it recently: “There are millions of politically homeless people out there; no, they’re not Trump supporters, but they wouldn’t call themselves Democrats anymore either.”

Can the Democratic Party transcend lesser-evilism? Can it actually present a future to the American public that transcends militarism and endless war, that celebrates multiculturalism, that goes beyond “securing” the border and actually embraces the entirety of Planet Earth, that explores the ecological necessity of saving our planet... and securing our future?

I ask these questions in the wake of Trump’s victory. The takeaway for the rest of us goes well beyond the need for coming up with a better political strategy: leaning further left, learning further right. Trump has offered his base a spiritual sanctuary, a home allegedly secure from perceived (and invented) enemies. I’m not suggesting that the Democrats need to invent a different enemy but, rather, something far, far more complex than that. The Democrats—or whatever political convergence takes shape during the Trump era—must create a political home for Americans who love the whole planet.

This may sound idealistic (i.e., crazy), but the Trump takeover of American politics shows, I believe, that now is the time for serious political change. The Democrats’ strategy of linking economic liberalism to a trillion-dollar annual military budget—especially as the climate crisis manifests itself ever more consequentially every year—has plunged the country into a void of cynicism.

I know that politics is mostly about money, and sheer idealism isn’t going to gain a movement political traction. But all I can do is repeat what I just said: We must create a political home for Americans who love the whole planet.

What do you think? Is this possible?

With the significant red shift this election, led by a man who is described by many as a fascist, resisting and reversing fascist creep is more important now than ever. Even at our supposedly most liberal institutions, we have seen increasingly unreasonable overreactions to dissent dictated not through democratic means, but through authoritarian decree.

Take, for example, the University of Pennsylvania. Early in the morning on October 18, a dozen armed university police stormed an off-campus student house to issue a warrant related to the throwing of red paint on a campus statue on September 12 as part of pro-Palestinian protests—red paint that was pressure-washed off within hours. Would UPenn faculty agree that an armed raid is an appropriate response to their own students who are angry and feeling helpless against the injustice of tens of thousands killed in Gaza? Where is shared and democratic governance when it comes to protest response on campus?

Penn Students Against the Occupation announced the paint incident on Instagram as being done by an “autonomous group.” They included a grainy video clip of a masked individual (let’s call them Sam) throwing the paint, echoing protest tactics used for decades from PETA showing disgust in fur coats to Just Stop Oil activists highlighting the hypocrisy of the attention paid to art versus the climate. Sam, presumably a student, clearly did not want to be caught—most likely because they saw how UPenn responded to protests last academic year—with arrests and academic sanctions and increased rules that prohibit protest activities like chalking and civil disobedience, including interrupting a guest speaker. Students know that if they want to be heard but don’t want to risk expulsion, they need to turn to subterfuge. And on a residential university campus, this is particularly tricky.

For free expression, students and faculty need to feel safe in expressing their ideas that push the boundaries of their institution, and they won’t feel safe to do that with complete surveillance of their activities.

While we are all subject to daily state and corporate surveillance of our activities, college campuses are unique examples of Foucault’s panopticon. Colleges serve as internet service provider, landlord, doctor, corner store, laundromat, gym, department of public safety, and, oh right, educator. And they have access to data for all those services, all handily linked to a student ID, collected in one place densely covered by surveillance cameras. What is unique about colleges compared to the broader U.S. is that the surveillance data is held by one institution rather than many. U.S. colleges are also known to employ analytics on their surveillance data: automated license plate reading, social media monitoring, face recognition, device tracking. Sam would have been easily identifiable despite wearing a mask if their phone automatically connected to campus wifi or if they were caught on camera without a mask approaching the scene.

Universities will say this surveillance is for the students—for their safety, health, and success. Yes, campus shootings are real and scary, but surveillance measures have a very limited ability to stop them. Yes, our youth are experiencing a mental health crisis, but monitoring student’s online behavior hasn’t proven to help either. Visible security has been shown to not increase student success, and if we need to track students to make them go to class are we really legitimizing the existence of higher education? The level of surveillance that universities engage in is more reminiscent of that undertaken by fascist and other authoritarian systems than means to support education.

But perhaps universities simply are fascist. After all, they are led by appointment rather than election. They are capitalist, in competition with one another to accumulate enrollment bases. They have their own rules and policies including strict guidelines on student conduct, which in many instances go far beyond those of broader society. They are awash with unbridled nationalism school pride with a deep hatred of other schools’... colors. And sadly, they have resorted to police intimidation and violence against student protesters of university policies, or allowed truly violent opponents to do this on their behalf.

When, last spring, universities set up mobile surveillance units (MSUs), either rented from private companies or on loan from the Department of Homeland Security, around peaceful and non-destructive protest encampments, it became hard to view campus surveillance as anything but a tool to maintain the institutional status quo. Particularly when those MSUs likely didn’t have any capabilities beyond what the campuses already had. They only served to remind students and faculty that the university is watching, and it is watching because it doesn’t approve.

This all makes universities sound like the fascist institutions that Vice President-elect JD Vance wants and that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is building rather than bastions of academic freedom and liberalism run by shared governance.

From private schools like Brown and UPenn to publics like UCLA and UC Davis, universities grossly overreach in their responses to students protesting injustice. For faculty and students to have a stake in campus response to protest, they need to start with a say in campus surveillance. There is no academic freedom or freedom of expression without privacy. FERPA, the federal law that governs student privacy, really only keeps student information from leaving the ivory tower. Universities need privacy policies that govern how information is shared and used within campus.

Colleges are ahead of the curve when it comes to surveillance creep, and the ivory panopticon will only get worse as surveillance technologies get more advanced. For free expression, students and faculty need to feel safe in expressing their ideas that push the boundaries of their institution, and they won’t feel safe to do that with complete surveillance of their activities. Which means the subjects of surveillance need to have a say in the surveillance. Students and faculty ought to demand answers as to why their institutions collect the data they do. They ought to demand evidence that their data policies holistically support student safety, health, and success. They ought to demand clarity as to whether their institution is being run as a Vance-approved or a DeSantis-built campus or as a place for academic freedom and legitimate higher education.

But then, will they be able to make these demands without being expelled or fired?

As delegates gather for COP29 to discuss global climate commitments, there’s a man in the West Bank who knows almost nothing of policy numbers, carbon targets, or finance pledges. But if anyone should be a delegate it’s him. Sunburned and weathered, farmer Motaz Bisharat is deeply rooted to his 2.5-acre plot of green. Here on his small patch of land, Motaz fights two battles with simple tools—soil, sweat, and 250 olive trees. The trees do more than sustain his family—they hold the line against both encroaching occupation and a changing climate.

Six years ago, Motaz began a quiet experiment: Could a Palestinian farmer with scarce resources bring the ideals of sustainability to a landscape scarred by both climate change and occupation? With help from the Palestinian Farmers Union (PFU), Motaz planted the region’s first Freedom Farm—250 olive trees, fenced for protection and irrigated in the dry summer months. A bit of hope, planted in the ground, as Motaz says.

It sounds simple—plant, irrigate, protect—but nothing is easy in the West Bank. Water allocation is starkly unequal: Settlers nearby have swimming pools while Motaz rations every drop. Electricity is forbidden; even a shaded shelter is not allowed—hence, his sunburn. Fertilizers, equipment, and market access are often blocked by checkpoints, turning basic tasks into grueling ordeals. And violence looms—this year alone, settlers destroyed over 4,000 Palestinian olive trees. In total, over 2.5 million trees have been uprooted, a devastating toll on the land and lives connected to it.

Sometimes, when peace feels like an abstraction, the best thing you can do is plant.

This is what it’s like farming under the occupation. So when the Palestinian Farmers Union proposed a trial new farm, Motaz thought: Y’Allah, let’s see what happens. In a single day, they planted his farm, connected a waterline under cover of night, and built a path to make it accessible. They named it a “Freedom Farm.”

They named it well. In the West Bank, farming isn’t just a livelihood—it’s a nonviolent defense of land. An Ottoman-era law allows Israel to claim any fallow land as “state land” for settlements and military outposts. For farmers like Motaz, letting the land go unplanted means possibly losing it forever, but planted land stays in Palestinian hands. His olive trees are a bulwark—that last line of nonviolent defense.

As if politics weren’t enough, there’s also the matter of the climate. The West Bank is changing rapidly, with hotter summers, longer droughts, and erratic rainfall. A recent PFU report underscores what farmers already know: Reduced crop yields, water scarcity, and soil degradation are now the new normal. Yet olive trees are built for this challenge. They drink less water than most fruit trees, shrug off drought, and stand their ground against fire. Basically, they’re climate warriors. And as they grow, these trees quietly sequester carbon—18,000 pounds per year on Motaz’s farm alone. Over their 500 year lifespan, they’ll absorb 9 million pounds of carbon.

Today, Motaz’s saplings have grown into 10-foot trees heavy with olives. This year, he expects to harvest over 1,000 pounds, which he will press into oil and sell locally. With his young daughter, Shaam, wrapped snugly on his back, Motaz moves from tree to tree, gathering olives that will sustain his family through the year.

His experiment has grown into a movement. The once barren area surrounding Motaz’s farm now hosts 15 other farms, inspired by his effort—a green, one-mile circle of resilience. Across the West Bank, this momentum continues to build as Treedom for Palestine, in partnership with the Palestinian Farmers Union, brings this vision to life. These farms offer more than food and economic stability; they form a fragile network of survival in a landscape where both occupation and climate change conspire against peace. Today, over 70 Freedom Farms dot the landscape, but the need for more is urgent.

Sometimes, when peace feels like an abstraction, the best thing you can do is plant.

As the world’s climate leaders discuss ambitious goals in Azerbaijan, Motaz’s trees are proof that climate action and social justice can begin in the most unexpected places. These trees will live longer than he will. They don’t know borders, race, or politics. They quietly root in shared soil, clean the air, pass nutrients to one another through underground networks. In so many ways, these trees are a glimpse of who we might yet become—a world bound together, quietly connecting, quietly sustaining one another, anchored by hope and the strength to endure.

In the meantime, Motaz and his trees are teaching us all a profound lesson: When your roots go deep, you can weather almost anything.

As a trauma-informed psychotherapist, for decades I’ve had the privilege of working with countless sexual assault survivors while consulting at a rape crisis center and more recently in my private practice. During Trump’s defamation and sexual assault trial (E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump), I was contacted by former and current patient-survivors who were understandably shaken by how Carroll was treated. She was disbelieved, her motives were questioned, and she was mocked or ignored.* This is precisely why many survivors never come forward. Such ill-treatment precisely when someone needs support the most compounds the trauma.

In the days since the election, I’ve had a similar spate of texts/calls/sessions with women who are devastated, disoriented, and scared. (All genders can be sexual assault victims. I just happen to have been in touch with women.)

“It’s mindboggling to me that the fact that [Trump] is an adjudicated rapist, all by itself isn’t enough to make voting for him out of the question,” one woman sobbed, as she buried her face in her hands.

“Why in the hell does the media treat a rapist like a “normal” candidate?” asked another.

Still another texted, “I thought this was the #MeToo era. How can this be?”

Deep-rooted sexism is how. Ask E. Jean Carroll. Ask Christine Blasey Ford. Ask Kamala Harris. Ask millions of women. If you’re someone who voted for Trump, regardless of your reason, there’s no escaping the fact that you participated in that sexism. And before you say it: yes, the 53% of white women who voted for Trump are accountable, as well. Sexism isn’t bound by gender. It can be internalized and championed by anyone. (Same with racism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, etc.) It’s not all that uncommon. To be clear, my goal isn’t to shame. But rather, I hope to invite an honest reckoning, just as I do with my patients as I support them on their journeys, and just as I do with myself. And in that reckoning, perhaps, there can come some awareness and a future dialogue.

Make no mistake, this is going to have a chilling effect on survivors to come forward to report sexual assault.

If you don’t see yourself as someone who could be sexist, remember that sexism isn’t always the “grab ‘em by the pussy” variety. Those who voted for Trump told their daughters and sisters and mothers and women friends tacitly, but unmistakably, that they don’t care enough that the president of the United States is an adjudicated rapist not to vote for him. What reason could make it okay to vote for an adjudicated rapist? It seems that would be a deal breaker for folks who respect and want to protect women. Perhaps it never occurred to some that many women will no longer feel psychologically and physically safe knowing a man with so much power over them has paternalistically and threateningly said he’d “protect [us], whether [we] like it or not.” If a patient reported a partner/spouse had a pattern of saying things like that to her, we’d be discussing safety plans and where she was going to stash her “go bag” in case she needed to quickly flee.

Not only are women and girls getting the message, but so are the men and boys. A Trump vote signaled to men and boys that sexual assault isn’t that big of a deal. In just a few short days since Trump was elected, we’ve already seen how emboldened and entitled men and boys have become. The sickening Nick Fuentes post, “Your body, my choice” has gone viral. Men and boys of all ages are repeating it, some as young as grammar school. Those words are the promise of a predator. The philosophy of a rapist.

A vote for Trump has also given the message to sexual assault survivors, specifically, and women who go through life hoping like hell not to become a sexual assault survivor, that being held legally accountable for rape/sexual assault doesn’t really mean all that much, particularly if you’re a rich, white guy. Despite a jury’s findings of liability, you can be unrepentant and take zero responsibility for your actions, mock your victim on an international platform, and then be voted in by millions of people to hold the most powerful position on Earth.

“All hail, the Rapist-in-Chief,” one of my patients said, saluting and trying to joke through her tears.

Make no mistake, this is going to have a chilling effect on survivors to come forward to report sexual assault. It’s going to discourage them from getting the care and support they need. And just as with the undoing of Roe v. Wade, which robs women of bodily autonomy and the right to fully decide their own futures, it demeans and demoralizes all women.

If you’re a sexual assault survivor and a person of color, and/or also in the LGBTQ+ community, or disabled, low income, or unhoused, I don’t have to tell you about the added challenges those intersections bring. And sexual assault survivor or not, all of these communities, and more, will surely be deeply threatened under a second Trump term. As a psychotherapist, I’ve had the privilege of holding space for innumerable women who’ve told stories of violence and deep pain. I know what horrors we can inflict on each other and I’m not naïve about the uncertainty ahead. But I’ve also heard myriad stories of breathtaking resilience and kick-ass strength and triumph. If during these fraught times each of us commits, however we’re able, to meaningfully stand not only with survivors, but all women and girls, as well as marginalized communities, those are the empowering stories we’ll be sharing one day because it will have been the truth we lived.

*During the trial, I wrote about some of the misperceptions people have about how one “should” respond after being sexual assaulted here.

If you’re a survivor and need support and/or resources, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE (4673); or go to www.rainn.org.

“Revenge—it’s a big part of Trump’s life,” Mother Jones‘ David Corn (10/19/16) wrote just before Trump was elected to the presidency the first time:

In speeches and public talks, Trump has repeatedly expressed his fondness for retribution. In 2011, he addressed the National Achievers Congress in Sydney, Australia, to explain how he had achieved his success. He noted there were a couple of lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know. At the top of the list was this piece of advice: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.”

Knowing this about Trump, Democrats and liberals worry that he will use the Department of Justice, especially if Matt Gaetz is confirmed as attorney general, as an unrestrained vehicle to pursue the prosecution of political enemies.

But given Trump’s constant attacks on media—“the opposition party,” as his ally Steve Bannon called the fourth estate (New York Times, 1/26/17)—journalists fear that he will use the power of the state to intimidate if not destroy the press.

Defunding public broadcasting

Trump called for defunding NPR (Newsweek, 4/10/24) after a long-time editor accused the radio outlet of liberal bias in the conservative journal Free Press (4/9/24). Rep. Claudia Tenney (R–NY) introduced legislation to defund NPR because “taxpayers should not be forced to fund NPR, which has become a partisan propaganda machine” (Office of Claudia Tenney, 4/19/24). With Republicans also holding both houses of congress, bills like Tenney’s become more viable. Trump has previously supported budget proposals that eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Politico, 3/27/19).

The infamous Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda many see as a blueprint for the second Trump term, calls for the end to public broadcasting, because it is viewed as liberal propaganda:

Every Republican president since Richard Nixon has tried to strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) of taxpayer funding. That is significant not just because it means that for half a century, Republican presidents have failed to accomplish what they set out to do, but also because Nixon was the first president in office when National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which the CPB funds, went on air.
In other words, all Republican presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake. As a 35-year-old lawyer in the Nixon White House, one Antonin Scalia warned that conservatives were being “confronted with a long-range problem of significant social consequences—that is, the development of a government-funded broadcast system similar to the BBC.”
All of which means that the next conservative president must finally get this done, and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary. To stop public funding is good policy and good politics. The reason is simple: President Lyndon Johnson may have pledged in 1967 that public broadcasting would become “a vital public resource to enrich our homes, educate our families and to provide assistance to our classrooms,” but public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism.

PBS and NPR, as FAIR (10/24/24) has noted, has for decades caved in to right-wing pressures—PBS by adding conservative programming, NPR by trying to rid itself of political commentary altogether. But the right will never let go of its ideological opposition to media outlets not directly owned by the corporate class.

‘Whether criminally or civilly’

Trump also has a well known track record of revoking the credentials of journalists who produce reporting he doesn’t like (Washington Post, 2/24/17, 5/8/19; New Republic, 11/5/24). It is realistic to assume that a lot more reporters will be barred from White House events in the years ahead.

While a bill that would grant the secretary of the treasury broad authority to revoke nonprofit status to any organization the office deems as a “terrorist” organization has so far failed (Al Jazeera, 11/12/24), it is quite possible that it could come up for a vote again. If this bill were to become law, the Treasury Department could use this ax against a great many progressive nonprofit outlets, like Democracy Now! and the American Prospect, as well as investigative outlets like ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The department could even target the Committee to Protect Journalists, which has already said in response to Trump’s victory, “The fundamental right to a free press, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, must not be impaired” (11/6/24).

Margaret Sullivan (Guardian, 10/27/24), an avid media observer, said there is no reason to think Trump will soften his campaign against the free press. She said:

In 2022, he sued the Pulitzer Prize board after they defended their awards to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both newspapers had won Pulitzer Prizes for investigating Trump’s ties to Russia.

More recently, Trump sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation over the way the anchor characterized the verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual misconduct case against him. Each of those cases is wending its way through the courts.

She added:

There is nothing to suggest that Trump would soften his approach in a second term. If anything, we can expect even more aggression.
Consider what one of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants, Kash Patel, has said.
“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel threatened during a podcast with Steve Bannon. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”

Trump has already gone after the New York Times and Penguin Random House since Sullivan wrote this. CJR (11/14/24) said:

The letter, addressed to lawyers at the New York Times and Penguin Random House, arrived a week before the election. Attached was a discursive ten-page legal threat from an attorney for Donald Trump that demanded $10 billion in damages over “false and defamatory statements” contained in articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.
It singles out two stories coauthored by Buettner and Craig that related to their book on Trump and his financial dealings, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, released on September 17. It also highlighted an October 20 story headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Baker and an October 22 piece by Schmidt, “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”

And just before his victory, Trump sued CBS News, alleging the network’s “deceitful” editing of a recent 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris “misled the public and unfairly disadvantaged him” (CBS News, 10/31/24).

Expect more of this, except this time, Trump will have all the levers of the state on his side. And whatever moves the next Trump administration makes to attack the press will surely have a chilling effect, which will only empower his anti-democratic political agenda.

In what war criminal and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “history’s greatest comeback,” sexual predator, game show host and former Wrestlemania idol Donald Trump was re-elected as US President.

Netanyahu, ever quick to kiss Trump’s ring, has been scheming toward this very moment since last October when Hamas fighters embarrassed his government by breaking out of Gaza's prison walls and attacking Israeli military bases.

Indeed, Netanyahu’s investment paid off. Trump’s re-election reshuffles the Middle East colonial deck in Netanyahu's favour, shifting US policy from the Democratic Party's hypocritical complicity with and denial of Zionist genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity to a shameless embrace and encouragement of these malevolent actions.

Though historically Trump has been far from an ally to the Palestinian people, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recently using “Palestinian” as a pejorative on the campaign trail, he sent a message to Netanyahu to conclude the “Gaza war” by inauguration day.

Trump likely seeks to distance himself from the growing discontent over the Biden administration's perceived weakness in failing to rein in its Israeli junior partner, allowing him to focus on advancing a series of xenophobic, regressive domestic policies aimed at “Making America Great Again.”

Emboldened by Trump's green light and timeline, Netanyahu may escalate his genocidal actions leading up to the inauguration, while a lame-duck President and defeated Vice President lick their wounds and walk off into the sunset, hopefully via The Hague.

That said, Trump is anything but predictable and could very well shift course entirely due to Netanyahu’s persistent grovelling, providing continued imperial backing for belligerent Zionist expansionism.

In their demagoguery, corruption, racism and lack of social conscience, Trump and Netanyahu are mirror fascist images.

They deploy a right-wing, ethnocentric populist appeal with dog whistles and fear-mongering to consolidate their power. Operating above and outside the law, they are both avoiding corruption trials, inhabiting the same unrestrained, tyrannical Hobbesian world.

Essentially, Trump and Netanyahu aim to promote private capital by fragmenting the working class, pushing relentless privatisation of social resources and eroding workers' rights and union protections. They rely on a fabricated white, Western “nation” to advance their nationalist agendas, claiming to protect the purity and security of their in-groups and white, Western interests while promoting a racist capitalist system of global apartheid.

Raised in the shadows of powerful fathers, the two leaders developed a narcissistic need for power, fame and wealth, indulging in corrupt extravagance and throwing spiteful tantrums when challenged.

Their motivations centre on domination, personal gain and the thrill of victory, driven by an insatiable desire to inflate their own grandiose egos. With little regard for integrity or the welfare of others, they routinely scapegoat society’s disadvantaged people to deflect criticism and wield power, prioritising in-group social identity over truth and morality.

Media manipulation is another shared skill. Trump, the reality show star, mastered this during his campaigns, using an array of far-right media networks to spread misinformation, xenophobia and deflect criticism.

Similarly, drawing on skill first honed as a furniture salesman, Netanyahu, the quintessential Teflon politician, has polished the arts of spin, cajolery and propaganda, deftly seizing on the October 7 events to push his agenda unchecked.

With atrocity propaganda eagerly consumed by Israel’s compliant press and promoted by a liberal Zionist “opposition,” he shepherds the Israeli flock to endless war, perpetually delaying his pending corruption trial.

Trump and Netanyahu’s Ur-Fascism

Beyond similarities in their backgrounds, personalities and motivations, Trump and Netanyahu exemplify figureheads of what Italian writer and philosopher Umberto Eco described as “Ur-fascism.’

Ur-Fascism combines traditionalism, irrationalism and authoritarianism to manipulate and control through several defining traits.

It adopts a cult of tradition, whether a delusion of a once “great” America, or a vast Judean Kingdom, fusing diverse, often contradictory teachings into an unchangeable "truth," rejecting intellectual progress and embracing mysticism to legitimise its ideology. This rejection of modernism ties into an anti-Enlightenment stance, superficially accepting technology yet viewing reason, rationality and liberal values as corrupt.

Irrationalism lies at Ur-Fascism's core, glorifying action over thought and condemning intellectual culture as weak and untrustworthy.

In this environment, disagreement equals betrayal, and questioning established norms is cast as subversive. Thriving on a fear of difference, it fosters racism and xenophobia, uniting followers against outsiders as a trick to divert attention from internal corruption.

Ur-Fascism is nurtured by social frustration, appealing to a disillusioned middle class and those lacking social identity by promoting nationalism and a sense of unity through battles with imagined enemies.

Whether through Trump’s villainisation of immigrants or Netanyahu’s “Amalek,” followers are made to feel both humiliated by and superior to their enemies, creating a contradiction that leads to inevitable defeat.

This struggle manifests in a heroic narrative where death and martyrdom are celebrated. Toxic masculinity further defines Ur-Fascism, with disdain for women and nonstandard sexualities and a fetishisation of violence and weapons.

Misogynoir, deeply embedded in Zionist and American white supremacist ideology, fuses religious and fascistic dogmas to cast non-whites, including immigrants and Palestinians as “demographic threats” while erasing Indigenous female identities and lives.

In place of these identities, a Western femininity is constructed, where women are integrated into male-dominated, capitalist and militaristic structures “whether they like it or not.” In fascistic, genocidal escapades, controlling women, who uphold cultural, reproductive and territorial continuity, symbolises ultimate conquest.

Ur-Fascism’s qualitative populism denies individual rights, presenting the people as a unified entity whose will is interpreted by the leader, bypassing democracy through controlled media and staged public support.

Language is deliberately simplified to suppress critical thinking, reminiscent of Orwell’s Newspeak, often disguised in seemingly innocuous forms like talk shows. Through this web of manipulation, Ur-Fascism ultimately seeks to dismantle rational discourse, undermine democracy and create a society ruled by fear, conformity and unquestioning loyalty to a single leader.

Globalisation of white supremacy

The Trump-aligned Heritage foundation has produced complementary documents which outline the globalisation of American white supremacy and Zionism with “Project 2025” and “Project Esther,” respectively.

The texts, which read like dystopian fascist manifestos, detail plans which attempt to institutionalise apartheid and genocide, with vigilante groups under the guise of ‘self defence’ as enforcers.

Netanyahu’s appointment of Yechiel Leiter — a prominent settler and former member of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), an FBI designated terrorist organisation — as ambassador to the US signals his intent to escalate his campaign in Gaza, push toward the annexation of the West Bank and embolden already manifest fascist Zionist mob attacks with the assistance of Mossad beyond Israel (e.g. Amsterdam, Toronto).

In a possible scenario, if Netanyahu persists in his crusade, Trump could broker one of his signature “deals,” offering to recognise annexation of the West Bank, a move articulated by far-right Israeli Minister Smotrich, in exchange for a halt to Zionist aggression against Lebanon and Iran. Trump could then posture as a “peacemaker,” at the expense of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, of course.

That said, recent reports of an Iranian plot to assassinate Trump may prompt the vindictive President-elect to abandon any thoughts of diplomacy with Iran, aligning perfectly with Netanyahu’s fervent ambitions to pull US forces into a war with Iran in a fascist tag-team effort straight from hell.

This column first appeared at The New Arab.

Biden’s executive agencies, like the EPA and the NLRB, are racing to complete important work before the Trumpster gang of Der Führer Donald takes office on January 20. What is the Democratic majority in the Senate racing to do, other than getting some two dozen federal judgeships confirmed? True they can’t get any legislation passed in Congress, but that doesn’t stop the Senate Democrats from throwing down gauntlets to the incoming Trumpeteers with compelling Committee hearings on popular legislation and by pushing bills that highlight Republican opposition to agendas people care about.

For example, they can push to pass a $15 minimum wage benefiting 25 million workers and set up the GOP to oppose that long-overdue measure on behalf of its corporate paymasters. The election is over. Majority leader Chuck Schumer doesn’t have to worry about losing some corporate campaign cash for standing up, as he should have years ago, for beleaguered workers unable to pay their family’s bills.

Schumer’s Democrats also could push a bill to restore taxes on the very undertaxed corporations and super-wealthy to the level they were at in the prosperous 1960s and again induce the Republicans to show their plutocratic colors. The list could go on, but no one ever accused the Democrats of knowing how to push the GOP into a corner.

The Democrats could also activate their committees to each hold a full day of public hearings in mid-December on major redirections and reforms that the GOP opposes.

Such hearings, with powerful witnesses, will get the attention of the Congressional reporters and let the vanquished Party of the Donkey go out with a bang (or a Bray) instead of a whimper. The hearings could provide yardsticks foreshadowing and measuring Trump’s wrecking ball promises for the first one hundred days under the new GOP-controlled Congress. It would also reassure a bit the Democratic Party’s jilted, angry progressive wing led by Senator Bernie Sanders—who has the highest polls of any federally elected official and was just re-elected from staid Vermont in a landslide. Moreover, it would signal that there is some fight left in the Party, readying for 2025.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-Il.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, could have a full day’s hearing on what must be done about the corporate crime wave, the corporate welfare binge, and the problems with the federal judiciary under corporate influence that his colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has worked intensively to expose.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, could hold hearings opening up the entire corporate tax racket and the need for stronger laws and budgets for the understaffed IRS.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, could highlight how many lives and how much money full Medicare for All will save for America and document the neglected weak labor and pension protection laws.

Senator Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, could hold hearings on how renewable energy, together with public works, can produce a safer, more efficient economy and a significant number of new jobs paid for by restoring taxes on large companies and the wealthy classes.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is well poised to illuminate serious public budget priorities and why more tax revenue is not going back in the form of improved conditions where the people live, work, and raise their families, instead of pouring tax dollars into a gigantic wasteful, unaudited military Empire that consumes over half of the entire federal government’s operating expenditures.

Outgoing Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, could highlight two of his favorite proposals—public banking and a return of postal banking—for the unbanked populace. Both poll very high. He could also present some stronger fundamental banking legislation to protect savers, depositors, and borrowers.

These chairmen are quite supportive of such redirections for our country. They can give the people compelling alternatives to the GOP that the dominant, war-supporting, genocidal corporate Democrats should have placed front and center during the election. Raising authentic domestic expectations supported by a large majority of the voting public is a good way to go out and start the recovery with the people for 2026.

Will they conduct these hearings and turn the hearing records into a great Compact for Americans? Or will they prefer another day of vacation to stay home and lick their wounds? Even a burdened Donkey wouldn’t do that!

(Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 switchboard to hold these hearings).

Everything feels different this time. In November 2016, there were protests; today, mostly silence. In November 2016, there was a lot of talk about resistance; today, people are talking about stepping away from politics. In November 2016, people clamored for news; today, folks are logging off. In November 2016, there was shock. It has been replaced by numbness. But best to take the words of Joni Mitchell to heart, that “something’s lost but something’s gained, by living every day.”

The warning signs were hiding in plain sight, even at the Democrats’ ecstatic four-day August convention in Chicago that felt more like a warehouse rave than a political confab—a vibe-shift that sent delegates back home convinced that their nominee Kamala Harris was about to vanquish Donald Trump from American political life for good.

But in an election year in which there was fury from the middle class over how much it costs to get by in today’s America, some observers—especially in the party’s left flank—were appalled at the barely hidden embrace of big money. Across the Windy City, in rented venues like the House of Blues, lobbyists for industries like crypto or PACs funded by firms like Cigna or AT&T threw posh late-night private parties for Democratic insiders after the TV lights were turned off.

The current Democratic brand is toxic—especially with working-class voters who have no idea what the party stands for. It’s past time to cast out the money-changers and stop pandering to millionaires and billionaires who may be pro-abortion rights or support the LBGTQ community, but who mainly just want to keep America’s unequal economic status quo.

But one pivotal moment inside the United Center even horrified the seen-it-all investigative journalist and former Sen. Bernie Sanders speechwriter David Sirota, who noted that a line from Illinois governor and Hilton hotel heir J.B. Pritzker—“Take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing, stupidity”—caused “raucous applause from an audience overjoyed to have found its newest billionaire idol.”

Sirota and others who heard it knew instinctively that this was not a winning message for the party that once dominated American politics in the mid-20th century by turning out the working class, and Tuesday’s results proved them right. In the flaming wreckage of an election in which Trump won a return ticket to the White House by winning the popular vote for the first time in three tries, while his fellow Republicans were capturing control of Congress, both pundits and Democratic insiders have spent the last week fighting over who to blame.

For these wounded elites, prime suspects include everything from President Joe Biden’s insistence on running and staying in the race until July, to Harris’ failure to reach young men by not going on testosterone-laden shows like Joe Rogan’s podcast, to the party’s collective inability to feel consumers’ pain over the post-COVID spike in prices. But you don’t need to be a rocket scientist or even a political scientist to argue that the biggest blunder was not attacking the billionaire class because Harris was too busy begging for their campaign checks.

If there is one thing that gets working-class Americans across the familiar fault lines of political ideology or race or ethnicity to agree, it’s that the super rich have too much wealth and power and don’t pay their fair share. In March, a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll of voters in the seven key swing states found some 69% of voters—including 58% of Republicans and 66% of independents—supported higher taxes on billionaires. That populist fervor is hardly surprising in a nation where the top 10% controls 60% of all wealth, while the bottom half struggles with just 6%.

But while the Harris campaign did pay lip service to raising taxes on the super wealthy, it didn’t give voters the red meat of a soak-the-rich campaign that might have landed emotionally in a nation that most voters believe is on the wrong track. That’s probably because Team Harris, with its ambitious yet eventually reached goal of raising $1 billion in order to outspend Trump on TV ads and getting out the vote, felt it needed to woo Big Business, not offend it with a truly populist campaign.

A New York Times post-mortem on what went wrong with the vice president’s messaging and proposals noted in its headline that she had a “Wall Street-Approved Economic Pitch” that “Fell Flat” with voters, writing that Harris “adopted marginal pro-business tweaks to the status quo that both her corporate and progressive allies agreed never coalesced into a clear economic argument.”

It was arguably worse than that. One of the Democrat’s few firm economic proposals was a 28% capital-gains tax plan that was actually lower and thus more friendly to the wealthy than what Biden had been proposing. Much of her economic agenda, according to the Times, was bounced off a key adviser: her brother-in-law Tony West, a corporate lobbyist for Uber—and it showed. Although the Biden administration had been cracking down on abuses in cryptocurrency, Harris signaled support for the scam-plagued, polluting industry, and won over some new donors.

Harris even campaigned with a billionaire—the colorful Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—who went before a Wisconsin rally to say the Democrat “has an amazing plan for small business,” even after he’d initially lobbied for Harris to dump controversial tough-on-business Federal Trade Commission chief Lina Khan. Watching Harris’ carefully calibrated campaign, it’s also hard not to wonder whether her tepid talk about reining in fossil fuels and even her weak-tea echo of Biden’s Gaza policies—unpopular with many young voters—were meant more for donors than for voters.

It can’t be a coincidence that Democrats’ decades-long embrace of the donor class in an era of big-money politics has disabled its potential populist message to working folks who elected FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. The Democrats need radical change in a hurry if the party wants to retake the House in the 2026 midterms and start the search for a new leader who can replace Trump in the 2028 election—assuming that we’re still having those by then.

That won’t happen under the current Democratic leadership or its consultants, who owe their status to the party’s wealthiest supporters. Any serious political movement to reinvent the anti-MAGA left will have to start from the bottom-up—with meetings and phone calls and rallies by community activists and environmentalists and ministers and everyday folks. The goal must be finding a new breed of candidates who will reject all billionaire and corporate contributions. That can help remake Congress and eventually boost a presidential candidate truly committed to taxing the rich, waging a new war on poverty, cutting the wasteful Pentagon budget and expanding the Supreme Court to protect these gains.

Sound crazy? Such a movement happened in this century, when the Tea Party emerged in 2009-10 to challenge established Republicans with new grassroots organizations that met regularly, staged boisterous protests and primaried GOP incumbents, pushing their party further to the right. That short-lived counter-revolution set the stage for Trump, and for last week’s big victory.

The current Democratic brand is toxic—especially with working-class voters who have no idea what the party stands for. It’s past time to cast out the money-changers and stop pandering to millionaires and billionaires who may be pro-abortion rights or support the LBGTQ community, but who mainly just want to keep America’s unequal economic status quo. Build a new Democratic Party that bans big money, because elections are won with votes, not dollars. The next Democrat who brags about how obscenely rich he is should be booed out of the arena.

We could argue about what mistakes Democrats made this election. Of course they made mistakes because, obviously, they didn’t succeed in stopping the reactionary right. But how about instead of assigning blame we begin to find solutions?

I’ve argued for awhile in articles and books that the problem we face isn’t Trump. The problem and threat to our freedoms is the deeper, older movement that currently takes Trump as its figurehead.

The election result demonstrates that. If Trump was the problem, then the incessant mention of his many failings and absurdities would have led to a decline in his support. Trump is pathetic, delusional, and corrupt, and those traits would eliminate support for a leader, but Trump isn’t a leader. Trump is a figurehead. Nothing said about Trump changes the movement because the movement is not about Trump.

Easier said than done, but the doing of it is necessary. We have to show people the alternative.

Trump is the current focal point and spokesman of the right-wing American nationalist movement. There’s nothing new about Trump or in anything he’s ever said (well, except that “grab ‘em by the pussy” line). Trump’s divisive rhetoric rehashes the anti-immigrant and faux moral outrage propaganda that’s dominated American politics since the nation’s founding.

The American Right Wing

All right-wing movements seek to restore traditional power structures that restrict power to a small group, creating a two-tiered society of haves and have-nots. American nationalism’s right-wing ideology has two main components. One is the idea that America is exceptional and superior to other countries. The other is the idea that America’s exceptionalism can be maintained only by a two-tiered society concentrating power in white male Protestants; thus, giving power to nonwhite male Protestants corrupts the purity of America. When you understand these components of the American right wing’s ideology, everything they say and do makes more sense.

Trump didn’t invent American nationalism. Trump has never invented anything. He just slaps his name on things—buildings, planes, bibles, and American nationalism. He doesn’t care about anything or anyone but himself. If Trump has accomplished anything, it’s the con job of selling himself as a patriot to bilk people out of their money.

Ask the Correct Questions About the American Right Wing

Attacking Trump leaves America’s underlying right wing unscathed. Instead, address the causes. Ask why some Americans want a two-tiered society and why they think that makes America exceptional. Ask why those Americans want to keep power away from whole classes of other Americans.

Asking those questions gets to the core of the problem. Doing so will reveal why some Americans want Trump as their figurehead, why they don’t care about his crimes and boorish behavior, and why they believe his lies rather than the truth about him. They support Trump because he says he hates the same people they hate, and they believe he will relegate those people to being the have-nots in America’s two-tiered society.

It’s about acquiring meaning. People who support and even idolize Trump get feelings of importance and meaning from belonging to a movement. That’s common human behavior. People frequently join groups and/or become fans of public figures to gain a sense of importance and identity.

People gravitate to American nationalism to buttress their sense of self— a sense of meaning that comes at the cost of other people’s rights and sometimes lives. That’s what we are dealing with—that right-wing people get their senses of power and meaning from being American nationalists.

It’s not about Trump. The targets of our efforts to maintain freedom need to be to counter the American right wing movement and the millionaires using it as tools to gain more wealth and power. These realities are not grasped or talked about enough, including by the Democratic Party.

Smarter Opposition

The problem we face is the older, larger, deeper right-wing movement. That movement finds success because it is funded by big money corporate interests, and it sells a vision of a two-tiered America. The sales campaign succeeds by offering people a sense of meaning wrapped in the flag of American nationalism.

Defending freedom and equality for all Americans requires that we oppose the ideology of the American right wing. The Democratic Party’s strategy of attacking Trump and reaching out to moderate Republicans didn’t work, as if it ever could have. A better strategy is getting back to basics and dealing with people and their need for meaning.

We should talk about people voting against their own self-interest when they vote for right-wing politicians. But instead of talking down to them as being ignorant, we need to show how they can find meaning in the other America.

MAGA people support Trump because he says he hates the same people they hate. Other people will side with the right-wing agenda because they find something in it with which they can identify. We can’t expect to talk with or affect the MAGA followers, but we can offer the rest of the country an alternative to the American right wing.

What would that alternative be? We can start by acknowledging that there have always been two Americas.

The America that’s a nation of immigrants, and the America that demonizes immigrants.

The America that rewards hard work, and the America that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

The America that promises liberty and justice for all, and the America of slavery and segregation.

The America of universal suffrage, and the America of voter suppression.

The America that defends freedom, and the America that defends corporate interests.

Politics is about power, and the American right wing wants the America that concentrates power into a two-tiered society favoring one group over others. The wealthy, who benefit the most from that America, sell their right-wing agenda by offering people a sense of meaning even though they aren’t tangibly benefiting from the right-wing agenda.

A smarter opposition to the right wing is to offer people the alternative of the America of opportunity and freedom. Not just talk about that other America, build it, show to people that we’re serious by doing it.

Easier said than done, but the doing of it is necessary. We have to show people the alternative. We should talk about the Project 2025 agenda of an America that concentrates power in the rich elites. We also need to talk about the other America that circulates power among the people.

We should talk about people voting against their own self-interest when they vote for right-wing politicians. But instead of talking down to them as being ignorant, we need to show how they can find meaning in the other America.

When Project 2025 starts screwing over people, we need to have a better alternative agenda ready for them. It won’t help to tell them we told them so. If we remain tepid, or worse, hostile, they will stick with the right wing.

We need to solve a problem much deeper than Trump. We need to stand against that larger American right-wing agenda, but more importantly, work to help everyone else.

I thought I was done with free speech. For nearly two decades, I reported on it for the international magazine Index on Censorship. I wrote a book, Outspoken: Free Speech Stories, about controversies over it. I even sang “I Like to Be in America” at the top of my lungs at an around-the-clock banned-book event organized by the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression after the musical West Side Story was canceled at a local high school because of its demeaning stereotypes of Puerto Ricans. I was ready to move on. I was done.

As it happened, though, free speech—or, more accurately, attacks on it—wasn’t done with me, or with most Americans, as a matter of fact. On the contrary, efforts to stifle expression of all sorts keep popping up like Whac-A-Mole on steroids. Daily, we hear about another book pulled from a school; another protest closed down on a college campus; another university president bowing to alumni pressure; another journalist suspended over a post on social media; another politically outspoken artistdenied a spot in an exhibition; another young adult novel canceled for cultural insensitivity; another drag-queen story hour attacked at a library; another parent demanding control over how pronouns are used at school; another panic over the dangers lurking in AI; another op-ed fretting that even a passing acquaintance with the wrong word, picture, implication, or idea will puncture the fragile mental health of young people.

The instinct to cover other people’s mouths, eyes, and ears is ancient and persistent and not necessarily restricted to those we disagree with.

The list ranges from the ditzy to the draconian, and it’s very long. Even conduct can get ensnared in censorship battles, as abortion has over what information healthcare providers are allowed to offer or what information crisis pregnancy centers (whose purpose is to dissuade women from seeking abortions) can be required to offer. Looming over it all, we just had an election brimming with repellent utterances financed by gobs of corporate money, which, the Supreme Court ruled in its 2010 Citizens United decision, is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

I suspect that if you live long enough, everything begins to seem like a rerun (as much of this has for me). The actors may change—new groups of concerned moms replace old groups who called themselves concerned mothers; antiracists police academic speech, when once it was anti-porn feminists who did it; AI becomes the new Wild West, overtaking that lawless territory of yore, the World Wide Web—but the script is still the same.

It’s hard not to respond to the outrage du jour, and I’m finding perspective elusive in the aftermath of the latest disastrous election, but I do know this: The urge to censor will continue in old and new forms, regardless of who controls the White House. I don’t mean to be setting up a false equivalence here. The Trump presidency already looks primed to indulge his authoritarian proclivities and unleash mobs of freelance vigilantes, and that should frighten the hell out of all of us. I do mean to point out that the instinct to cover other people’s mouths, eyes, and ears is ancient and persistent and not necessarily restricted to those we disagree with. But now, of all times, given what’s heading our way, we need a capacious view and robust defense of the First Amendment from all quarters—as we always have.

Make No Law

In a succinct 45 words, the First Amendment protects citizens from governmental restrictions on religious practices, speech, the press, and public airings of grievances in that order. It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But if a devil is ever in the details, it’s here, and the courts have been trying to sort those out over the last century or more. Working against such protections are the many often insidious ways to stifle expression, disagreement, and protest—in other words, censorship. Long ago, American abolitionist and social reformer Frederick Douglass said, “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon them.” It was a warning that the ensuing 167 years haven’t proven wrong.

Censorship is used against vulnerable people by those who have the power to do so. The role such power plays became apparent in the last days of the recent election campaign when The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, at the insistence of their owners, declined to endorse anyone for president. Commentary by those who still care what the news media does ranged from a twist of the knife into the Post‘s Orwellian slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to assessments of the purpose or value of endorsements in the first place. These weren’t the only papers not to endorse a presidential candidate, but it’s hard not to read the motivation of their billionaire owners, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, as cowardice and self-interest rather than the principles they claimed they were supporting.

Newspapers, print or digital, have always been gatekeepers of who and what gets covered, even as their influence has declined in the age of social media. Usually, political endorsements are crafted by editorial boards but are ultimately the prerogative of publishers. The obvious conflict of interest in each of those cases, however, speaks volumes about the drawback of news media being in the hands of ultra-rich individuals with competing business concerns.

Journalists already expect to be very vulnerable during Donald Trump’s next term as president. After all, he’s called them an “enemy of the people,” encouraged violence against them, and never made a secret of how he resents them, even as he’s also courted them relentlessly. During his administration, he seized the phone records of reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN; called for revoking the broadcast licenses of national news organizations; and vowed to jail journalists who refuse to identify their confidential sources, later tossing editors and publishers into that threatened mix for good measure.

It can be hard to tell if Trump means what he says or can even say what he means, but you can bet that, with an enemies list that makes President Richard Nixon look like a piker, he intends to try to hobble the press in multiple ways. There are limits to what any president can do in that realm, but while challenges to the First Amendment usually end up in the courts, in the time the cases take to be resolved, Trump can make the lives of journalists and publishers miserable indeed.

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy

Among the threats keeping free press advocates up at night is abuse of the Espionage Act. That law dates from 1917 during World War I, when it was used to prosecute anti-draft and anti-war activists and is now used to prosecute government employees for revealing confidential information.

Before Trump himself was charged under the Espionage Act for illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office, his Justice Department used it to prosecute six people for disclosing classified information. That included Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on conspiracy charges—the first time the Espionage Act had ever been used against someone for simply publishing such information. The case continued under President Joe Biden until Assange’s plea deal this past summer, when he admitted guilt in conspiring to obtain and disclose confidential U.S. documents, thereby setting an unnerving precedent for our media future.

In his first term, Trump’s was a particularly leaky White House, but fewer leakers (or whistleblowers, depending on your perspective) were indicted under the Espionage Act then than during Barack Obama’s administration, which still holds the record with eight prosecutions, more than all previous presidencies combined. That set the tone for intolerance of leaks, while ensnaring journalists trying to protect their sources. In a notably durable case—it went on from 2008 to 2015—James Risen, then a New York Times reporter, fought the government’s insistence that he testify about a confidential source he used for a book about the CIA. Although Obama’s Justice Department ultimately withdrew its subpoena, Risen’s protracted legal battle clearly had a chilling effect (as it was undoubtedly meant to).

Governments of all political dispositions keep secrets and seldom look kindly on anyone who spills them. It is, however, the job of journalists to inform the public about what the government is doing and that, almost by definition, can involve delving into secrets. Journalists as a breed are not easily scared into silence, and no American journalist has been found guilty under the Espionage Act so far, but that law still remains a powerful tool of suppression, open to abuse by any president. It has historically made self-censorship on the part of reporters, editors, and publishers an appealing accommodation.

Testing the Limits

Years ago, the legal theorist Thomas Emerson pointed to how consistently expression has indeed been restricted during dark times in American history. He could, in fact, have been writing about the response to protests over the war in Gaza on American campuses, where restrictions came, not from a government hostile to unfettered inquiry, but from institutions whose purpose is supposedly to foster and promote it.

After a fractious spring, colleges and universities around the country were determined to restore order. Going into the fall semester, they changed rules, strengthened punishments, and increased the ways they monitored expressive activities. To be fair, many of them also declared their intention to maintain a climate of open discussion and learning. Left unsaid was their need to mollify their funders, including the federal government.

In a message sent to college and university presidents last April, the ACLU recognized the tough spot administrators were in and acknowledged the need for some restrictions, but also warned that “campus leaders must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions to advance their own notoriety or partisan agendas.”

The marginal might be—today or sometime in the future—what we ourselves want to say, support, or advocate.

As if in direct rebuttal, on Halloween, the newly philosemitic House Committee on Education and the Workforce issued its report on campus antisemitism. Harvard (whose previous president Claudine Gay had been forced out, in part, because of her testimony to the committee) played a large role in that report’s claims of rampant on-campus antisemitism and civil rights abuses. It charged that the school’s administration had fumbled its public statements, that its faculty had intervened “to prevent meaningful discipline,” and that Gay had “launched into a personal attack” on Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican committee member and Harvard graduate, at a Board of Overseers meeting. The report included emails and texts revealing school administrators tying themselves in knots over language that tried to appease everyone and ended up pleasing no one. The overarching tone of the report, though, was outrage that Gay and other university presidents didn’t show proper obeisance to the committee or rain sufficient punishment on their students’ heads.

Harvard continues to struggle. In September, a group of students staged a “study-in” at Widener, the school’s main library. Wearing keffiyehs, they worked silently at laptops bearing messages like “Israel bombs, Harvard pays.” The administration responded by barring a dozen protesters from that library (but not from accessing library materials) for two weeks, whereupon 30 professors staged their own “study-in” to protest the punishment and were similarly barred from the library.

The administration backed up its actions by pointing to an official statement from last January clarifying that protests are impermissible in several settings, including libraries, and maintained that the students had been forewarned. Moreover, civil disobedience comes with consequences. No doubt the protesters were testing the administration and, had they gotten no response, probably would have tried another provocation. As Harry Lewis, a former Harvard dean and current professor, told The Boston Globe, “Students will always outsmart you on regulating these things unless they buy into the principles.” Still, administrators had considerable leeway in deciding how to respond and they chose the punitive option.

Getting a buy-in sounds like what Wesleyan University President Michael Roth aimed for in a manifesto of sorts that he wrote last May, as students erected a protest encampment on his campus. Laying out his thinking on the importance of tolerating or even encouraging peaceful student protests over the war in Gaza, he wrote, “Neutrality is complicity,” adding, “I don’t get to choose the protesters’ messages. I do want to pay attention to them… How can I not respect students for paying attention to things that matter so much?” It was heartening to read.

Alas, the tolerance didn’t hold. In this political moment, it probably couldn’t. In September, Roth called in city police when students staged a sit-in at the university’s investment office just before a vote by its board of trustees on divesting from companies that support the Israeli military. Five students were placed on disciplinary probation for a year and, after a pro-divestment rally the next day, eight students received disciplinary charge letters for breaking a slew of rules.

Why Fight It

The right to free expression is the one that other democratic rights we hold dear rely on. Respecting it allows us to find better resolutions to societal tensions and interpersonal dissonance than outlawing words. But the First Amendment comes with inherent contradictions so, bless its confusing little heart, it manages to piss off nearly everyone sooner or later. Self-protection is innate, tolerance an acquired taste.

One of the stumbling blocks is that the First Amendment defends speech we find odious along with speech we like, ideas that frighten us along with ideas we embrace, jack-booted marches along with pink-hatted ones. After all, popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s the marginal stuff that does. But the marginal might be—today or sometime in the future—what we ourselves want to say, support, or advocate.

And so, I return to those long-ago banned book readings, which culminated with everyone reciting the First Amendment together, a tradition I continued with my journalism students whenever I taught about press freedoms. Speaking words out loud is different from reading them silently. You hear and know them, sometimes for what seems like the first time. Maybe that’s why our communal celebration of the First Amendment seemed to amuse, embarrass, and impress the students in unequal measure. I think they got it, though.

I recognize that this kind of exhortation is many planks short of a strategy, but it’s a place to start, especially in the age of Donald Trump, because, in the end, the best reason to embrace and protect the First Amendment is that we will miss it when it’s gone.

With the recent presidential election, violence in the Middle East, and intense natural disasters prominent in the current news cycle, it’s understandable that major legislation is getting overlooked. However, there is one bill in particular that the public should keep its eyes on due to its potential impact on all aspects of our politics, like government accountability, immigration, and even public health: S. 1524, the Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act.

Although there is existing legislation aimed at protecting government contractors, it is lackluster at best. Contractors can still face roadblocks on the way to truth-telling, such as limited jury trials, blacklisting, retaliation, and even a dearth of protections for refusing to violate the law. However, the Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act increases protections for jobs funded by taxpayer dollars and closes these loopholes for federal contractors to build greater transparency in our government.

To find a case study on the importance of this legislation, one needs to look no further than the February 3, 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, which sent forever chemicals and combustible materials, such as vinyl chloride (a toxic flammable gas), across the community and temporarily displaced 1,500 to 2,000 people. Three days later, authorities burned 116,000 gallons of vinyl chloride and other highly toxic chemicals from five tankers, sending a dense black toxic cloud over the entire region that could be seen from space. It was recently determined that the toxic fallout of materials from the derailment and burn have been detected in 16 states.

Less than a day after the derailment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to follow procedures to fly its Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT) plane for data collection of chemical levels in the area. Had it done so, the agency could have determined that the chemicals in the unexploded tanks were cooling and no longer posed a threat of explosion, making the so-called “control burn” unnecessary and its fallout avoidable. In fact, the ASPECT plane remained grounded for five days until the toxic cloud had dissipated. In the aftermath of the derailment, Dr. Robert Kroutil, an EPA contractor with Kalman & Company and a key developer in the ASPECT program, was concerned about the inordinate and unnecessary delays.

With improved and stronger whistleblower protections, Dr. Kroutil would most likely not have been forced into retirement because of the threats. He could have stood his ground while still on the job.

When he finally received data to analyze, he was shocked that the plane only collected data for seven minutes when more typical flights would collect hundreds of minutes of data. He also learned that the sensors were turned off when the plane flew over creeks, waterways, and the crash site itself. He and his fellow scientists reported that the presence of contamination was inconclusive. A few weeks later, the EPA used this report to conclude that the data collection was a success, and it was safe for residents to return to their homes when in fact the reason the results were inconclusive was because the EPA failed to collect the necessary data. Dr. Kroutil was so upset about what was happening, he filed a Freedom of Information request for documents such as back-dated flight plans. When he was threatened with termination unless he withdrew his requests, he decided to retire and go public with his revelations. He had no faith in the current, inadequate legal protections. The EPA retaliated by calling his claims “false” within minutes of hearing about them. The Office of Inspector General has determined, however, that a full investigation of his concerns is warranted, supported by many other whistleblowers.

With improved and stronger whistleblower protections, Dr. Kroutil would most likely not have been forced into retirement because of the threats. He could have stood his ground while still on the job. Unfortunately, similar events have already occurred surrounding the failure to deploy the ASPECT aircraft.

Since his disclosure of EPA’s mismanagement, two train derailments in Illinois and North Dakota have resulted in the spill of hazardous chemicals and mirror problems with the response to the derailment in East Palestine. In both incidents, the EPA failed to deploy its ASPECT chemical sensing aircraft to collect data. Instead, ASPECT at the time of the derailments was performing a nonemergency assessment near Buffalo, New York, collecting data on a legacy contamination issue from World War II.

With thousands of government contractors working tough jobs for our protection—from ensuring our food is safe to eat and defending us from foreign attacks to mitigating the impact of disasters like the derailment in East Palestine—it’s time we start protecting them too. The laws aimed at allowing contractors to speak truth to power must be modernized and repaired to make whistleblowers less vulnerable to retaliation. That is why we should pay attention to the Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act of 2023, first introduced by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich) and Michael Braun (R-Ind.) and passed out of committee on a bipartisan basis, which would address the shortcomings in the current law.

Government contractors like these have a long history of saving thousands of taxpayer dollars, exposing our government’s wrongdoing, and, as in this case, saving countless lives; to be effective, laws that protect whistleblowers must encourage employees of conscience to speak up and deter employers from retaliating against them for doing so. If the Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act is passed, more contractors could feel empowered to stand up for what is right with crucial information. Government Accountability Project is committed to continuing advocacy for greater whistleblower protections for government contractors and a more fair and transparent government.

One of the lasting legacies of U.S. President Joe Biden will be that he reinvigorated the American empire despite the risk of an increasingly authoritarian Donald Trump returning to lead it.

Over the past four years, President Biden has continually ignored criticisms of U.S. empire and the dangers it poses to the world to direct the empire’s expansion. He has overseen the enlargement of NATO, the exploitation of Ukraine to weaken Russia, a military buildup in the Indo-Pacific to encircle China, and the backing of Israel’s military assaults across the Middle East.

The Biden administration spent the past four years rebooting the American empire, bolstering U.S. imperial power while making some its most brazen moves in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East.

To this day, the Biden administration boasts about its imperial maneuvers, even with the knowledge that a far more dangerous Trump administration will soon be in a position to exploit U.S. imperial power for its own purposes.

“I think we’ve done remarkable things,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin marveled on November 7, two days after the election. “We were able to manage challenges and resources—and I think that put us in a pretty good place.”

Rebooting the Empire

When President Biden first entered office in January 2021, one of his top priorities was to restore the global American empire from the chaos of the first Trump administration. Seizing upon the imperial trope of the United States as an organizer of the international system, Biden spoke about the need for the United States to restore order to a chaotic world.

“We are the organizing principle for the rest of the world,” Biden said in 2022.

Despite some initial failures, including the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, the Biden administration achieved many of its imperial goals, such as the revitalization of U.S. alliances, a major strategic advantage of the United States over its rivals.

Trump has repeatedly asserted that the United States is a nation in decline, seizing upon President Biden’s cognitive decline and some of his imperial failures to insist that the United States is no longer respected. Soon, however, he will find himself in a position to lead a resurgent empire.

After all, the Biden administration spent the past four years rebooting the American empire, bolstering U.S. imperial power while making some its most brazen moves in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East.

The Transatlantic System

The Biden administration has significantly reinforced U.S. power in Europe. Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has posed a major challenge to the U.S.-led transatlantic system, the Biden administration has turned the situation to its advantage.

Since the start of the Russian invasion, the Biden administration has worked to enlarge and empower NATO, bringing more countries into the alliance while increasing its spending on military operations. There are now more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers stationed across Europe, the largest number since the mid-2000s.

The Biden administration has also taken advantage of the war to weaken Russia. By arming the Ukrainian resistance and imposing powerful sanctions on the Russian economy, the United States has led a concerted effort to entangle Russia in a quagmire. The administration’s basic approach has been to provide Ukraine with enough military assistance to hold its positions against Russia but not enough to push Russia out of the country. According to Austin, the primary reason why Ukrainian soldiers have been able to keep fighting is “because we have provided them the security assistance to be able to do it.”

Despite the approximately 1 million casualties on both sides, administration officials have insisted upon maintaining their approach, prioritizing their goal of making the war into a strategic failure for Russia over the ideal of safeguarding the security and sovereignty of Ukraine.

“What we’ve witnessed and I think what the world has witnessed is a declining superpower in Russia making one of its last-ditch unlawful efforts to go in and seize territory,” State Department official Richard Verma said in September. “This is really a declining power in so many ways and frankly not a very effective military power.”

The Transpacific System

While the Biden administration has strengthened the U.S. position in Europe, it has also reinforced the U.S. position in the Indo-Pacific. Even as China has pushed back against the U.S.-led transpacific system, especially in the South China Sea, the United States has strengthened many of its advantages over China.

One of the Biden administration’s major moves has been to build out the U.S. hub-and-spoke model, the U.S.-led imperial structure that keeps the United States positioned as the dominant hub of the Pacific. Not only has the administration fortified the spokes, or the U.S. allies and partners that encircle China, but it has facilitated multilateral cooperation among the spokes, mainly by working through the Quad and other regional groupings.

In a related move, the Biden administration has intensified U.S. military operations across the region. An estimated 375,000 U.S. soldiers and civilian personnel now operate across the Indo-Pacific, forming the highest concentration of U.S. military service members in a region that extends beyond the United States.

President Biden’s legacy will be the handover of a resurgent American empire to “the most dangerous person” in America.

“In the Indo-Pacific, I think we are seeing a resurgent United States,” Defense Department official Ely Ratner commented last year.

Complementing its military moves, the Biden administration has bolstered U.S. economic power. As it has worked to decouple China from multiple sectors of the U.S. economy, it has spearheaded the formation of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which reinforces the U.S. position as the center of economic power in the Pacific.

“Contrary to the predictions that the PRC would overtake the United States in GDP either in this decade or the next, since President Biden took office, the United States has more than doubled our lead,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan boasted in October.

The Middle East

Of all the signs of a resurgent American empire, however, perhaps none is more telling than U.S. action in the Middle East. Over the past year, the Biden administration has made it clear that the United States is more capable than ever to spread havoc and destruction across the region.

Since Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack against Israel, the Biden administration has openly backed Israel’s military assaults across the Middle East, all with little consequence for the United States. The Arab states in the region may have once countered Israel by going to war or organizing oil embargoes against the United States, but they have done little to deter the United States from backing Israel’s military operations. In fact, the Arab states are now more likely to come to Israel’s defense, just as they did when they helped Israel counter Iran’s missile attacks in April and October.

The Biden administration may sometimes criticize Israel for how it has conducted its military operations, especially given the fact that Israel has laid waste to Gaza, but through it all, administration officials have been quietly satisfied with how they have enabled Israel to conduct military operations without facing any major retaliation. The Biden administration’s imperial management of the region demonstrates that the United States is now so powerful that it can unleash its strategic asset on the Middle East without having to engage in a wider war.

“I think we’ve done a magnificent job there,” Austin mused earlier this month, taking pride in U.S. imperial achievements while displaying little concern for the people of Gaza or the Israeli hostages who are still being held by Hamas.

The Future Under Trump

As the Biden administration has recharged the American empire, it has never stopped to question its actions. Not even internal dissent within the State Department and other federal agencies over the administration’s complicity in the destruction of Gaza has led to any kind of reckoning over the manner in which it has employed imperial violence around the world.

Perhaps most telling has been the Biden administration’s response to charges that Trump is a fascist. Top administration officials have agreed with the assessments, some made by leading scholars of fascism and others issued by former high-level officials in the first Trump administration. But leaders in the Biden administration have never questioned their belief that they must do everything they can to strengthen the U.S. empire.

Rather than considering what it would mean for a fascist to take control of the most powerful empire in the world, the Biden administration has spent more time considering how to ensure the empire’s survival. In recent months, one of its top priorities has been to “Trump-proof” the empire, meaning that administration officials are searching for ways to ensure that U.S. imperial structures survive the chaos of a second Trump presidency.

Now that Trump’s reelection is here, however, the Biden administration is facing a far more disturbing reality. President Biden’s legacy will be the handover of a resurgent American empire to “the most dangerous person” in America, all with dire implications not just for the people who are targets of Trump’s wrath but for the many people around the world who are victims of U.S. imperial practices.