For months before U.S. President Donald Trump took office, nearly daily reports rolled in of students and professors on trial for their activism for Palestinian life.

New York University suspended 11 students who were part of a peaceful flyer distribution and sit-in, including students who simply sat in the library lobby in solidarity. Eleven students at Swarthmore College faced expulsion on assault charges for using a bullhorn. Emerson College laid off 10 staff members, blaming protests for Palestine as a cause for low enrollment, and then using layoffs to target pro-Palestine employees. Emerson also put four students on probation for leafleting on a public sidewalk. Thirteen students at Princeton are being criminalized for “trespassing” on their own campus after they participated in a sit-in. Seven students and faculty at Duke have been called before a University Judicial Board, and without notice or due process are facing termination for participating in nonviolent protest. Tenured professors at Emory are facing similar trials. MIT demoted a tenured professor after he proposed a course entitled Decolonization & Liberation Struggles in Haiti, Palestine, & Israel. Professors at Muhlenberg College, Columbia, John Jay College, City University of New York, NYU, and more, have been fired or forced out for advocating for Palestinian rights.

I have spoken with a university librarian fired after teaching a workshop in which they discussed “scholasticide” in Gaza, a K-12 teacher fired for a social media post critical of Israel and the U.S., and scores of K-12 teachers who have been suspended or otherwise disciplined for speaking about the suffering of Palestinians. An avalanche of Title VI Civil Rights Act complaints are being weaponized against educators, many of them filed by individuals or organizations with absolutely no connection to the school in question.

To truly humanize Palestinians is to defy racist empire, which is—in part—why the backlash against the movement for Palestinian life and freedom is so severe.

I am personally facing a Title VI investigation at Gonzaga University, where I was hired as an “activist scholar” to be the lead instructor in a Solidarity and Social Justice program. The allegations against me are over attending a peaceful student “walkout for Palestine,” and forwarding to our faculty listserve an open student letter (signed by hundreds of our students) against Gonzaga’s anti-protest policy. A range of outcomes are possible, including termination. Because I went on a pre-approved medical leave the day after my first interrogation, I have been denied the right to submit further statements or participate in any way until May. In essence, I will be on trial for five months with no representation or ability to advocate for myself.

The number of the similar cases is impossible to know, due in part to near media omission. Many people who have faced or are currently facing investigations are instructed that they must remain silent (and isolated) as to not “compromise” the investigation. Some are quiet because their jobs, prospects for future employment, and safety are at stake. What is clear is that the trials are wide-reaching, extraordinarily punitive, largely coordinated, and were coming down rapidly across the country at educational institutions of all types even before Trump was sworn in.

The witch-hunting of educators and students is combined with related measures, including a nationwide rollout of campus anti-protest policies that appears at least influenced by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, advisers to Project 2025. At the start of the school year around 100 campuses issued broad policy changes that essentially ban meaningful protest. Some universities have gone as far as to fortress entire campuses with checkpoints and surveillance drones, block common gathering areas with fences, and station security guards outside of classrooms.

These are political attacks, designed to crush a movement that is standing with and for people at the brutal bottom of violent systems of oppression. They have a chilling effect, not just upon those they are wielded against, but upon the entirety of public thought and discourse. Some experts have warned that we are witnessing a new McCarthyism, and one that may well exceed the repression of the 1950s.

The new McCarthyism began before Trump and has been partly initiated by “liberal” higher-ed institutions, but Trump’s tyrannical regime will strive to take the trend to harrowing new extremes. Less than two weeks in office, Trump has already issued an executive order—pulled directly from Project Esther—to deport pro-Palestine students that are not citizens and take “forceful and unprecedented steps to marshal all federal resources” against what he described as campuses “infested with radicalism” and “pro-jihadist protests.”

The crackdown on students and educators—being swiftly and terrifyingly exploited and extended by Trump—is a major assault on free speech and academic freedom. It is a grim threat to democracy, dissent, and the ability of ordinary people to resist all of the assaults of authoritarianism and oligarchy that we are up against. It is an alarming slippery slope, that began in large part as a bipartisan attack on a movement that is challenging U.S.-led racist empire.

Activism for Palestinian freedom and equality necessarily confronts American and Western capitalist and imperial interests. It upends supremacist, dehumanizing ideologies—in the case of Palestine, Anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia—that rationalize and sustain a remarkably violent and hierarchical global order. To truly humanize Palestinians is to defy racist empire, which is—in part—why the backlash against the movement for Palestinian life and freedom is so severe, garnering broad support from the far-right and liberals alike.

The witch hunt across educational institutions plays on longstanding Anti-Palestinian racism to vilify all forms of protest for Palestine as terroristic and antisemitic, issuing sweeping charges of antisemitism against any expression of concern for Palestinian life. In this, there is a largely intentional conflation of criticism of Israeli government apartheid and genocide with antisemitism. This misconstruing is also dangerous and oppressive to Jews. According to History and Jewish Studies Professor Annelise Orleck, it seeks to enforce a right-wing Pro-Israel political stance to which all Jews must adhere, and attempts to eviscerate Jewish identities rooted in a long tradition of standing for the rights of the oppressed, democratic pluralism, and social justice. Both Jews and Palestinians have been disproportionately targeted in the campus crackdowns.

While protection of Jewish life has become the pretext for persecuting those who express concern for Palestinian life, a haunting rise in antisemitism on the far-right and at the top is being ignored; at times even defended by groups whose stated mission is to “combat antisemitism.” British-Israeli author Rachel Shabi recently wrote in the The Guardian, “If antisemitism is so blatantly wielded as a political weapon, it creates the impression of a fundamental unseriousness about the subject.” It also undermines the very humanistic movements that are our hope for a world beyond both antisemitism and Anti-Arab racism. To restate words I spoke to students at the protest for which I am being accused of “discrimination” under the Civil Rights Act:

In a moment of such intensive propaganda and power, the world needs your moral clarity. Your moral clarity that all of our lives are inherently interconnected. That the movement for Palestinian liberation is a movement for human liberation. That liberation for Palestinians forces a reckoning with all interlocking systems of oppression, which is core to—not in competition with—Jewish, Black, Brown, Indigenous, White, Collective liberation. Your moral clarity that human solidarity, mutual safety, and freedom is possible. That love, rather than domination, could be the guiding force of our lives together on this one beautiful planet.

We are going to need to hold firm to the principle and aim of collective liberation in the times ahead, and stand with linked arms against attempts to distort our common humanity. I find tremendous hope in the students and educators who have been brave enough to do so, in spite of intense repression and retaliation. It is the courageous acts of ordinary people that will stop the cruel trajectories we are on.

Let’s face it: Electing Donald Trump was nothing short of a suicidal act.

And that’s something we humans seem to have a genuine knack for these days. If you don’t believe me, just consider those record-setting burned-out areas around Los Angeles. Admittedly, that was Nature (with a capital N), but given a grim helping hand by You Know Who. You can thank big oil, big coal, and big natural gas for that (and, in the future, add President Donald Trump to that list in a big-time way). Yes, things do turn out to burn far more fiercely on an overheating planet. And they get wetter faster, too (though not in Los Angeles when rain was truly needed). The phrase now is “climate whiplash,” and if you think it’s fun living under a lashing weather whip, think again.

Mind you, despite what at least some of us now know, the human crew (that’s us) is continuing to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a distinctly record fashion. And as if things weren’t bad enough when it comes to ultimate destruction on this planet of ours, just under 50% of the American voting public only recently elected You Know Who again as president to lend a helping hand. In his inaugural address, Donald Trump promised to do just that. As he put it, all too bluntly:

“We will drill, baby, drill. America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have: the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth. And we are going to use it. We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again, right to the top, and export American energy all over the world. We will be a rich nation again. And it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it. With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers.”

As he summed it up, “America’s decline is over.” But the planet’s is already deeply underway and he’s clearly about to lend it a remarkably helping hand. As a matter of fact, his pick for Energy Secretary, oil executive Chris Wright, has denied that climate change is even linked to greater and more deadly fires on this planet. Of course, to put all this in perspective, even before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the U.S. was already producing more oil and natural gas than any other country now or in history. And that was under a president actually trying to take some steps to mitigate climate change. Well, so long to that!

Donald Trump? Really? Twice? What a loony crew we are!

Mind you, last year, for the first time in recorded history, this planet’s annual temperature hit 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average — and it was also the hottest year ever, beating 2023, the previous record-holder, while every year in the last decade has been record-setting compared to any of the years of the previous decade or, for that matter, the rest of human history. And if that’s not an accomplishment (of a grim sort), I don’t know what is. Worse yet, given the rising levels of carbon dioxide in this planet’s atmosphere, thanks in part to a global fire season from hell, expect more and far grimmer to come (and come and come and come).

“Investing” in Nuclear Devastation

Historically speaking, we humans have had a knack for many things, including exploring and settling just about every inch of this planet, successfully raising vast crops to feed enormous numbers of us, and inventing endless things from the fountain pen and telephone to the car and computer. However, among our many skills, perhaps the greatest when it comes to our future has been our eerie ability to discover ways to do ourselves and this planet, partially, or completely, or at least as we’ve known it all these endless thousands of years… yes, in.

Of course, human history has been anything but lacking in ways of doing ourselves, or others we’ve come to loathe, in. Since the clubs of the Stone Age, humans have come up with endlessly more devastating weaponry: the spear, the sword, the rifle, the machine gun, artillery, planes with bombs… you know the litany as well as I do.

And then, as World War II ended, there were those nuclear weapons. I don’t have to bore you with a substantive description of them, right? They were, after a fashion, a remarkable wartime invention and, of course, were used twice on August 6th and 9th, 1945, to totally devastate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Almost 80 years later — and consider this a distinct accomplishment — knowing what such weaponry could potentially do, no more of them have ever been used in wartime. Not a single one.

Still, explain it as you will, there are now an estimated 12,000 (no, that is not a misprint) nuclear warheads on Planet Earth, many of them staggeringly more powerful than the bombs that destroyed those two Japanese cities. In the 80 years since Nagasaki was nearly obliterated, eight countries have joined the United States in going nuclear and undoubtedly, given time, more will follow. And such weapons — initially just bombs — are now deployable on planes, ships, or via land-based missiles (also known as our “nuclear triad“). And I wouldn’t be surprised if someday such weapons were also placed in space. It’s now generally believed that a major nuclear war on this planet would not only cause unimaginable levels of immediate death and destruction but potentially create a “nuclear winter“ that could, in the end, kill billions of us.

In short, there are now enough nukes on Earth to destroy any number of planets and, though one hasn’t been used in so many decades, don’t count on us when it comes to not, sooner or later, using some of them to engage in potentially world-ending behavior.

And worse yet, 12,000 such weapons turn out to be not faintly enough. Everyone always wants more, including my country, which is planning to pour a fortune into the “modernization” (I’m not kidding, that’s the word for it!) of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the decades to come. That “investment” will be to the tune of $1.7 to $2 trillion dollars (no, that is not a misprint) to create, among other things, new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, a new stealth bomber, and new Columbia-class nuclear submarines.

Oh, and here’s a bit of cheery news about the second Trump administration: the remarkably unqualified fellow that President Trump has picked to run the National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department of Energy, former one-term congressman and (of course!) multimillionaire Brandon Williams, is expected to restart the explosive testing of American nuclear weapons, something that hasn’t happened since President Bill Clinton signed a nuclear test ban treaty (that Congress later refused to ratify). So the world could once again see nuclear weapons going off, even if at test sites.

Call us bizarre. Call us crazy. But up to two trillion dollars “invested” in the future utter devastation of this planet — and that’s only one country — who calls that good sense? And add to that a potential return to global open testing of such weaponry. How cheery! How delightfully end-of-the-world-y of us!

It’s Getting Hotter!

And worse yet, it seems that we humans weren’t satisfied with just one way to do in Planet Earth. However inadvertently, we’ve managed, as I indicated earlier, to come up with a second way to completely devastate this planet, at least as a habitable place for us and just about any other living thing. Admittedly, unlike nukes, climate change will take place in the global equivalent of slow motion and won’t have the ability to wipe out so many of us in a matter of hours, days, weeks, or even months. But in the long run, it distinctly may have the ability to turn ever more of this planet into a set of unlivable spaces.

And here’s a bizarre footnote to all of this. The idea that, sooner or later, burning fossil fuels a mile a minute will thoroughly devastate Planet Earth has hardly been missing in action. In fact, all too many Americans have already begun experiencing it in an ever more up close and personal fashion — as with Helene and Milton, those two devastating hurricanes last fall that gained such strength from passing across the wildly climate-change-overheated waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And who doesn’t remember the vast clouds of smoke that poured down on us from a wildly burning Canada back in the spring and early summer of 2023 in a historically unprecedented fashion?

It’s hardly a secret that the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is at the heart of this phenomenon. And yet in this country in election 2024, almost 50% of Americans cast their votes for a man (and what a man he is!) whose key election line was the very one he repeated in his inaugural address: “drill, baby, drill.” (Of course, it might as well have been “burn, baby, burn.”) We’re talking about a guy who has called climate change “a big hoax” or, in the wake of Hurricane Helene, “one of the greatest scams of all time.”

And, of course, he walks into the White House determined to put significant (yes!) energy into producing yet more oil and natural gas, while reversing any of the Biden administration’s efforts to deal directly with climate change. (Mind you, to keep things in perspective, though Joe Biden did sink significant sums into dealing with the climate and developing alternate sources of energy, in his years in the White House the U.S. also produced more oil and exported more natural gas than any other country on Earth.) And, as promised, on Day One of his second term in office, Donald Trump, among so many other things, joined only three other countries — Iran, Libya, and Yemen — in withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accords.

We humans, especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory, seem distinctly like death-wish creatures and, at some future moment, humanity could truly find itself in a ditch.

Donald Trump? Really? Twice? What a loony crew we are!

To speak personally for a moment. I can’t even imagine spending my years from age 80 to 84 with President Heat Bomb actively working to do in our planet. To my mind, in fact, electing a long-term climate denier as president again might even be thought of as the ultimate suicidal act.

And Yet More?

In short (or long), humanity has so far come up with two ways to utterly devastate Planet Earth, one held in reserve and regularly “modernized,” the other actually underway in a reasonably slow-motion (and still stoppable) fashion. And when it comes to us, that — if I do say so myself — represents no small accomplishment (even if that hardly seems the right word for it). But don’t sell us short. Don’t for a second imagine that those two ways to destroy this planet as a livable place for, yes, us, represent the beginning and the end of the phenomenon.

I wouldn’t count on that, not for a second. I mean, don’t sell us short! (And yes, I’m repeating that phrase, but for good reason.) In truth, there are things that, at my age, I would rather not understand. But I would hardly be shocked if it turned out, for example, that artificial intelligence (AI) might prove to be — I won’t say “the” but only “a” (because I don’t want to sell humanity short) — third possible ultimate way we could do ourselves, if not this planet, in.

Can I tell you how AI could do such a thing? No, I’m too old to truly understand it. So let me instead quote Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist and physicist Geoffrey Hinton, sometimes called “the godfather of AI,” who said this about the phenomenon: “I am worried that the overall consequence of this might be systems more intelligent than us that eventually take control.” In other words, we humans, especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory, seem distinctly like death-wish creatures and, at some future moment, humanity could truly find itself in a ditch.

In the meantime, it’s no small act to have voted Apocalyptic Donald back into power, a man ready, above all, to — yes! — drill, baby, drill (and burn, baby, burn)!

As Trump creates crisis and chaos, testing the limits of his authority and driving the news cycle, it’s critical we keep returning to what matters most to the American people. By focusing on our shared priorities and working together, we can stay grounded during the turmoil and build the power to drive positive change.

At the top of Americans' concerns is economic hardship and inequality. Ninety percent of voters told Gallup the economy was a top influence on their 2024 votes. The rising cost of housing and everyday expenses was cited as the most critical issue by both Trump voters (79 percent) and the broader electorate (56 percent).

These concerns reflect real struggles. According to the Federal Reserve, more than one-third of American adults lack the resources to handle a $400 emergency without borrowing. Families face crushing costs—median childcare runs $1,100 monthly, matching typical rent payments. Natural disasters have financially impacted nearly one in five adults.

By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy.

The ALICE framework helps us understand this crisis. These Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed families—now 42 percent of all U.S. households—often work multiple jobs yet still struggle to cover basics. They are our neighbors, many of them working nearby in businesses, medical facilities, and factories living paycheck to paycheck, while caring for children and elders. Many are forced to choose between rent, food, gas for the car, and paying the power bill.

Millionaire and Vice President JD Vance said at the recent “March for Life” rally in Washington, D.C., that he wished more young people would have children. Yet over half of parents surveyed said that they suffer anxiety due to not having enough money to support their family.

It is not unusual to find people living in their cars or in tent encampments, going to work at multiple jobs but unable to afford rent. The numbers of these ALICE families have grown by 23 percent since 2010 and now make up 42 percent of American households.

Meanwhile, America's billionaire class has accumulated unprecedented wealth—$6.72 trillion among 813 individuals, growing by $1 trillion in just that last nine months of 2024, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. This concentration of wealth translates directly into political power that even many wealthy Americans recognize as wrong. The Patriotic Millionaires group, representing 500 wealthy individuals, has called for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, warning that extreme wealth concentration is corroding democracy.

In spite of his populist language, the Trump administration’s millionaires and billionaires show few signs of being interested in addressing the economic hardship of American families. The president’s true priorities were on display as the billionaires lined up to kiss the royal ring with large donations for the inauguration and were seated in the most prestigious seats at the events.

What can be done? How can ordinary people build sufficient power to put the wellbeing of ordinary families first?

The American people understand these challenges and 89 percent of them recognize that excessive political influence by the wealthy drives inequality, according to the Pew Research Center. Two-thirds believe our economic system needs major reform. Even wealthy Americans largely share these concerns, polling just 9 points lower in their worry about inequality.

With MAGA Republicans dominating Congress and the Executive Branch, national reform is tough. But if we resist getting caught up in the endless drama and distractions, and work together to further our own agenda. we have the power to create change.

• We can remind elected officials at all levels of government that their constituents expect support for child care, healthcare, education, minimum wage increases, and housing policies for working families;
• We can support state and local initiatives to tax wealth and invest in communities;
• We can keep economic hardship and inequality at the center of public discourse; and
• We can join organizations, like the Working Families Party, and build coalitions around shared economic concerns.

By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy. Instead of being distracted, divided, and overwhelmed, we can set our own agenda, build power together for positive change, and insist that our elected leaders act on our shared priorities.

Airing LIVE at 10 am Eastern time this morning, then Streaming 24-7 thereafter:

Guantánamo Bay concentration camp, the American human-rights disaster made infamous by the Bush Administration when it sent Muslim detainees to be tortured there out of reach from the law, is about to radically expand. Donald Trump has ordered the camp to prepare for the arrival of 30,000 migrants, many of whom have never been charged with a crime.

On “The TMI Show,” co-hosts Manila Chan and Ted Rall discuss the morality, practicality and political implications of Trump’s latest move in his war against illegal immigrants.

The post TMI Show Ep 68: Trump To Send Migrants to Notorious Torture Camp first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 68: Trump To Send Migrants to Notorious Torture Camp appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders rattled nerves, elevating the tension levels of many Americans. On his first day in office, he pardoned the January 6 rioters, withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, transferred 1,500 military personnel to the southern border, and began mass deportations. Each of his leadership behaviors rings their own unique alarms. But in the interest of brevity, I’ll explore only the impact of the pardons.

Trump promised to screen those prosecuted for the seriousness of those January 6 crimes—at least during the weeks prior to taking office. Nonetheless, on his fateful first day, Trump issued blanket pardons for all of the approximately 1,600 individuals involved in the insurrection. One-third of those cases involved “assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement.” Trump wiped the insurrection’s criminality clean, issuing “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon” to those prosecuted; he also commuted the sentences of those already serving prison time. A few cases involved brutal violence, and several others sedition.

Examination of even a small sampling of these cases explains why anxiety erupted, how rage fuels it, and how general fearfulness can be expected to surge over time. Consider these examples, starting with the ones who committed violent acts.

Trump rendered the January 6 event a non-event. The insurrection (almost) vanishes from history.

Daniel Rodriguez received a three-year sentence for deploying an “electroshock weapon” against a policeman and then “plunging it into the officer’s neck.” William Lewis received the same amount of jail time for spraying “streams of Wasp and Hornet Killer spray at multiple police officers.” Israel Easterday received a 30-month sentence for blasting an officer “in the face with pepper spray at point-blank range,” after which the officer “collapsed and temporarily lost consciousness.” The brutality of these crimes is self-evident.

Regarding prosecutions for sedition, former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio received a 22-year prison sentence for orchestrating his far-right extremist group’s attack on the Capitol. It topped the 18-year sentence handed out for Oath Keeper’s founder Stewart Rhodes. One-time Proud Boys leader Ethan Nordean also received an 18-year sentence. The leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, Kelly Megs, was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Details of their guilt in directly planning to overturn the U.S. government can be found in publicly available court documents.

Perhaps the clearest example of sedition occurred when the Southern states seceded from the United States in 1861, sparking the Civil War. Sedition, the crime of illegally inciting people to rebel against a government, is rarely prosecuted. The last significant case of sedition involved socialist leader Eugene V. Debs who, during World War I, urged resistance to the draft and obstructed military recruitment. He was convicted of sedition in 1918, receiving a 10-year sentence. The fact that four of the January 6 insurrectionists were convicted of sedition is remarkable. But, now, and again, those convictions—for literally attempting to topple our government—are moot.

Most presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms, not at the beginning. They deliver them for reasons related to the public good, not for their self-interests. For the first time in U.S. history, Trump pardoned these individuals on his first day and for his personal gain. The pardons reinforce the fictional narrative that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him—a belief Trump (allegedly) holds despite the absence of a shred of tangible evidence. More importantly, they show how Trump’s egotism overshadows his regard for the rule of law.

Americans’ levels of anxiety heightened, in reaction to these pardons, for several reasons. The perpetrators of the January 6 violence, not only freed but newly empowered, may go on to harm others. Several have already threatened those who testified against them, including injured Capitol police officers. Some promise retribution. Who cannot help but feel fearful of the release of violent criminals in any context?

Those convicted of sedition, and many of those who committed violence, show no remorse. Some feel proud, considering their actions necessary. Because of the pardons or commutations, the perpetrators can retain weapons they own or purchase new ones. Will their freedom lead directly to other forms of violence? Might Trump’s pardons inspire other would-be violent criminals? These are all nerve-wracking questions.

Trump’s executive order also negates the time spent by prosecutors, defense attorneys, bailiffs, and jurors involved in these cases, blatantly disrespecting them. Given that nearly 2,000 cases were filed, it is likely that 40,000 or more persons served in the justice process. Their hundreds of thousands of hours of work, time spent away from the families, and the stress involved in processing these cases ends up a total waste. Dispiriting is too mild a word. Trump shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of what justice means.

On an entirely different level, the pardons and commutations threaten the foundations of governmental order. All indictments, prosecutions, and sentences, for charges ranging from trespassing to seditious conspiracy, have been nullified. Trump rendered the January 6 event a non-event. The insurrection (almost) vanishes from history. And now armed individuals intent on overturning the U.S. government, and those lying in wait for the opportunity, remain a lingering risk. Individual loyalties to Trump could change in a hot second. Individuals eager to overturn democratic institutions stand sanctioned, if not emboldened, to commit another violent insurrection.

Trump’s executive orders impact the American psyche in still other ways. We Americans, or citizens of any country, rely on government to provide a basic sense of physical and emotional stability. Along with ensuring access to clean water and air, food, education, and medical care, governments provide citizens with law enforcement and judicial systems. The fairness of these systems warrant constant evaluation, but not through their destruction. Trump opened fault lines in these basic structures, eliciting distrust. Whether conscious of them or not, Americans feel these losses. Will we be safe from harm, or from another attempt to bring the government down? Will other institutions be threatened? While I was finalizing this essay, Trump issued a directive freezing spending on all forms of federal assistance.

Finally, many individuals (like me) are enraged at Trump’s release of individuals who the justice system indicted, tried, and imprisoned. Anger that lacks an adaptive channel of expression may cause any number of psychophysiological problems. It becomes suppressed (conscious) and repressed (unconscious). Americans can expect to experience symptoms ranging from headaches and muscle pain to panic attacks and depression.

Events like these pardons and commutations, or the federal funding freeze, seep into our collective psyches, our unconscious minds. They impact Trump’s supporters, most of whom will feel concern about his impulsivity despite their backing his election. In a statement made in his first day in office, Trump declared, “We’re going to do things that people will be shocked at.” One week in, and he has indeed delivered shocks.

Trump continues to make disquieting speeches and to issue orders. He acts impulsively. Many of his directives, like nominating unfit individuals for cabinet level positions or removing security details for his former advisors, show a reckless disregard for the American public. Trump is motivated by power and revenge, not by empathy and care. He displays precisely the opposite qualities of a competent leader. Simple logic argues that Americans’ anxiety levels will be on the rise.

Thus far, Americans mostly remain apathetic, as I discussed in a recent essay. However, one wonders when the angst and the anger fueling much of it will rise to the surface. When, and if, it does, oppositional movements will likely emerge. Quite possibly, there will be mass demonstrations. These will further test Trump’s judgment. Will he heed their calls, or will he turn the military against American citizens? What if the military refuses? Could there be a military coup? Then, real panic would arise. The international financial markets would crash. Even glancing fantasies of such scenarios raise blood pressures, validating that Trump’s first days in office are truly creating a pandemic of fear.

A child is born, and with that birth comes a promise that transcends borders, ideologies, and the divisions that too often define our world. In those first moments, a new life is not simply a biological miracle but a profound reminder of our shared humanity. Every child enters this world unmarked by political affiliation, nationality, or social status, bearing only the intrinsic dignity of existence. This truth binds us all—a universal covenant that every life matters, that every life belongs.

In the United States, birthright citizenship has long been the legal and moral embodiment of this sacred principle. Anchored in the 14th Amendment, it guarantees that any child born on U.S. soil is recognized as a citizen, regardless of their parents’ status or origin. It is a cornerstone of American democracy, an egalitarian promise that seeks to reflect the highest ideals of justice and fairness. For generations, this principle has been a beacon of hope for families striving for a better life, a testament to a nation that once boldly declared itself a refuge for the oppressed, the weary, and the hopeful.

To challenge birthright citizenship is to question the very notion that all people are created equal.

Yet, this promise is under siege—not from foreign adversaries, but from within. Political opportunism, fearmongering, and xenophobia have conspired to transform birthright citizenship from a cherished right into a polarizing debate. Opponents decry it as a loophole to be closed, weaponizing a foundational ideal to stoke fear and sow division.

This debate is not just about policy—it is about the soul of a nation. It compels us to confront fundamental questions about who we are and what we stand for: Are we a nation that values the humanity of every child born within our borders? Or are we a country willing to deny basic dignity based on fear, prejudice, and expedience?

The Legacy of Equality

The 14th Amendment, ratified in the ashes of the Civil War, was nothing short of revolutionary. It sought to upend centuries of exclusion and injustice by affirming a profound truth: that citizenship is not a privilege of the few but a birthright for all born within the nation’s borders. It declared that neither the color of one’s skin nor the circumstances of one’s birth could define one’s place in society.

This promise has been a lifeline for countless families, a declaration that opportunity and belonging are not reserved for the privileged few. Yet, detractors of birthright citizenship argue that it incentivizes illegal immigration, reducing children born here to what they call “anchor babies.” This language is not only dehumanizing but also deeply flawed. Studies repeatedly show that birthright citizenship does not drive immigration patterns in the way opponents claim. Instead, such rhetoric weaponizes fear to erode one of America’s most defining principles.

To challenge birthright citizenship is to question the very notion that all people are created equal. It undermines the belief that every child—no matter their heritage, no matter their lineage—deserves the right to belong.

The Danger of Labels

In today’s polarized climate, even the sanctity of birth has become a casualty of political discourse. Children born into challenging circumstances are reduced to labels—“anchor babies,” “crack babies”—as though their lives can be defined or dismissed by a single phrase. These terms strip away humanity and cast children as problems or burdens rather than miracles of infinite potential.

This is a moment of moral clarity, a crossroads where we must decide who we are and what we stand for.

A child born to undocumented parents is not an “anchor” but a human being whose life holds immeasurable promise. A child born into poverty is not a statistic but a testament to resilience and possibility. By allowing such labels to persist, we rob these children of their dignity and blind ourselves to their potential.

Labels do more than dehumanize; they entrench division. They encourage us to see certain children as “other” rather than as fellow members of the human family. In doing so, they erode the shared empathy and moral clarity we need to build a just society.

A Call to Conscience

Birthright citizenship is not merely a legal issue; it is a moral imperative. It is a recognition of the dignity inherent in every life, a reflection of our collective commitment to equality. To dismantle it would not only harm the lives of countless children but also unravel the moral fabric of our democracy.

Around the world, countries like Canada, Brazil, and Mexico affirm birthright citizenship as a testament to their belief in human dignity. The United States, long a leader in championing democratic ideals, must not falter in its commitment. To do so would signal a retreat from the principles that have defined this nation—a betrayal of the promise that every child born here belongs here.

The effort to revoke birthright citizenship is part of a broader campaign to sow fear and exclusion, to pit neighbor against neighbor. But we must resist. We must rise above the politics of division and reaffirm the sacredness of every life.

A Future Worth Defending

Frederick Douglass once wrote, “It is not the mere getting of freedom that makes the man, but his becoming a citizen of the United States.” Citizenship is not just a legal status; it is a profound acknowledgment of belonging. It says, “You matter. You are one of us.”

Today, we are called to defend this principle against forces that seek to diminish it. We must affirm that every child born in this nation is not just a number or a talking point but a miracle—an embodiment of hope, potential, and shared destiny.

This is a moment of moral clarity, a crossroads where we must decide who we are and what we stand for. Let us choose justice over fear, unity over division, and love over hate. Let us protect the promise of birthright citizenship—not as a relic of the past but as a foundation for a more compassionate and inclusive future.

Alaska's vast wilderness and abundant natural resources have long been a source of pride and a cornerstone of its economy, supporting sustainable industries like fishing and tourism and resource development like logging, mining, and drilling. With large swaths of open lands and waters, spectacular views, abundant wildlife, and unique geological elements like volcanos and glaciers, Alaska holds an almost mythical allure for Americans. There is a perception of endless opportunity, but these riches also come with responsibility—both for Alaskans and for the rest of the nation.

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order titled "Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential," aiming to boost oil and gas drilling, mining, and logging in the state by rolling back numerous protective actions implemented by the Biden administration. While this move has been met with enthusiasm by some state leaders, others urge caution considering the environmental and fiscal responsibilities that would ensue if its intentions were realized.

Alaska is unlike any other state when it comes to natural resources. About 61% of Alaska's land is owned by the federal government, meaning what happens in Alaska is not only a local matter, it is also a national one. The executive order impacts public lands that belong to all Americans and some that are sacred to Indigenous peoples. Protecting Alaska's wild lands and resources isn't just Alaska's responsibility; it's a shared duty for all of us.

President Trump's executive orders may promise economic growth, but they fail to account for the real costs of overextending our natural and financial resources.

And yet the push to exploit these lands often rests on flimsy economic premises that fail to stand the test of time. Take the North Slope Gasline; For 15 years, the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) has promoted this project as a game-changer, spending nearly half a billion dollars of public money. Despite this significant public investment, no tangible progress has been made. A new report, Alaska's Pipe Dream: The Economic Folly of the North Slope Gasline, released by a coalition of groups, reveals what many already suspected: AGDC continues to spend millions on a gasline that's no closer to fruition than when it was first proposed in 2008.

The numbers are grim. The latest version of the proposed 800-mile gasline for LNG export is projected to cost a staggering $44 billion, while global market trends are rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, Alaska continues to write checks—nearly $500 million so far—hoping for a miracle that seems increasingly unlikely.

Imagine what could have been done with that money: better schools, improved healthcare, resilient infrastructure, or renewable energy investments that would genuinely prepare Alaska for the future. Instead, the state continues to sink public dollars into a project that doesn't pencil out, hoping it will magically deliver economic salvation.

In addition to being an economic bust, the gasline would exacerbate global warming, locking in extensive fossil fuel use for decades into the future. With its effects on warming 80 times greater than carbon dioxide on a short-term basis, addressing methane emissions is crucial in efforts to combat climate change and mitigate its impacts.

This is a cautionary tale for all Americans. The allure of quick profits from resource extraction often comes at the expense of long-term sustainability, not just for the environment but for taxpayers too. President Trump's executive orders may promise economic growth, but they fail to account for the real costs of overextending our natural and financial resources.

Alaska can't afford to be reckless with its land, money, or reputation. Whether it's the AGDC's pipe dream or new drilling and mining projects, we need to ask tougher questions about who would benefit and at what cost. Rushing into poorly planned developments risks leaving future generations to clean up the mess—financially and environmentally.

For those who dream of traveling to Alaska to view bears, moose, caribou, eagles, whales, and sea otters in their natural habitats, this matters. For those who seek exceptional fishing, hiking, camping, kayaking, heli-skiing, and cultural experiences, this matters.

For those who cherish the idea of public lands remaining pristine and accessible, this matters. Alaska's resources belong to all Americans, and so does the responsibility of ensuring they're managed wisely.

Leaders in Alaska—and across the country—should learn from the past and make decisions that reflect the realities of today's economy and tomorrow's environmental needs. As an initial step, efforts to build the North Slope gasline should be abandoned. It's time to pull the plug on this ill-conceived venture and look to renewables to meet our current and future energy needs.

U.S. President Donald Trump caused panic and chaos when his Office on Management and Budget ordered a sweeping freeze on federal funding for programs American families rely on.

The backlash was fast and fierce as programs ranging from Medicaid to Meals on Wheels to cancer research were impacted. By the end of the day, a federal judge had temporarily “frozen the freeze”—and the following day, the administration reluctantly revoked it.

But make no mistake: This was an attempt to force unconstitutional cuts to vital services that our taxes paid for. Programs that help Americans get food, housing, education, healthcare, and more have been plunged into uncertainty. And the administration’s efforts to use whatever means necessary to line their own pockets by picking ours are just beginning.

The White House will keep pushing the envelope to grab as much power as they can to fleece working people and enrich its billionaire backers.

In this case, the administration told agencies their funding would be frozen until they could prove they were “supporting activities consistent with the president’s policies and requirements”—and not “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies,” whatever that means.

A sloppy, two-page memo from the Office on Management and Budget exempted Social Security and Medicare in a footnote, along with “assistance directly to individuals.” But much of that assistance goes through programs or nonprofits that reported disruptions after the memo came out.

All 50 state Medicaid offices, for example, immediately reported losing access to the federal Medicaid payment portal. Portals for Head Start, housing programs, after-school programs, some charter schools, and Special Olympics funding were also disrupted.

First Focus on Children estimated that over $300 billion in funding for children’s well-being was at stake. And a spokesperson for Meals on Wheels told HuffPost reporter Arthur Delaney that seniors were panicked “not knowing where their next meals will come from.”

All told, over 2,000 federal programs were put at risk. Alongside those for food, healthcare, education, and housing, experts worried domestic abuse shelters, suicide prevention services, disaster relief, small business funding, childcare, and much, much more could also be impacted.

These programs are lifelines for families—and cuts to them are enormously unpopular among voters. For instance, 81% of Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid, while around 70% or more oppose cuts to SNAP, Head Start, childcare, and housing assistance.

This was a brazen, unlawful attempt to steal our tax dollars. And it was an assault on our democracy as well as our families. The Constitution gives Congress alone the authority to pass laws and appropriate funds, not the president.

Whichever way this pans out, one thing is clear: This administration is trying every tactic—legal or otherwise—to fund its planned massive tax handout to its billionaire backers. And this won’t be the last attempt—even after the memo to agencies was pulled back, Trump’s press secretary tweeted, “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

Meanwhile, the administration is still trying to cancel funding for green jobs, infrastructure, and climate that our lawmakers already approved— which amounts to more theft of our tax dollars. And future budget proposals will pair tax cuts for corporations and billionaires with harsh service cuts for the rest of us.

The White House will keep pushing the envelope to grab as much power as they can to fleece working people and enrich its billionaire backers. Our families deserve better. And fast.

Yesterday, the Medicaid payment portal was shut down in all 50 states; they came back up when a federal judge put Trump’s illegal impoundment of federal funds on hold until February 3rd.

And it wasn’t just Medicaid. The Trump administration shut down Pell grants, federally supported student loans, veterans homeless shelters, veterans suicide prevention programs, school meals, home heating assistance, housing assistance, food stamps, food for women and infants, childcare, Headstart, child abuse investigations, rape crisis centers, and hundreds of other programs.

Why?

Because Trump is trying to gut the federal government the same way Mitt Romney gutted Clear Channel when I did my show from one of their studios a decade ago.

Romney’s company did it to shut down Air America and then extract the millions in wealth Clear Channel had, before throwing the husk of the company into bankruptcy; Trump is tearing our systems of governance apart because he and his billionaire buddies are offended by the idea of paying taxes to help the American middle class and the poor.

In the process, Trump is also breaking multiple laws and daring Congress and the courts to do anything about it. This is the beginning of the path to both economic chaos and dictatorship.

But first, let’s take a look at what Trump and his billionaire funders are up to and why.

Back in 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on a platform of shutting down virtually every federal function except the military and the court system. Some billionaires, you see, hate paying taxes and many of them think that all those “gummint” programs are both unnecessary and wasteful.

His platform included a whole series of positions that were specifically designed to roll back and gut FDR’s “big government” programs (along with those added on by both Nixon and LBJ’s Great Society) that had created and then sustained America’s 20th century middle class:

— “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.
— “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
— “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.
— “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.
— “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.
— “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service.
— “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.
— “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.
— “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.
— “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.
— “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.
— “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.
— “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.
— “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
— “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.
— “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.
— “We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.
— “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called ‘self-protection’ equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.
— “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.
— “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.
— “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.
— “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
— “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.
— “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
— “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
— “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

In other words, gut the federal government the same way Mitt Romney’s company gutted Clear Channel. But in politics and governance, it’s called libertarianism, which is the hot new philosophy for Silicon Valley tech bro billionaires.

The “Project 2025” plan put together by the Heritage Foundation (funded in part for years by the Koch brothers’ network) was a 21st century cleaned-up version of Koch’s 1980 Libertarian Party platform. And now we’re seeing it put into place, one step at a time.

Like Romney stripping the liberal talk radio network out of Clear Channel, they are now stripping the 20th century out of our laws and policies.

It’s why Republicans are working so hard to disempower women in the workplace, starting with eliminating their control over their own reproductive capacity.

It’s also why they’re doing everything they can to shut down corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide; the majority of the hiring and increased pay benefits coming from corporate, government, and academic DEI programs go to women, a situation Republican men find intolerable.

Republicans want to either “return” to a pre-Civil War understanding of the Constitution (as advocated by Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito) or embrace Russell Vought’s “post-constitutional” order, in which the last century’s “innovations” (including the income tax, women’s suffrage, “welfare” programs, entitlements, and even free public school and college) are dialed back.

We also see this in the ways the Republicans on the Supreme Court have gutted both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, how they’ve stripped most of the teeth out of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, and how they’re working to castrate most regulatory agencies including the EPA, FTC, and even the IRS.

Republicans are trying to do to our government, in other words, what corporate raiders do to companies.

Some of it is simple greed: as the middle class shrinks and poverty grows, the cash stash at the very top of the American economic pyramid grows exponentially.

Other American oligarchs follow the teachings of Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan who all argued that a larger-than-50% middle class is a threat to the stability of the nation.

The simple reality is that nations without a large and active federal government providing protections and services to its people never develop large middle classes.

Unregulated capitalism always produces the kind of nation Charles Dickens wrote about in Christmas Carol and his many other novels: A tiny 1% who own most wealth; a small 3-5% middle class of doctors, lawyers, and small business owners (Ebeneezer Scrooge); and a massive 90%+ class of the working poor (Bob Cratchit).

Ever since the 1950s when Russell Kirk wrote his manifesto The Conservative Mind, a small cabal of Republicans and billionaires have argued that FDR’s “big government” programs — that moved America from being 10% middle class in the 1930s to over 60% when Reagan came into office in 1981 (it’s under 50% now) — were dangerous.

As I detail in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, their argument was largely based on the turmoil of the 1960s, when women, Blacks, and young people were demanding rights; they worried that these protests could lead to the destruction of our republic and a “communist takeover.”

Nowadays most rightwing billionaires have largely abandoned that argument, simply asserting their disgust at having to pay taxes to support programs that primarily benefit “the little people.”

And then, of course, there are those in the GOP who simply hate America because of its pluralism and diversity.

Most recently, Trump proved his commitment to fulfill their and Putin’s desire to see America’s government destroyed by sending an email to 2 million federal employees offering them 8 months pay if they’ll resign.

Just like when I was at Clear Channel and Romney’s company fired or laid off more than half of the employees here in Portland.

In the process of disemboweling our federal government, however, Trump is taking it a step farther and breaking multiple laws:

— The Impoundment Control Act, which was passed in the 1970s after Nixon withheld funding for programs he didn’t like, including the Clean Water Act, Public Housing projects, the elementary and Secondary Education Act that funded public schools in poor districts, school desegregation efforts, mass transit programs for cities, and health research and healthcare programs for low-income people.

The law says that presidents cannot refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress without the explicit permission of both the House and Senate, and requires him to give them 45 days to consider the impoundment or rescission of funds.

Our lawless, convicted-criminal president is nakedly breaking this law and daring Congress and the courts to do something about it.

— The Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act guarantee that federal government employees can’t be fired for “retaliation” or political reasons; there must be actual evidence that they are not doing their jobs, doing them poorly, or behaving in ways that justify the firing.

When Trump fired all the career prosecutors and lawyers in the Justice Department who’d participated in his prosecution, it was a clear case of political retaliation and a clear violation of the law.

Our lawless, convicted-criminal president is nakedly breaking this law and daring Congress and the courts to do something about it.

— The Inspector General Act of 1978 (also responding to Nixon’s corruption) mandates that the president must notify Congress at least 30 days before removing an IG and provide detailed, case-specific reasons for the dismissal. Inspectors General are the watchdogs for federal agencies, keeping an eye out for people within those agencies committing fraud, stealing funds, or engaging in illegal favoritism or bribery, among other crimes.

Firing them is like a police department firing its Internal Affairs department that looks into corrupt cops. It sets up every federal agency affected by the firings to be corrupted by the Trump cronies put in charge of them. Even Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is furious about this.

Our lawless, convicted-criminal president is nakedly breaking this law, too, as he raids our government, and is daring Congress and the courts to do something about it.

As Alexandrian Ocasio-Cortez noted on social media yesterday:

“Trump is holding all the nation’s hospitals and vital services hostage to seize power from Congress and hand it over to billionaires. We must state the truth: this is a constitutional crisis. It’s a massive, illegal power grab that the House and Senate have a sworn duty to stop.”

Trump’s defiance of these three major laws (along with a few others) in the first two weeks of his presidency — and the GOP’s acquiescence to his criminality — are terrible signs for the future of American democracy.

They are frankly even more dangerous than his corporate raider-like efforts to bring the American government to its knees.

While most Americans who voted for Trump probably knew he was a convicted criminal, it’s unlikely they also thought he’d commit crimes in office that would gut the protections and programs that so many of them need. They fucked around and now they’re finding out.

Sadly, they’re taking the rest of us with them…

U.S. President Donald Trump is about to sign legislation so sweeping and reckless that it could force a kindergartener merely charged with stealing a lollipop into indefinite detention at a federal immigration facility.

With bipartisan support, lawmakers have pushed through the Laken Riley Act, which expands the categories of offenses that require mandatory federal immigration detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to include minor theft-related crimes, such as shoplifting—without exempting children. This bill doesn’t even require a child to be charged or convicted of a crime before being indefinitely imprisoned.

It has no minimum age limit, so anyone old enough to commit shoplifting or other property crimes would be treated the same as adults under this bill. Twenty-four states have no minimum age for prosecuting children, meaning that, in certain states, even a five-year-old could be imprisoned under this extreme legislation.

It’s not too late for Congress to do the right thing and introduce new legislation to protect children from this draconian law. A course correction is urgently needed.

Congress quickly pushed through this far-reaching legislation and bypassed the traditional process which requires thoughtful discussion and debate. Sixty-four senators and 263 representatives voted for this short-sighted act, and untold children across the country will suffer because of it. Did those who voted for it realize that the Laken Riley Act is so extreme it applies to children, without exception; will lead to thousands of children being detained; raises profound due process questions; and will separate thousands of parents from their children?

For 30 years, we at the National Center for Youth Law have served as co-counsel on the landmark Flores case, which establishes minimum protections for children detained in federal immigration custody. We’ve interviewed hundreds of children in federal immigration facilities, and we have seen detention—even brief detention—cause significant mental and physical harm. Under the Laken Riley Act, children could be held indefinitely—for months or even years—in juvenile detention facilities that have historically been the site of abuse and neglect.

It’s not too late for Congress to do the right thing and introduce new legislation to protect children from this draconian law. A course correction is urgently needed.

But the Laken Riley Act is just the beginning. Immigrant children and youth are already under direct attack by an onslaught of executive orders and government actions that threaten their safety, health, and future.

Recent executive orders purport to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship, close the border to children and families seeking asylum, and indefinitely suspend all refugee admissions—including refugee children. Immigration enforcement policies that have been in place since 2011 have been eliminated, undermining the safety of children and families attending school, seeking medical care, and praying in churches. Coordinated raids are already tearing families apart and striking fear in immigrant communities. There are even promises to reopen family detention centers and end longstanding protections for detained children.

Policymakers on both sides of the political aisle seem all too eager to support legislation that ignores that immigrant children are human beings, worthy of the same care and protections that their own children enjoy. It is deeply disheartening to see lawmakers shift with the political winds rather than hold true to fundamental values.

Congress must not acquiesce to a country in which the rejection of children’s rights is the norm. Although the political voices for the humane treatment of immigrant children have fallen largely silent, a handful of steadfast champions remain. We applaud the congressmembers that continue to stand up for these children’s rights. We are hopeful that their colleagues will regain their moral compass to guide them as we navigate continuous assaults on children in the months and years ahead.

The United States is at a political crossroads, with President Donald Trump and his allies promising to accelerate fossil fuel expansion. We write with urgency about the devastating impact of Japanese-funded methane gas exports on our communities.

As I, Manning Rollerson, stepped off a plane in Tokyo this week, I carry with me the stories of five generations of family who have watched our Texas Gulf South community transform into what can only be described as a "sacrifice zone." I am a Black community rights activist and founder of Freeport Haven Project for Environmental Justice. I have watched my historically Black community bear the brunt of industrial pollution for far too long. With 27 grandchildren, this fight is deeply personal. When our children are born with cancer and breathing issues, there should be accountability. That's why I'm here in Japan—to say enough is enough.

We are part of a delegation of frontline residents from the U.S. Gulf South traveling to Japan to confront the financial institutions bankrolling liquefied natural gas (LNG) expansion in their communities. Our mission comes at a critical moment, as Japanese banks line up to expand terminals like Cameron LNG in Louisiana.

Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.

The evidence we bring is compelling and direct. I, Sharon Wilson, spent 12 years in the oil industry before becoming an environmental investigator for Oilfield Witness. Using specialized optical gas imaging cameras, I've documented methane releases from Japanese-financed gas and LNG facilities. "If only people could see what's here, smell the air, drink the water, visualize the emissions, this wouldn't be happening," I can say with certainty. "The public would not stand for it."

Others, like Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana's Vessel Project and a Black mother living in Sulphur, could not be with us in person but are with us in spirit: The journey to Japan is deeply personal. "My children face severe health conditions caused by pollution the oil and gas industry unleashes into our air and water," she says. "We cannot allow our communities to bear the burden of fossil fuel racism any longer."

Japanese institutions have emerged as the leading financiers of U.S. LNG export infrastructure. Private banks like MUFG are backing new projects like Rio Grande LNG near Port Isabel, Texas, while companies like Mitsui continue acquiring Texas gas fields—even as research shows exported LNG has a 33% greater climate impact than coal.

The Japanese government is the largest public financier of U.S. LNG. Japanese private banks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC are the top three private financiers of U.S. LNG, providing over $35 billion. Japanese institutions, such as the Nippon Export and Investment Insurance, are considering providing financing for the expansion of the Cameron LNG export terminal, while Japanese companies JERA and INPEX have signed offtake contracts for the Calcasieu Pass 2 project.

For us, this trip represents more than just advocacy—it's about bringing the reality of our communities directly to those making decisions half a world away. Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.

Our timing is strategic, coming just after Trump advisers signed an executive order to restart LNG export approvals—even as Japan positions itself as a clean energy leader in Asia while simultaneously pushing for expanded methane gas infrastructure across the region. There's no such thing as clean gas. Methane is intentionally released and blasted into our atmosphere from the moment a hole is drilled into the ground. This isn't about leaks—it's about a fundamentally dirty industry that cannot operate without massive pollution. And now, with Trump's team plotting to restart permits, our communities face even greater threats.

As we meet with Japanese financial institutions and policymakers, we carry a clear message: The human cost of Japan's LNG investments can no longer be ignored. Despite the threat of a fossil fuel-friendly administration, we have proven our resilience. We stopped LNG projects before, and we will do it again. This time, we're taking our fight directly to the source of the money. Human rights abuses are being committed in our Gulf South communities in the United States—and Japanese money is making it possible. We will not stop fighting until our communities are safe from harm.

Live at 10 am Eastern time/8 am Mountain and Streaming all the time after that:

Bearing the same subject line as a downsizing memo sent to Twitter employees by Elon Musk, an ominous mass email was fired out by the Trump Administration to millions of federal employees offering them a buyout if they voluntarily agree to resign within a week. There is a fist inside the velvet glove: most federal agencies will probably be slashed and a substantial number of employees will be furloughed or reclassified to “at-will status,” making them easier to fire. Most remote workers will have to go back to the office. And many will have their offices moved elsewhere.

On “The TMI Show,” co-host Manila Chan is out sick. Filling in for Manila is Robby West, alongside co-host Ted Rall. Robby and Ted will discuss whether Trump has the power to pay buyouts, the possibility of court battles, the pros and cons of remote work and whether this disrespectful treatment of government workers is fair.

The post TMI Show Ep 67: You’re (Self-) Fired! Trump Threatens Federal Workers first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 67: You’re (Self-) Fired! Trump Threatens Federal Workers appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Editor's note: The following is the prepared opening statement by the author as part of testimony for a hearing before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging—titled “Making Washington Work for Seniors: Fighting to End Inflation and Achieve Fiscal Sanity”—on Wednesday, January 29, 2025 .

Good afternoon, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gillibrand, and distinguished members of the committee.

As executive director of Social Security Works, I travel across the country speaking with legions of primarily older Americans. Almost to a person, they are concerned about rising prices. These rising prices hurt older adults, endangering their ability to afford food, housing, and prescription drugs. They want Congress to take action.

Across the country, there is widespread bipartisan agreement on what people want: cracking down on corporate price gouging, improving Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustments, which keep up with rising prices and currently under-measure seniors’ cost of living, and reducing the price of prescription drugs by expanding Medicare’s power to negotiate. These are actionable policies that will help older adults adjust to inflation caused by global supply chain shocks and greedflation—which has contributed to rising costs over the past few years. In fact, Federal Reserve research found that corporate profits accounted for all the inflation in the first year of the pandemic recovery and 41 percent of inflation overall in the first two years of the post-pandemic recovery.

There is bipartisan agreement across this country about what people don’t want in response to rising prices: Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all agree that not one single penny of cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits should be made. There is absolute bipartisan agreement among people everywhere across the country.

Despite this, the House Republican majority announced proposals to slash trillions from Medicaid, our country’s largest provider of long-term care. Over 9 million Americans over 65 rely on Medicaid.

Cuts to Medicaid would force these seniors, and their families, to pay enormous out of pocket costs for long-term care—money they don’t have. It would also force millions of caregivers, most often women, out of the workforce. This would make it far harder for American families to pay their monthly bills. In addition, these proposals also include cuts to SNAP benefits, which 4.8 million older Americans rely on to put food on the table.

Just last week, the new Trump Administration repealed an Executive Order from President Biden that directed the federal government to find ways to lower drug prices. The Trump administration is already favoring Big Pharma at the expense of seniors and working families.

There have also been calls by Republicans to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which gives Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices on key prescription drugs. This could force many seniors to cut their life-sustaining medications in half due to higher costs. Many others would face a terrible choice between buying food, filling their prescriptions, and paying their heating bills.

Even Social Security, the most popular and effective program in America, is not safe. Last month, a Republican representative, who is a member of the DOGE Caucus, told me personally that “there will be some cuts” to Social Security and Medicare.

Let me be clear: these proposed cuts will do nothing to lower costs for average Americans or older adults; these cuts are being proposed to offset the cost of tax handouts for billionaires and corporations, who have already been shown to be responsible for rising costs. This Congress should value the interests of older adults above the wealthiest, and I hope that the Aging Committee will lead that charge.

Consider this: If an older adult can’t afford their drugs and groceries at the average Social Security benefit of $1900 a month, it is absolute fiscal insanity to think the solution is to cut their income! To take away their health care! To destroy Medicaid and force them to pay the average long-term care cost of around $100,000 per year! If they can’t afford the price of eggs, it is absolute fiscal insanity to believe they can afford them better without SNAP benefits.

I’m here to deliver a message to the members of this committee from older Americans across the country: You don’t lower prices by stealing health care. You don’t lower prices by giving giant tax cuts to billionaires and price gouging corporations. And you absolutely don’t lower prices by reducing the Social Security and other benefits that adults have worked their entire lives for.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters now control the presidency; the Congress; the administrative agencies of the federal government; the Supreme Court; and the U.S. military, intelligence, and security apparatus. He will be able to call on support from a wide swath of the public and from a cadre of armed vigilantes and groups organized for violence and intimidation. He dominates much of the media and is in a position to intimidate much of the rest. He has the support of a large sector of corporations and the wealthy. He has a demonstrated willingness and ability to use not just the legal instruments of government but also violence and intimidation, criminal methods, and coups. The official opposition to him within the electoral arena is in many cases weak, feckless, and discredited. So how is it possible that his domination can ever be overcome?

There is a movement emerging in response to the MAGA threat. But is it even possible for this emerging movement to develop the power it will need to counter a Trump tyranny?

Gandhi once wrote, “Even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.” A Trump tyranny will not be able to continue without the support and acquiescence of those whose lives and future it is destroying. It will only be able to pursue its destructive course if they enable or acquiesce in it. A movement can overcome the most powerful regime if it can withdraw that cooperation.

Social Self-Defense means defending those who are threatened as a way both to defend them from injustice and to defend our common interest as people—as members of society.

But how can that power be concretely realized? There are several ways that resistance to Trump’s MAGA regime can exercise significant power:

• Constituent power: the ability of a mobilized electorate to influence leaders whose own power depends on election.
• Protest power: the ability of masses of people to demonstrate the large numbers and willingness to act of those who share their views.
• Disruptive power: the ability to exact costs on powerful institutions by disrupting their functioning through civil disobedience, strikes, and other forms of direct action.
• People power: the mobilization of an entire society to withdraw support from a regime in order to bring it to an end through a nonviolent uprising or “social strike.”

There are no guarantees that such power can be mobilized in a way that will contain the Trumpian onslaught, let alone bring it to an end. Trump and his coterie appear to be committed to permanent rule by their followers and their ideology. To accomplish that they need to destroy all possible barriers to their domination. They must break down the institutions of democracy that might stand in their way, for example by restricting the right to vote. They need to eviscerate the institutions of law, medicine, civil service, journalism, and other relatively independent bases of potential opposition. They have to prevent economic actors, including corporations and unions, from pursuing their own self-interest rather than conforming to the regime’s demands. They need to intimidate and silence those who might expose their lies and abuses. They must demolish political obstacles, not only from the Democratic Party, but within the Republican Party as well. They need to paralyze the population with fear and entice it with the promise of a better life, or at least with bread and circuses.

While this program for MAGA domination promises enormous power, it also poses enormous vulnerabilities for its perpetrators. By making almost every individual and constituency a potential victim of its onslaught, it is also likely to generate a vast, diverse, and potentially unified opposition. Its program is an attack not just on one or another group, but on society as a whole—on the very practices and relationships that allow us to live together in a peaceful and constructive way. They are undermining the foundations of a free and ordered society. They are dismantling the basic practices that make life something other than a war of all against all. And they are hell-bent on destroying the natural conditions on which our life on Earth depends.

The MAGA regime threatens immigrants, African Americans, Muslims, workers, women, children, the elderly, the disabled, LGBTQ+ people, all who depend on government for their health and well-being, and the environment on which we all depend for our very existence. Indeed, it threatens all that holds us together as a society. The resistance to that onslaught is therefore not just the defense of one or another group, but a defense of society, indeed of the very possibility of society. We the people—society—need to defend ourselves against this threat and bring it to an end. We need what resisters to authoritarian regimes elsewhere have called “Social Self-Defense.”

The term “Social Self-Defense” is borrowed from the struggle against the authoritarian regime in Poland 40 years ago. In the midst of harsh repression, Polish activists formed a loose network to provide financial, legal, medical, and other help to people who had been persecuted by the police or unjustly dismissed from their work. Calling themselves the Committee for Social Self-Defense (KOR), they aimed to fight “political, religious, and ideological persecution”; to “oppose breaches of the law”; to “provide help for the persecuted”; to “safeguard civil liberties”; and to defend “human and civil rights.” KOR organized free trade unions to defend the rights of workers and citizens. Its members, who insisted on operating openly in public, were soon blacklisted, beaten, and imprisoned. They nonetheless persisted, and nurtured many of the networks, strategies, and ideas that came to fruition in the gigantic Solidarity union—and ultimately in the dissolution of repressive regimes in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Social Self-Defense is the protection of that which makes our life together on Earth possible. It includes the protection of the human rights of all people; protection of the conditions of our Earth and its climate that make human life on Earth possible; the constitutional principle that government must be accountable to law; and global cooperation to provide a secure future for people and planet.

The individuals and groups who oppose the Trump agenda are as diverse as the targets that agenda threatens.

In the face of MAGA assault, protecting individuals, groups, and society as a whole go hand in hand. The attacks on individuals and groups are a threat not only to those directly targeted, but to our ability to live together in our communities, our country, and our world. It is a threat to all of us as members of society. Protecting those specific constituencies who are most threatened is essential for protecting our common interests as people. Social Self-Defense means defending those who are threatened as a way both to defend them from injustice and to defend our common interest as people—as members of society. Social Self-Defense means we’ve got each other’s backs.

Historians emphasize that there were great political divisions among the KOR activists who first developed the idea of Social Self-Defense. But they were able to act together around the agenda of resisting the Polish regime’s attacks on workers and society as a whole. The individuals and groups who oppose the Trump agenda are as diverse as the targets that agenda threatens. Trump and his supporters have the potential capacity to play them off against each other and to make deals with them one by one. There will be enormous pressures on advocacy organizations, movements, parties, and even activists themselves to sell each other out.

Social Self-Defense is a means to unify ourselves around mutual aid and around our common interests. It defines Trumpism not only as a series of separate threats to different sectors, constituencies, and policy agendas, but also as a unified—and therefore unifying—common threat. It allows us to use each action and campaign against one or another Trumpite abuse as a way to strike a blow against the MAGA project as a whole. Social Self-Defense does not annul but does transcend the rivalries of Democrats vs. Republicans and of Left vs. Right. It is a frame that can help unify those who should be acting in common to overcome the MAGA juggernaut.

This is the first of a series of Strike! Commentaries on social self-defense against the MAGA juggernaut. It originally appeared on the Labor Network for Sustainability website on January 21, 2025.

President Trump’s recent granting of freedom to nearly 1,600 January 6 insurrectionists, followed by other actions fulfilling what the New York Times last week called “his promises to exact revenge on his perceived enemies,” emphasize the ominous portent of an authoritarian regime in the United States.

The history of fascist regimes documents a direct correlation between unleashing political violence and the intimidation, muzzling, arrests and worse of political opponents which leads to securing mass acceptance for repressive policies and governance.

“This is part of his plan,” said Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone who suffered a traumatic brain injury and heart attack after being pulled from the police line, beaten and shocked with a stun gun on January 6, 2021. “The plan is to pardon those on his behalf, because he knows that will send a message to the citizens of this country,” he told MSNBC’s Joy Reid. “If you commit crimes on my behalf, I support you. If you try to prevent me from doing things I want to do, you know what is coming.”

“This is actually about the future, why this is so dangerous,” said podcaster Jon Favreau. “Because now Donald Trump has pardoned all of these right-wing extremists who were armed, who committed violence, who are not apologetic at all, who are not maintaining their innocence either. They’ve said they’re guilty. They’re not apologetic. And now they’re out of prison. And other right-wing extremists who might want to cause violence now know that if you commit violence in Donald Trump’s name, then he’s got your back. And so why wouldn’t they commit violence again?”

While initial outrage focused on the pardons, Trump’s decision to pull security protections for people he has demonized who continue to face death threats, like infectious disease adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other moves targeting perceived opponents, underline the stakes. Trump’s “retribution is intended not just to impose punishment for the past but also to intimidate anyone who might cross him in the future,” said the Times calling it a “signal” Trump is “willing to impose potentially profound consequences on anyone he sees as having been insufficiently loyal.”

“We can take this back to 2015, when (Trump) said at his rallies punch them out to people who were protesting, and I’ll take care of your representation. I’ll pay for your lawyers,” noted Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

Trump’s language in his campaign and first term helped fuel a rise in far-right hate speech that led to vigilante mass shootings at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018 and at an El Paso Walmart in 2019 by gunmen influenced by Trump’s violent rhetoric. It was also evident in the 2020 storming of the Michigan Capitol by armed anti-government militia and a plan by one group to abduct Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. That came after Trump encouraged supporters to “liberate” Democratic-led states from Covid-19 safety measures he opposed, and tweeted solidarity with the Michigan militia protesters.

The pinnacle of the violence, of course, was the January 6 insurrection intended to overturn the 2020 election. It emphatically escalated the role of violence to achieve authoritarian rule. That was the danger seen in Trump’s pardons within hours of his inauguration for his second term.

“Now they’re all talking about revenge,” noted Favreau. “Revenge against the people who testified, against the prosecutors, against the judges who put them in prison. And so like when the Proud Boys come to your community and start marching or menacing people or whatever the hell they do, what are the police going to do?”

“Now it’s our turn,” said Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, who received the longest riot sentence for mobilizing his right-wing group as an “army” to keep Trump in power through violence after his pardon. Trial evidence showed he and his lieutenants, inspired by Trump’s directive to “stand by” during a 2020 presidential debate, joined what Trump promised would be a “wild” protest on January 6. Similarly, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes echoed Tarrio, projecting plans for retribution against police witnesses and prosecutors “on up the chain.”

“The most important part of the pardons isn’t specifically who is released from prison, but the meaning of Trump’s gesture: Radical militias are free to act with impunity — as long as they’re loyal to Trump,” wrote Ali Breland in The Atlantic. “After the riot, as law-enforcement agencies began to prosecute those involved, the militias went underground. Political violence, particularly by the right, has been ascendant over the past several years. Now, after the pardons, right-wing extremists no longer have to hide.”

In her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, describes the binding of political violence to modern dictatorships, especially in fascist regimes dating to Mussolini’s organization of Fascist Combat Leagues in 1919. It began with assaults and murders on union leaders, socialists, and left-leaning priests in offices, homes, city occupations and ultimately a march on Rome by thousands of fascists and Blackshirt paramilitaries that led to his appointment as prime minister, in what Ben-Giatt called “an elite-approved transfer of power.”

“Fascist violence was neither random nor indiscriminate,” driven by persuading “law and order conservatives and members of the middle class to tolerate fascist violence as a harsh necessity” against disorder or provocation, wrote Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism. “For some, fascist violence was more than useful: it was beautiful,” he adds, a prescient prediction of Trump’s labeling January 6 a “day of love.”

With Trump’ pardons for January 6, suggested Ifil, “he wants to know he has a kind of army, a group of Brownshirts who will support him, who will show fealty to him to the point of violence,” referencing the most infamous linkage of political violence and fascism — Nazi Germany.

The rise of Hitler

In Hitler’s First Hundred Days, Peter Fritzsche describes the murderous connection. Hitler’s climb also coincided with the formation of a paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Brownshirts that carried out his ideological mission of revenge, including physical assaults on those he blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I, mainly Communists, the Social Democratic Party (a party similar to the centrist Democrats of today in the U.S.), and Jews.

Through street violence against his enemies, the Nazis and SA created an atmosphere of disruption and chaos that, accompanied by an economic collapse in a global depression, produced a desire for political change and distrust in democracy and traditional parties by ordinary Germans.

By 1932, the Nazis had become the top party in the parliamentary elections. But they were eroding support in January 1933 when the then-ruling rightwing nationalist, monarchist parties and leaders, like President Paul von Hindenburg, that also hated the left and Social Democrats, agreed to appoint Hitler chancellor. They believed it “was the only way to establish an authoritarian state” they also favored, writes Fritzsche, thinking they could control him, as many traditional Republicans believed of Trump prior to his first term. It was a catastrophic miscalculation. “It took a long, long time when Germany was already in ruins, for conservatives to understand that they had made a pact with the devil in 1933,” Fritzsche observes.

Like Mussolini before him, Hitler saw physical coercion as central to eliminating his political opposition and helping achieve acceptance of the then majority of non-Nazi supporting Germans. Almost immediately the Brownshirts escalated street attacks to “settle the score,” as one put it, on those deemed as, in words Trump would emulate in 2024, “the enemy from within.” In a February 1933 speech, Hitler declared, “there can be only one victor: either Marxism or the German Volk (people).”

“The Nazis won support because of their militance,” says Fritzsche. “By launching furious, uncompromising attacks on the ‘system’ and physically engaging their enemies, they dramatized the combustibility of the present. … and opened the way to the future. “I want no softies in my movement, I want fanatics,” Hitler told a reporter for the UK Daily Mail, yet another similarity to Trump’s opinion of conservatives, including his own Cabinet appointees, who failed to show unquestioned loyalty to him.

Just weeks after Hitler’s appointment, a massive fire consumed the Reichstag, Germany’s legislative building, akin to the U.S. Capitol. Hindenburg declared a state of emergency, convinced by Hitler and his rightwing coalition allies that Communists were to blame for the fire as a step toward insurrection, though many still believed the Nazis orchestrated it. The order “symbolized the death of representative government and the rule of law,” writes Fritzsche, followed by federal decrees that suspended civil liberties, expanded protective custody and sanctioned the removal of state governments.

The SA Brownshirts, who “sustained the extraordinary energy of the Nazi movement” were deputized by the government as auxiliary police. They now had unlimited power to break up opposition meetings, shut down opposition parties and newspapers, and assault political opponents. Thousands were arrested, mostly Communists initially, then Social Democratic leaders. Home raids, arbitrary arrests, torture of prisoners and prolonged periods of incarceration created fear and widespread disquiet and reinforced a growing sense of national emergency especially heading into new elections in early March.

The violence coincided with other Nazis tactics to build their power in the election turning the election to a victory plebiscite. They exploited state resources, including domination of the media and national festivals, depicted their role as savior of the nation, and “presented themselves as the guardians of a sound moral order threatened by ‘Marxists’ and Jews’.” Immediately after the election, the SA “instigated a reign of terror wrecking trade union and Social Democratic offices, occupying city halls,” and escalated virulent attacks on Jewish shops, synagogues, and street beatings of individual Jews.

Emergency decrees, coercion, and consent

By Day 34 of Hitler’s reign, executive power passed almost completely into the hands of the Nazis, and enabled the Nazis to “consolidate one party rule.” The Communists were the first targets, “but all independent political organizations were eliminated or coordinated in the months to come,” Fritzsche notes.

Through the Spring of 1933, the Nazis engineered acceptance by a majority of the German people with a collective conformity, also based on opportunism, patriotic fervor and the far-right nationalist ideology they had long fostered, including racism and antisemitism.

Contrived fears that “the German people were about to perish” at the hands of Communists and Jews, offers a chilling parallel to the white nationalist Great Replacement conspiracy theory, and Charlottesville neo-Nazi and KKK marchers chanting “Jews will not replace us.”

“Coercion always accompanied consent,” says Fritzsche. Ben-Ghiat draws a similar outcome with fascist Spain under Gen. Francisco Franco, quoting philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset who said: “the threat in my mind of an eventual violence, coercion, or sanction that other people are going to exercise against me” bred conformity.

“Social Democrats believed they could not compete, they could pick up after the Nazis had bankrupted themselves and could act in the future, but not in the present. But the popularity of the Nazis was such that the future kept slipping away, and the pieces the socialists finally did pick up in the late 1940s were destroyed cities and millions murdered,” Fritzsche concludes.

That should be a warning to all elected officials, corporate CEOs, major media, community organizations and anyone else rolling over and seeking to align with Trump and his MAGA policies.

Hitler had no intention of giving up power. “I’m never leaving here” he said a week after moving into the chancellery. ”We have power and we’re going to keep it.” Top Nazi Hermann Goering echoed Hitler, predicting the March 5 election “would surely be the last for ten years or even a hundred years.”

“In four years, you don’t have to vote again,” Trump famously said to supporters last July. “Success is going to be retribution,” Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio told conspiracy monger Alex Jones after his release. “We’ve got to do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next hundred years.”

The Donald Trump administrative strategy is to remake the structure and nature of the U.S. federal government. His frenzied pace of administrative orders—what I call edicts—is an obvious effort to deregulate industry; shrink the civil service; banish language references to diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change; assume authority for domestic military purposes; and pursue conspiratorial "replacement theory." And, of course, his own personal emoluments and profits are accompanying corollary benefits.

He promises to move aggressively against the media, positioning himself to achieve this goal with the invaluable assistance of the Big Tech CEOs who control social media, the powerful and growing online communication space. Forbes reported that the combined wealth of those CEOs (Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Shou Zi Chew) who sat behind Trump at his inauguration is $1.5 trillion. Four of the five wealthiest people in the world were among them. The oligarchic control that these CEOs have over much of the network of media companies not only facilitates Trump's ideal of limited loyal opposition but also entrenches the tech industry's power in the emerging political establishment.

Trump is moving at high speed to consolidate his authority over Congress, to diminish its oversight, law- and policymaking, and its approval of executive appointments. It doesn't take much imagination to see the authoritarian and potentially fascist direction he is taking the nation. If he can tame his media critics, emasculate Congress, and expand control of the justice system, from local prosecutors to Supreme Court justices, he will have retooled the government. And that government will progressively integrate corporate and private interests into it.

There is little doubt that virtually every American, including here in Maine, will know a neighbor or have heard of someone who was ripped from his or her home, taken to detention centers, and deported.

Under the new Trump regime, there will be greater privatization of government services. Elon Musk has already eclipsed NASA in private space exploration and satellite communication. Private healthcare insurers are contracting with Medicare to provide its statuatory services. Social Security will definitely be diminished in important ways ( e.g. raising the retirement age, cutting benefits), eventually leading to all retirement and pension funds being exclusively 501(k) investment plans.

The current political direction has a history that is important for Americans to understand. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the rise of political conservatism dealt a death blow to the programs of the welfare state introduced in the long tenure of FDR's presidency in the 1930s. Over the succeeding decades the Republican Party promoted deregualtion of industry and concentration of wealth. Predictably, corporate investors and CEOs have received the proponderance of wealth generated in the decades following 1980. This distorted evolution has led to a Project 2025-style assault on broad democratic participation across society.

The populist affectations of the Trump campaign and election were mere theater. The populist appeals were without actual programs except for immigration and extending tax breaks. But, in an age of digital wizardry, appeals to people are more convincing than actual programs. The daily deluge of commercial advertising—itself a result of lax regulation—cultivates consumer and materialist behavior over citizenship and civic responsibility. Thus people are vulnerable to specious persuasion such as corporate advertising and political demogoguery.

The Democratic Party also holds part of the responsibility for the present politics. With the election of Reagan, it too, moved in a more conservative direction. Instead of pursuing a populism that would revive the support of working class, rural, and poor Americans, it engaged in identity politics as an electoral strategy. As it distanced itself from the majority of Americans, it became clear that Republicans were often outmaneuvering the Democrats in Washington even if they lost the presidential elections. One represenatation of this manipulation of the Democrats was Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) holding up then-President Barack Obama's nominees to Supreme Court. The Democrats, thereafter, were bowled over by the three consevative justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court.

Authoritarianism and fascism are not-so-distant cousins. They are both hyper-nationalist and feel that the historically dominant ethnic or genetic group should make sure its "blood" is not diluted or corrupted by those from other groups. One of the tactics both authoritarians and fascists employ is supporting extra-legal and extra-judicial methods of civic and social control. Trump's pardons and commutations of the January 6 insurrectionists give encouragement to vigilante forces and militia.

These groups can assault the halls of government and, even then, they will be considered heroic Americans. Private militia and other armed groups of vigilantes are very useful to a repressive government. They can instill fear through threats, militant marches, and other displays of armed resistance and offense. They may even be used to enforce policy or law at local levels. Meanwhile, former Trump administration officials who criticize him, and have been targets of Iran's death threats, are denied secret service protection. Authoritarians and fascists alike see all criticism as real or potential disloyalty to the state, i.e. to the president in this case.

"Great Replacement" thinking drives some of the most violently aggressive rhetoric into the public sphere, even though it is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspriritorial theory. It is used to justify everything from the forcible removal and breakup of families to militarizing the border. There is little doubt that virtually every American, including here in Maine, will know a neighbor or have heard of someone who was ripped from his or her home, taken to detention centers, and deported. It is important to remember that fascist regimes have historically singled out groups to silence them and threaten them with violence. As one Germany priest noted during the 1930s:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

The Trump adminstration must be challenged in the media and in the streets. Without resistance this regime will ensure that Americans are more vulnerable to climate change and to political chaos, moral decay, and social disintegration. We have a great responsibility.

In a major blow to free expression in academia, Harvard university has redefined antisemitism to include any criticism of Israel and will expel violators who are students and fire professors.

The post Harvard Redefines Antisemitism To Include Everything first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post Harvard Redefines Antisemitism To Include Everything appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

          When a marriage is in crisis, a point often occurs when constant bickering, arguing and fighting yields to detachment and hopelessness. The yelling stops. It’s quiet.

But it’s not peace. Exhausted, dispirited and contemptuous, one or both partners give up trying to convince the other that they’re wrong or ought to change. They accept that improvement is highly unlikely and check out emotionally.

Some psychologists call this uneasy calm a “silent divorce.” Dr. Ridha Rouabhia describes a silent divorce as “a state of being legally married but emotionally disconnected from one another, thus carrying within it a relational breakdown that is very often imperceptible but deeply damaging.” By the time you and your spouse are fighting your own personal cold war, odds of divorce are high.

Couples who fall in love and dedicate themselves to long-term committed relationships tend to fit into one of two categories. There are the soulmates who share important values and personality traits. Then there are the complementary types, a.k.a. “opposites attract,” where—hopefully—one partner’s strengths make up for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

Complementary couples can have successful marriages. But these relationships work only if each partner appreciates their partner’s contributions and is cognizant as well as grateful that their own failings are generously overlooked. As time builds familiarity and familiarity breeds contempt over the course of a lifetime, that can be challenging.

Years ago, I was close to a classic complementary couple. The wife, whom I met in college, was married to a man ten years older than her. A tight-cropped salt-and-brunet WASP from the Midwest, he was politically and temperamentally conservative, preppy and stuffy. A fluffy-blonde Buddhist-come-lately from the West Coast, she leaned left and was loud, bubbly and unfiltered. Everyone who met them instantly understood their mutual attraction. Wild, sexual and adventurous, my friend dragged her uptight husband out of his shell. She made his life fun and interesting. Organized and always planning for contingencies, he bailed her out and cleaned up her frequent messes. He made her feel safe. They were a cute couple.

Over the years, the mutual gratitude that drove my friends’ Lucy-and-Ricardo marriage ceded territory to sneering contempt. She got tired, and then angry, at always having to initiate sex. He grew weary of the drama from her never-ending series of crises. They fought. Then, they didn’t. They had fought to a stalemate.

Their “silent divorce” lasted a few years before giving way to the real thing.

Everyone thought it was a shame.

They needed one another.

The American political union between partisans of the two major parties is a complementary marriage. Though frequently fractious, for much of the 20th century there was a tacit understanding between Democrats and Republicans that each brought something to the union, to the country, that the other needed even if they weren’t good at verbalizing their appreciation.

Like my friend’s husband, Republicans were America’s stolid, responsible, national caretakers. Based in the countryside (and until recently in the boardroom), they were boring and hated the hippies and their rock ’n’ roll and never would have supported civil rights and other liberation movements had they not been forced upon them. But conservatives also provided and protected virtues like military strength, national pride and deficit hawkishness that, deep in their pot- and LSD-infused souls, many liberals knew were essential to the republic.

And my friend’s wild-and-loopy wife, Democrats were reckless tax-and-spenders who hung out on the coasts and in big cities and tried and failed at social engineering schemes like welfare and affirmative action. But some of those schemes, like Social Security and Medicaid, saved the country, and drove almost all the progress that improved people’s lives and thus staved off revolution. Though they didn’t like to admit it, Republicans knew in their stock-portfolios-for-hearts that liberalism saved them from their rapacious selves and forced them to admit when their wars didn’t work out.

The national marriage started to unravel under Reagan, enjoyed a rapprochement under Clinton and turned ugly under Obama. As with any failed romance, it’s hard to pinpoint a specific moment that marked the beginning of the end. I’d pick 2010, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” McConnell’s idea of trying to win back the White House wasn’t wild. His formulation, emboldened by the rise of the proto-MAGA Tea Party, was remarkably contemptuous of Democrats. As an opposition party, the GOP was expected to articulate its own set of policies while paying lip service to its willingness to work with the president on issues where the two parties had common ground, rather than center its messaging around pigheaded obstructionism.

            Republicans, having failed to prevent Obama’s reelection in 2012, doubled down in 2014 when McConnell pledged not only to block Democratic initiatives just because, but to threaten to shut down the federal government every time the other party tried to push through a bill.

            Now everything is going their way. White House, Congress, Supreme Court, big tech and a compliant news media—Trump and the Republicans control it all. There was scarcely an echo of the riotous protests in response to Trump’s first inaugural in 2017 in the streets of Washington for the second one last week. Democratic leaders and their allies are despondent, disorganized and silent. “Far from rising up in outrage, the opposition party’s lawmakers have taken a muted wait-and-see approach,” reports The New York Times. Liberals are actively tuning out of politics, canceling their subscriptions and turning off MSNBC, televised organ of the DNC.

            After sounding Defcon-4 at volume 11 every time Trump issued an obnoxious tweet during his first term, incessantly shrieking about the January 6th Capitol riot, unleashing ferocious partisan legal warfare against him and hysterically characterizing a Trumpian restoration as an existential threat to democracy that would bring about real and actual fascism, the post-electoral silence of the liberal lambs is deafening.

            You may feel good about all this, if you’re a Republican.

            Don’t. As the Tacitus quote currently circulating in response to Israel’s flattening of Gaza goes: “They make a desert and call it peace.” The sounds you’re not hearing—leftists marching and chanting down the block, liberals bleating in the comments section, Democratic politicians hollering about Trump’s unprecedented awfulness—are not acquiescence, much less acceptance. They are the disgust of silent divorce.

            Democratic voters (of whom I am not one, I am to their Left) have given up on the Republicans with whom they share a country. Democrats still live under the same roof as their Republican spouses—for the time being, there’s no way for them to move out—but their anger has devolved into a cold contempt from which there is rarely any way back. Those people—Republicans—can stay in their Electoral College-inflated flyover states and watch Fox and NASCAR and vote however they want, including against abortion, and we (the smart people) will keep to ourselves in our urban enclaves. They’re not worth yelling at.

            They’re not even worth talking to.

            This marriage is in trouble.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

The post Democrats Want a Divorce first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post Democrats Want a Divorce appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Eighty years ago saw the dawn of the nuclear age with the development and subsequent sole use of nuclear weapons when the United States dropped them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing roughly 200,000, mainly civilian Japanese citizens. These events and the subsequent nuclear arms race driven by the myth of nuclear deterrence have hung over civilization to this day, threatening our very existence.

On Tuesday, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists unveiled its prophetic “Doomsday Clock” moving the hand to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to midnight, representing the time at which our planet is uninhabitable and life as we know it is no longer possible. The Bulletin was originally founded in 1945 by the developers of the atomic bomb, including Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists to inform the public of man-made threats to human existence.

While nuclear weapons were the initial existential threat focus of the Doomsday Clock, risk multipliers are now included. These include the climate crisis, which reduces access to natural resources fueling conflict. Bio threats, like COVID-19 and future pandemics, are increasing as mankind and the animal kingdom interface ever more closely. In addition, the threats of bioterrorism, disinformation, and disruptive technologies—including AI—have made the risk even greater.

An important element to realizing this call to protect our world is the need to build the political will and give cover to members of Congress, many of whom who have been captured by the nuclear and military industrial complex.

Even at this time of great challenge, there is great hope arising from the international community as the fourth anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was celebrated last week. Under this treaty, nuclear weapons are illegal to stockpile, develop, test, transfer, use, or even threaten to use, and join all other weapons of mass destruction in that reality. The treaty emanated from civil society; impacted communities, including Hibakusha and victims of nuclear weapons, testing, and development legacy; international organizations; and government and elected officials. Today, with 73 nations ratifying the treaty, half the world’s countries representing over 2.5 billion people are on board with this nuclear ban.

The international movement that brought forth this treaty is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace prize. This movement currently has 652 international partner organizations. The aim of this movement is to stigmatize, prohibit, and eliminate nuclear weapons.

In the United States there is a parallel effort endorsing nuclear abolition and the precautionary safeguard measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war until these weapons are verifiably abolished. This movement is called “Back from the Brink.” Similar to the TPNW, this movement has been endorsed by 493 organizations, 77 municipalities and counties, eight state legislative bodies, 428 municipal and state officials, and 44 members of Congress. It calls on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by:

• Actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
• Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first;
• Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack;
• Taking U.S. Nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; and
• Canceling the plan to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons.

There is companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, H. Res. 77, calling on the United States to adopt Back from the Brink’s comprehensive policy prescriptions for preventing nuclear war. This legislation introduced by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) is expected to be reintroduced soon in the new Congress.

An important element to realizing this call to protect our world is the need to build the political will and give cover to members of Congress, many of whom who have been captured by the nuclear and military industrial complex, to endorse this legislation and to engage the next generation whose future is threatened by policies that they have had no say in. Across the nation over the past year a student movement called Students for Nuclear Disarmament (SND) has been taking shape in our high schools, colleges, and universities.

*****

Talia’s Story

I am currently a senior at Tufts University, graduating this June. As I reflect back on my choice of major, I recognize that I first knew I wanted to study international relations as a freshman in high school. I am an avid news reader and am fascinated by different countries’ decision-making processes. I considered myself well read and up to date on current events. It wasn’t until near the end of my freshman year of college that I had even heard of the nuclear threat.

After hearing one lecture on the growing threat of nuclear war, I changed my major to focus on understanding the history of nuclear weapons and advocating for disarmament through extracurricular activities. I joined SND last year, and, working with other student activists, renewed my passion for this work. Through webinars, emails, phone calls, and social media, we have engaged with students across America to build our movement.

It is clear that my generation does not associate the nuclear threat with problems we face today. SND is not only an organization that raises awareness, but also an organization that empowers young people to take action and show their congresspeople that we are not blind to this threat. Successful student activism inspires students on the precipice of action to take the next step. SND has made great strides in 2024, and, with growing chapters and more student leaders, SND is ready to push Congress to take action.

*****

The timing of this Doomsday Clock unveiling could not be more critical. U.S. President Donald Trump, who professes wanting to make America great again, has expressed his concern about the existential consequences of nuclear war throughout his public life. Campaigning last June he said, “Tomorrow, we could have a war that will be so devastating that you could never recover from it. Nobody can. The whole world won’t be able to recover from it.”

With Russian threats to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Gaza war, heightened tensions between Taiwan and China, and North Korean nuclear advances, the stakes could not be higher. All nuclear nations are following the U.S. lead in rebuilding their arsenals. The U.S. alone is estimated to spend $756 billion on nuclear weapons in the next 10 years.

Time and luck are not on our side. What is required is bold and new thinking about our nuclear realities. President Trump, the “great dealmaker,” is back in the White House with one last chance to make the ultimate deal for the future of humanity.

Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has triggered controversy. Many have rightly criticized his ongoing anti-vaccine messaging. He’s also erroneously claimed that antidepressants were linked to school shootings, among other falsities.

Despite this all, his confirmation seems likely. So, let us prepare.

Kennedy promises to take on ultra-processed foods. He has alerted Americans that their over-consumption is linked to multiple maladies, from diabetes to heart disease. He also advocates banning them from school lunches.

On this, I say, “Right on, Bobby!”

The American diet poses great risks, including its heavy reliance on ultra-processed foods. They are one reason for our shockingly low international health and health-system ranking—way down at 69th. Unfortunately, RFK’s tendency to mislead carries over to this issue. It’s already clear that his campaign against ultra-processed food is not evidence-based. For example, he falsely claims seed oils (sunflower and canola) are harmful.

If confirmed, RFK Jr. will oversee the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving him power to regulate our food industry as well as a much-broader mandate: “to safeguard the food supply.”

If Kennedy really wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” he could instead start by addressing the dangers of red and processed meats, a concern grounded in science. The World Health Organization identifies red meat as a probable carcinogen and processed meat a carcinogen. Likewise, a meta-analysis of 148 studies reveals that red meat—especially processed meat—contributes to higher risks for a range of cancers.

Crucially, today’s definition of “food-borne illnesses” contains a serious oversight: the deadly diseases linked to red meat and processed meats. We have a right to be outraged that the FDA still fails to require warning labels or otherwise alert the public to this serious harm. The recently proposed front-of-package labels for saturated fats, sodium, and sugar would be a first step, but we cannot stop there.

Perhaps most troubling, the agency has enabled ultra-processed meats—hot dogs or bologna—to be fed to our children at our schools. Loose guidelines also allow mega-food corporations like Kraft Heinz to introduce ultra-processed products like Lunchables in school cafeterias. Sadly, for many children, school meals are their main source of nutrition. We need to do better by them.

This crisis also reflects the political power of the meat industry. Therefore, RFK Jr. must stand up to this pernicious interest group, which “spent more than $10 million on political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2023,” which for some, “was an all-time high,” reports the Missouri Independent.

Over more than 50 years, a number of my books, starting with Diet for a Small Planet, have focused on the needless waste, ecological destruction, and hunger built into our grain-fed-meat-centered diets—all driven by the highly concentrated power of corporate agribusiness. I have stressed the health benefits of plant-based diets.

The great news is that diets rich in whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and nuts—with little or no red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains—can lengthen our lives. A much-cited 2001 National Institute of Health study predicted that avoiding meat contributes to lifestyles that could add ten years to one’s life. Even if one began this healthier diet as late as age 60, life-expectancy increases over eight years for women and almost nine years for men.

To enable access to wholesome diets, Kennedy must also do his part to tackle the growing crisis of “food deserts”—low-income, urban areas where at least a third of residents live a mile or more from a supermarket. This barrier to healthy diets affects over 40 millions of us. The HHS will oversee the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which inform key programs such as SNAP and the National School Lunch Program. Here, we must urge RFK Jr. to focus on the science: processed meats are dangerous.

In all this, we must remain vigilant in holding Kennedy and the broader Trump administration accountable. We must also work for political reforms to ensure our elected officials are no longer corrupted by private interests. Our fight to protect our community’s health goes hand-in-hand with our fight for democracy.

Every bite we eat is a choice for the world we want. So, let’s push the incoming head of the HHS to ensure that all Americans are able to take healthy, wholesome bites.