The top tax rate wealthy Americans pay on their investment gains today runs barely half the top rate the rest of us pay on our wages. But that only begins to tell the story of how lightly taxed our richest have become compared to the rest of us.

On the surface, the nominal tax rate on long-term capital gains from investments seems somewhat progressive, even given the reality that this rate sits lower than the tax rate on ordinary income. Single taxpayers with $48,350 or less in taxable income face a zero capital gains tax rate. Taxpayers with over $533,400 in taxable income, meanwhile, face a 23.8% tax on their capital gains, a rate that includes a 3.8% net investment income tax..

But these numbers shroud the real picture. In reality, we tax the ultra-rich on their investment gains less, not more. The rates we see on paper only apply to gains taxpayers register in the year they sell their investments. But we get a totally different story when we calculate the effective annual tax rate for long-held investments, especially for America’s wealthiest who sit in that nominal 23.8% bracket.

Buffett and Bezos may be poster children for reforming our absurdly regressive capital gains tax policy. But the problem remains wider than a handful of billionaires who founded wildly successful businesses.

For members of America’s top echelon—the wealthiest 2% or so of American households—the effective annual tax rate on capital gains income, the rate that really matters in measuring the impact a tax has on wealth accumulation, actually rates as sharply regressive.

That sound complicated? Let’s just do the simple math.

The federal tax on capital gains doesn’t apply until the investment giving rise to those gains gets sold, be that sale comes two years after purchase or 20. During the time a wealthy American holds an asset, the untaxed gains compound, free of tax. In other words, as the growth in the investment’s value increases, the effective annual rate of taxation when the investment finally gets sold decreases.

The graphic below shows how the effective annual tax rate on investment gains—all taxed nominally at 23.8%—varies dramatically with the rate of the gain and how long the taxpayer hangs on to the asset.

If an investor sells an asset that has averaged an annual growth of 5% after five years, the one-time tax of 23.8% on the total gain translates to an effective annual tax rate of 22.1%. In effect, paying tax at a 22.1% rate each year on investment gains that accrue at a 5% rate would leave the investor with about the same sum after five years as only paying a tax—of 23.8%—upon the investment’s sale.

In that sale situation, the tax-free compounding of gains over the five years causes a modest reduction in the effective annual tax rate, less than two percentage points. The 22.1% effective rate reduces the 5% pre-tax growth rate of the asset to a 3.9% rate after tax.

Let’s now compare that situation to an investment that grows at an average annual rate of 25% before its sale 40 years later. In this scenario, the tax-free compounding significantly reduces the effective annual tax rate to a meager 3.39%. That translates to a barely noticeable reduction in that 25% annual pre-tax rate of growth to 24.15% after tax.

Put simply, in our current tax system, the more profitable an investment proves to be, the lower the effective tax on the gains that investment generates. You could not design a more regressive tax system.

Who benefits from our regressive tax system for capital gains? We hear a lot from our politicians about some of those folks, the ones they want us to focus on.

Think of someone who starts a small business—with a modest investment of, say $100,000—that over three decades grows into a not-so-small business worth $25 million. Our culture celebrates small-business success stories like that, and political leaders in both parties seek to protect the owners of these businesses at tax time. Why punish, these lawmakers ask, small business people who started from humble beginnings and sacrificed weekends and vacations to build up their enterprises?

But do we get sound policy when we base our tax rates on high incomes on the assumption that certain high-earners have sacrificed nobly for their earnings? Think of a highly specialized surgeon who made huge personal sacrifices to develop the skills she now uses to save the lives of her patients. Should the annual income tax rate she pays on her wages be 10 times the effective annual income tax rate on the gain that the founder of a telephone solicitation call center realizes when he sells the business after 30 years?

We hear similar policy justifications for the ultra-light taxation of the gain realized upon the sale of a family’s farmland. But those who push these justifications rarely point out that the gain has little to do with the family’s decades of farming and far more to do with the land either sitting atop a recently discovered mineral deposit or sitting in the path of a major new suburban development.

Just as magicians get their audiences to focus on the left hand and pay no attention to the right, defenders of the lax tax treatment of investment gains heartily hail the hard work of farmers and small business owners, a neat move that diverts our attention from what simply can be windfall investment gains.

America’s taxation of capital gains runs regressive where it most needs to be progressive—to halt the concentration of our country’s wealth.

Those lucky farmers and business owners, you see, provide political cover for America’s billionaires, by far the biggest beneficiaries of the regressive taxation of capital gains. Consider Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. His original investment in Amazon over 30 years ago, in the neighborhood of $250,000, has now grown close to $200 billion. And that’s after he’s sold off billions of dollars worth of shares. Or how about Warren Buffett, whose original investment in Berkshire Hathaway, the source of virtually all his wealth, dates back to 1962?

Bezos and Buffett, when they sell shares of their stock, face effective annual rates of tax similar to those in that far-right bar of the graphic above, under 4%.

Buffett and Bezos may be poster children for reforming our absurdly regressive capital gains tax policy. But the problem remains wider than a handful of billionaires who founded wildly successful businesses.

In 2022, for example, the top one-tenth of the top 1% of American taxpayers reported nearly one-half the total long-term capital gains of all American taxpayers. Average taxpayers in that ultra-exclusive group of just 154,000 tax-return filers had over $4.7 million of capital gains qualifying for preferential tax treatment, a sum that rates some 943 times the capital gains reported, on average, by taxpayers in the bottom 99.9% of America’s population. And this bottom 99.9%, remember, includes the bottom nine-tenths of the top 1%, who themselves boast some pretty healthy incomes,

The regressive taxation of capital gains drives the tax avoidance strategy I call Buy–Hold for Decades–Sell. The essence of this simple strategy: buy investments that will have sustained periods of growth, hold them for several decades, then sell.

The strategy works fantastically well if you happen to hit a home run with an investment and achieve sustained annual growth of 20% a year, like those who purchased shares in Microsoft in 1986 did. But you only need to do modestly well to benefit enormously from Buy–Hold for Decades–Sell. If, for instance, you only manage 10% a year growth, barely more than the average return on the S&P 500, your effective annual tax rate if you sell at the end of 30 years would be just 9.28%, leaving you with an after-tax pile of cash over 13 times the amount of your original investment.

If we dig into the data produced by economists Edward Fox and Zachary Liscow, we can see clearly that once we get to the upper levels of America’s economic pyramid, the tax avoidance benefit of Buy–Hold for Decades–Sell increases mightily as we progress to the pinnacle.

Fox and Liscow estimate, for the period between 1989 and 2022, the average annual growth in unrealized taxpayer gains at various levels in our economic pyramid [see their research paper’s second appendix table]. The clear pattern: The higher your ranking in our economic pyramid, the greater your average annual growth in unrealized gains.

And when the growth in unrealized gains is running at its highest rate, the annual effective rate of tax on those gains—when finally realized—is running at its lowest. Why? The same factors that drive the growth rate of unrealized gains higher—longer asset holding periods and higher rates of appreciation in value—also drive the annual effective tax rate lower, as the graphic above vividly shows

In short, thanks to Buy–Hold for Decades–Sell, America’s taxation of capital gains runs regressive where it most needs to be progressive—to halt the concentration of our country’s wealth. The higher we go on our wealth ladder, from the highly affluent to the rich to the ultra-rich, the lower the rate of tax. The upshot: The richer you happen to be, the smaller the portion of your investment gains you pay in tax and the greater the portion of those investment gains converted to permanent wealth. That’s how wealth concentrates.

Unless we reform the taxation of capital gains to shut down Buy–Hold for Decades–Sell, the concentration of our country’s wealth at the top—and the associated threat to our democracy—will worsen.

It’s just math.

The Big Law firms that capitulated to President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional demands thought they were buying peace with his administration, preserving their client relationships, and protecting their bottom lines.

Recent developments illustrate the growing magnitude of their mistake.

Fighters Are Winning

On May 2, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell became the first court to issue a final ruling that Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a 102-page opinion, the court shredded Trump’s edict with a straightforward analysis that other courts are likely to follow:

“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ [Trump’s Executive Order] takes the approach of “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.

“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,…. Simply put, government officials ‘cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’

“That, however, is exactly what is happening here.”

For those keeping score, Trump’s Justice Department has now lost every courtroom fight on the subject. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey obtained immediate temporary relief from his executive orders, as did Perkins Coie, which has now won a permanent injunction from Judge Howell.

Meanwhile, how are the firms that caved to Trump doing?

The Other Shoe Drops: #1

After providing Trump with a war chest totaling almost $1 billion in free legal services, the settling firms are now learning how he plans to use it. Previously, Trump had mused about using Big Law attorneys on coal leasing and tariff deals, but on April 28 things got real.

Trump issued an executive order titled, “STRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS.”

The order emphasized the need to “protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials.” It directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide the legal resources necessary to defend those officers, including “private-sector pro bono assistance.” [emphasis supplied]

Stated simply, police officers accused of brutality and other misconduct will get Big Law attorneys to defend them – free of charge.

Meanwhile, traditional pro bono causes, including defending immigrants’ rights, are suffering from the deterrent effect of Trump’s attack. Fearing his wrath, they are declining work that challenges his policies.

Settling firms were already getting blowback from their partners and associates as many have left their firms. Trump’s newly-added page to their pro bono catalog won’t help recruiting or retention. And as with all things Trump, there’s no limiting principle. Appeasement never produces finality.

The Other Shoe Drops: #2

The firms’ stated reason for capitulating to Trump was concern that clients would leave any firm that was not in Trump’s good graces. That premise is not aging well either.

On April 11, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono work “and other free legal services” to Trump-designated causes.

On April 22, the firm informed the Delaware Chancery Court that it would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to its 2023 acquisition of Activision. The same day, Jenner & Block replaced Simpson Thacher as Microsoft’s counsel.

Losing a client to another firm is not uncommon, and none of the players has commented on Microsoft’s switch. But capitulation to Trump has not been a panacea for preserving client relationships. A firm that challenges an unconstitutional order threatening its existence is a firm that many clients want fighting for them.

The Other Shoe Drops: #3

On April 24, 16 House members sent letters to nine firms that settled with Trump. Asking about their motivations and urging them to disavow the deals, lawmakers suggested that the agreements may violate federal and state criminal and civil laws while creating “potentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.” Previously, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent requests for information from several firms and White House counsel on April 6 and April 18.

The Other Show Drops: #4

Firms assumed that capitulation would occupy a single news cycle and then disappear. But their public relations nightmares aren’t going away. Apart from the widespread and ongoing condemnation of the legal community, the story continues to have legs as a fateful moment for the rule of law in the United States.

The May 4 edition of CBS’s 60 Minutes ran a damning segment on Big Law firms that settled with Trump. None was willing to appear and defend itself or its deal. The legal term for such continuing cowardice is res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. In this case, the firms didn’t speak at all.

On May 9, an article that later appeared in the New York Times Sunday print edition ran with this headline and subhead:

Can Elite Lawyers Be Persuaded to ‘Wake Up and Stand Up’?
When the law firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration, a new kind of activist emerged.

Some of the settling firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and at least one other, have an escape hatch: Their “handshake deals” with Trump are not in writing. They can do what Trump does when he no longer likes his own prior agreement: Walk away.

In fact, even firms with a written agreement can walk away too. Whatever their form, the deals are probably not enforceable. But that was never Trump’s main objective. It was always about intimidation and deterrence. When firms bent the knee to him, he won and scored an invaluable public relations victory.

And his accompanying billion-dollar windfall didn’t hurt.

We are nearly four months into the Trump administration, but sometimes it feels like the orange man has been president forever. This is because Donald Trump’s second term is a nightmare that keeps getting worse and worse.

First, you have the chaos that Trump has unleashed around the world with his uninformed and simplistic views on international trade and trade policy and threats to Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Mexico; then his all-out assault on civil society and the very fundamental principles of U.S. democracy; and then the daily and exhausting bullshit that comes out of his ignorant mouth, which he uses as a diversion to distract citizens and the media alike from his actions.

But it is the horrible combination of lawlessness and incompetence, fear and cruelty of Trump 2.0 that creates the feeling that time has stopped. Time flies when things are good and we are having fun. But if we are in distress and pain, time slows down.

Trump is waging a war on the poor, seeks to destroy the environment, abuses power in order to target his enemies, and tears families apart with his mass deportation agenda precisely because he has a passion for cruelty.

Trump’s politics are repellant. They are straight out of the fascist playbook. They are dressed in fear and hate, cruelty and vengeance, with lies and corruption being both cause and effect of his leadership style.

Trump is using fear as a political tool with citizens, Congress, courts, business, universities, and the news industry. He uses denigrating and dehumanizing language to promote hate in order to create a divided United States.

Trump's anti-immigrant policies are rooted in racism and, sure enough, want to make eugenics great again. Offering special immigration status to white Afrikaners, on a refugee program that has essentially been suspended for all other groups, speaks volumes of who the orange man is and what he stands for.

But Trump’s signature is cruelty. Indeed, in Gaza, Trump did not see immense human suffering, let alone a genocide in the making, but “underdeveloped real estate,” as Robert Kutner so astutely observed. Trump is waging a war on the poor, seeks to destroy the environment, abuses power in order to target his enemies, and tears families apart with his mass deportation agenda precisely because he has a passion for cruelty.

Umberto Eco claimed that “there was only one Nazism.” But the great Italian scholar and best-selling author went on to add that “the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change.”

To be sure, a fascist monster who demonizes migrants, exacts revenge on his perceived foes, actively destroys the rule of law, and whose real agenda is not “America First” but rather “Trump First” is in charge of today’s United States.

I have no idea how the Trumpian nightmare is going to end. But it will surely get worse as time goes by if Americans do not rise up against the orange man’s fascist regime.

Get ready for a powerhouse episode of DeProgram with hosts Ted Rall and John Kiriakou, delivering a no-filter take on today’s hottest global and domestic stories! This week, they unpack President Trump’s blockbuster Saudi Arabia trip, dissecting the $600 billion investment deal reshaping U.S.-Middle East dynamics.

Next, they dive into the Iran nuclear talks’ deadlock, where Tehran’s defiance meets Trump’s hardline stance, fueling Gulf tensions. The focus shifts to Syria, where Trump’s surprise sanctions lift and talks with interim leader Ahmed al-Sharaa spark debate—is this diplomacy or a risky gamble? Then, the hosts explore the Menendez brothers’ resentencing drama, as fresh evidence and public pressure challenge their life sentences.

Finally, buckle up for the Qatar jet scandal, with Trump’s luxury plane gift igniting Senate fury and ethical firestorms. Rall’s biting commentary and Kiriakou’s whistleblower savvy make this episode a must-listen, blending serious analysis with sharp humor. From Saudi deserts to D.C. courtrooms, DeProgram cuts through the spin, connecting the dots on power, politics, and justice. Whether you’re a news junkie or just curious, this episode serves up bold insights to keep you informed and engaged. Don’t miss the chance to join Rall and Kiriakou as they decode the chaos of our world with wit and wisdom. Plug in and get DeProgrammed—stream now for a front-row seat to the stories shaping our future!

The post DeProgram: “Trump’s Desert Deals, Iran Standoff, Syria Shift, Menendez Twist & Qatar Jet Jolt” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency's current goal is to cut $150 billion a year in spending from the federal government. One fundamental problem with Musk's approach is that sometimes spending a little more money saves a lot of money, or makes a lot of money. Repairing a hole in a roof in Florida before hurricane season saves money. Regularly changing the oil in your car saves money. For every dollar that the Internal Revenue Service spends auditing the top 10% of earners, it recovers $12 in taxes. A recent Stanford study found that auditing partnerships nets $20 in taxes recovered for every dollar spent by the IRS.

The largest chunk of fraud in America's federal government is the tax gap. The tax gap is the difference between how much is owed in taxes and how much is paid in taxes. For 2022, the IRS estimated that the tax gap was $606 billion. That $606 billion in fraud that tax cheats get away with is equivalent to the total federal income taxes paid by the bottom 90% of earners in America.

For most Americans, like myself, every dollar in wages we earn is reported by our employers to the IRS, our taxes are withheld from our paychecks, and that money is paid to the Treasury as estimated taxes four times a year. So for most Americans, cheating is close to impossible, and our rate of compliance is 99%. But for rich individuals and corporations, our byzantine tax code gives them lots of nooks and crannies to hide their income and avoid paying the taxes they owe, so their rate of cheating can be as high as 55%.

I propose that we not only hire back all those fired workers at the IRS, but double down and spend an additional $5 billion auditing the top 10% of earners and $5 billion auditing partnerships at the IRS to reduce the tax gap by $160 billion.

If we collected 25% more of the tax gap, that would be roughly $150 billion a year, which happens to match the DOGE yearly goal. But DOGE isn't even looking at bringing in more revenue. How can DOGE, whose mission is government efficiency, ignore the biggest chunk of fraud in the federal government? DOGE has actually done the opposite. DOGE has aggressively cut workers from the IRS, targeting those employees recently hired and being trained to go after the worst of the worst of the tax cheats. The Inflation Reduction Act, which former President Joe Biden pushed through Congress, bolstered tax enforcement and modernization at the IRS, and experts being trained to audit the most complex returns were hired less than two years ago, so they were cut as part of Musk's purge of probationary federal employees. Even worse, it has been reported that Musk and President Donald Trump are working on plans to cut staffing at the IRS by half.

The Budget Lab at Yale has estimated that if 22,000 employees are cut from the IRS, the tax gap will increase by $160 billion in 2026. If DOGE cuts half of IRS employees, or 50,000, the Budget Lab at Yale estimated that the tax gap will increase by $203 billion in 2026. So just accounting for DOGE's cuts to the IRS, DOGE will likely increase the deficit, even if they hit their target of cutting $150 billion in spending.

I propose that we not only hire back all those fired workers at the IRS, but double down and spend an additional $5 billion auditing the top 10% of earners and $5 billion auditing partnerships at the IRS to reduce the tax gap by $160 billion. So the score is an estimated increase of $203 billion in fraud for DOGE, $150 billion in deficit reduction for me.

When I joined the Air Force, I took the oath every serviceperson takes: to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. Every member of Congress takes this same oath.

At his inauguration, President Donald Trump swore a much shorter oath: to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has since actively rejected his responsibility to the Constitution, ignoring Supreme Court rulings, violating the emoluments clause, stripping people of due process, and engaging in nakedly corrupt self-enrichment. We are in a constitutional crisis, in every sense of the word.

None of Trump’s unconstitutional actions are disputed. My responsibility as a citizen is the same as the responsibility of our duly elected officials in the Senate and the House: to remove this blatantly unfit president from office. If Trump isn’t sure he needs to uphold the Constitution, he should not be leading our democracy. Simple.

Trump is a blatantly corrupt tyrant laying waste to the Constitution. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. The American people know it. The remedy is clear: impeachment.

Democrats have made it clear that they believe Trump has committed impeachable offenses. They tell us endlessly, in all forms of social media, public speeches, and fundraising texts, about the bribery and the violation of rights and the usurpation of the power of the purse. They all pledge to do something about it.

That something must be impeachment.

Impeachment is the legal remedy for the unconstitutional actions of this president, enshrined in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. They understood the danger a tyrant would pose to our republic, and provided impeachment as the clear, constitutional method to remove “a president who mistakes himself for a monarch.” Impeachment and removal of a tyrant is the fundamental responsibility of duly elected members of the House of Representatives.

I am taking my oath seriously. In April I started the grassroots Citizens’ Impeachment with former Senate staffer Gabe Garbowit. We started out as Operation Anti-King, and recruited citizens from every congressional district and sent more than 600 emails to ask their representatives if they would support impeachment. Fifteen representatives said yes.

One of those Representatives is also taking their oath seriously: Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) has gone on to introduce articles of impeachment under Rule IX, requiring the House to vote on impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for his undisputed high crimes and misdemeanors. That vote happens this week.

It’s a simple question: Is this impeachable conduct or not? Any representative who answers “yes” to that question and intends to uphold their oath of office should stand firmly behind impeachment. This includes voting to move forward the articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Thanedar.

Reportedly, some Democrats aren’t thrilled at the opportunity for an up-and-down vote on impeachment, but they should be. A majority of likely voters support impeachment, including a majority of Independents (55%). Democratic likely voters are particularly enthusiastic, with 64% strongly supporting impeachment and another 16% supporting impeachment somewhat. Impeachment is a slam-dunk signal to a Democratic representative’s constituents that they are upholding their oath to the Constitution and the American people.

Trump is not invincible. His coalition is starting to crack over the obvious incompetence and corruption, and he has the lowest approval rating of any president in the past 80 years at this point in their term. If Congress refuses to uphold their own oath to support and defend the Constitution by removing him from office, there isn’t anything left to hold back this rogue president from a full power grab.

Voters also have a huge part to play here. We need to insist that every duly elected representative—Democrat and Republican alike—uphold their oath of office and move forward articles of impeachment this week. The more our elected officials hear from their constituents, the harder it is to ignore us and the constitutional crisis. Citizens’ Impeachment has instructions and scripts to help you tell your representative to support impeachment and move forward H. Res 353, Impeaching Donald John Trump.

The Citizens’ Impeachment movement came together very quickly—from two passionate and determined people to thousands of active volunteers in less than two months—because we recognize two things. The first is that impeachment is the only way to remove a tyrant as laid out in the Constitution. And the second is that the power of people coming together, to tell our elected representatives what we want to see them do, to pressure them into committing to this path publicly, is how we can get them to act.

Trump is a blatantly corrupt tyrant laying waste to the Constitution. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. The American people know it. The remedy is clear: impeachment. This week, representatives have the opportunity to align themselves with the American people, uphold their oath, and support and defend the Constitution. We will see how many of them take it.

LIVE 10 AM Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Get ready for a thrilling episode of The TMI Show with Ted Rall and Manila Chan as they dive into Donald Trump’s Gulf tour. Fresh into his second term, Trump visits Saudi Arabia and Qatar, securing a $142B arms deal and pursuing $1T in investments. Will his rapport with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords? Or will Gaza’s war and Palestinian statehood demands derail it?

The stakes rise with Trump’s plan to use a $400M Qatari jet as a temporary Air Force One. Defense officials warn of security risks, citing missing secure comms and nuclear command systems. Is this a daring move or a constitutional violation? Ted and Manila dissect the emoluments clause controversy and debate if it’s a “Qatari bribe.”

Tune in for bold takes, heated debates, and gripping geopolitics. #TMI #TrumpGulfTour

Plus:

Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks: Ted and Manila tackle Zelenskyy’s Istanbul peace talks with Russia, the first since 2022. Putin’s ceasefire aims to dodge EU sanctions, but will Lavrov lead? With sanctions looming, expect fiery debates. Tune in for bold insights. #TMIPeaceTalks

Jake Tapper’s Biden Book: Ted and Manila rip into Tapper’s Original Sin on Biden’s decline. Clooney snub stuns. Is Tapper exposing truth or rewriting history? TMI debates the scandal. #TMIBidenScandal

UnitedHealth CEO Exit: Ted and Manila probe UnitedHealth CEO Witty’s sudden exit. Personal reasons or scandal? Hemsley steps up. TMI delivers hot takes on the shakeup. #TMIHealthShakeup

Menendez Brothers Resentencing: Ted and Manila break down the Menendez resentencing to 50 years. Parole looms, but will Newsom approve? TMI dives into the gripping drama. #TMIMenendez

 

The post TMI Show Ep 138: “Trump Chillaxing with Radical Jihadis” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to threaten any institutions that could check his administration’s ongoing drive toward authoritarianism, there’s been a stark contrast in responses to his mob boss-style attacks. Some targets—like Harvard, which vowed to fight Trump’s assault on universities, or the law firm Perkins Coie, which recently scored a judicial win holding Trump’s actions against the firm unconstitutional—have seen their stature in their respective fields skyrocket,. Others—like Columbia University or the law firm Paul Weiss, which both immediately folded at the first sign of aggression from Trump—have been publicly, and perhaps permanently, tarred as feckless cowards.

This contrast between courage and gutlessness appeared once again earlier this month in response to Trump’s latest dictatorial salvo: an all-out assault on behalf of the fossil fuel industry against state and local efforts to hold Big Oil companies accountable for deceiving the public about climate change.

Right now, 1 in 4 Americans live in a jurisdiction that is fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the catastrophic damage they knew decades ago that their products would cause. The fossil fuel industry concedes that it faces “massive monetary liability” in these cases, and has been growing more and more desperate to stop plaintiff communities from having their day in court. In the last few years Big Oil has asked the Supreme Court to block these cases on five separate occasions. Recently, industry front groups tied to Leonard Leo ran a pressure campaign pushing the court to take up the issue.

Making polluters pay for climate damages is widely supported—and far more popular than Trump ever has been.

But the court has denied Big Oil every time, and so fossil fuel companies have had to shift to Plan B: asking the man they spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing to fulfill his end of the quid pro quo. The Wall Street Journal reported that oil executives asked Trump during a White House meeting for legal help against the cases, and their lobbyists are pushing congressional Republicans to include legal protections for the fossil fuel industry “in a coming Trump-endorsed bill.”

In his typical oligarchical style, Trump has gone all in to protect his corporate backers. On April 8 Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to “take all appropriate action” to stop states that have “sued energy companies for supposed ‘climate change’ harm.” And this month the Department of Justice filed a series of lawsuits attempting to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from pursuing climate litigation.

We’ve become so inured to the extreme misconduct of this administration that it’s often hard for any new scandal to stand out. But it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the staggering corruption of this new broadside on the rule of law.

Trump is taking unprecedented action on behalf of an industry that understood decades ago that their fossil fuel products would cause, in their own words, “great irreversible harm,” “more violent weather—more storms, more droughts, more deluges,” and “suffering and death due to thermal extremes.” Instead of warning consumers about this existential threat, they waged a massive disinformation campaign to prevent the public from understanding the dangers of climate change. They made trillions of dollars from this deception, leaving regular Americans to pay the price.

And regular Americans certainly have been paying that price. They’ve been paying in higher insurance costs driven by the “violent weather” that Big Oil companies knew their products would cause. They’ve been paying in homes, businesses, and livelihoods lost in climate-driven “deluges.” And in far too many cases they’ve been paying with their own “suffering and death.” That is why many of the communities hit hardest by these disasters have sued—under the same long-established state laws used to hold Big Tobacco and opioid profiteers accountable—to force the companies responsible for global warming to contribute at least something to the often devastating climate costs that right now are falling entirely on the shoulders of regular Americans.

Trump, of course, doesn’t care about regular Americans experiencing, in his words, “supposed ‘climate change’ harm.” His concern is limited entirely to his Big Oil donors, who are terrified of having to defend their climate lies to a jury composed of the people they screwed over.

Unfortunately for Big Oil, we live in a federalist system of government that does not allow a president to unilaterally block a state from pursuing valid state-law claims in state courts. Indeed, legal experts seem to agree the suits filed by the administration against Hawaii and Michigan are “shockingly flimsy.”

That doesn’t mean Trump’s legal maneuvering isn’t a potent weapon, however. As we’ve seen with Trump’s assault on universities and law firms, the goal of these attacks is not winning in the courtroom. It’s all about intimidation—which means that what really matters is whether state and local officials have the courage to stand strong against Trump’s mafia-style threats.

Some leaders are demonstrating that they have that backbone. On May 1, Hawaii ignored the DOJ’s specious lawsuit and became the 10th state to sue Big Oil. As Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said, “The state of Hawaiʻi will not be deterred from moving forward with our climate deception lawsuit. My department will vigorously oppose this gross federal overreach.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel had a similar response: “Donald Trump has made clear he will answer any and every beck and call from his Big Oil campaign donors… I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the president and his Big Oil donors so fear.”

Sadly, not all local leaders have demonstrated such courage. Shortly after the DOJ announced its suits against Hawaii and Michigan, Puerto Rico voluntarily dropped its 2024 case that sought to make fossil fuel companies pay to help protect the commonwealth’s infrastructure against stronger storms, sea-level rise, and other damages fueled by climate change. The Leonard Leo-linked Alliance for Consumers, which days earlier called on Puerto Rico’s governor to help kill the case, crowed that the dismissal would allow consumers to “take comfort in knowing the things you buy for your family will still be there, at the store, when you need them”—an Orwellian message for the millions of Puerto Ricans who were unable to access basic goods for months following the climate-driven catastrophe of Hurricane Maria.

A spokesperson said the commonwealth dropped its case, which was brought under a previous administration, because Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón wanted to “be aligned with the policies of President Trump,” which is “to support the burning of fossil fuels [and] the protection of oil companies.” As a result, her constituents will be condemned to a future of escalating climate disasters that they—and not the polluters most responsible—will have to pay for.

But maybe the contrast between Puerto Rico’s humiliating supplication and Hawaii and Michigan’s courageous stands can help inspire other local and state jurisdictions to refuse to bend to Trump’s future threats. After all, making polluters pay for climate damages is widely supported—and far more popular than Trump ever has been.

When the history books are written about this lawless moment, the collaborators—the Columbias, the Paul Weisses, the González-Colóns—will not like how posterity remembers their cowardice. But leaders who rise to the occasion, who refuse to surrender to Trump’s protection racket, and who continue fighting to make polluters pay will be able to take pride in their place on the right side of history.

For all the autocratic abuses that characterize U.S. President Donald Trump’s second tenure, nothing more parallels the historic pattern of dictatorships than the kidnapping of disfavored individuals by armed agents of the state. Then concealing them in detention facilities, including as a prelude for some to be renditioned to horrific prisons in foreign countries. All while trampling on constitutional protections of legal due process, often ignoring court orders to stop it.

"The one power you cannot give the executive is the power to arbitrarily imprison people who oppose the regime,” says Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “Today it may be an El Salvadorian immigrant or a foreign student, but tomorrow it is you or me. The slope to despotism can be slippery and quick.”

“In fascist states, individual rights had no autonomous existence,” writes Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism. “The State of Law vanished, along with the principles of due process” for “guaranteed equitable treatment by the courts and state agencies. A suspect acquitted in a German court of law could be rearrested by agents of the regime at the courthouse door and put in a concentration camp without any further legal procedure.”

For some of those snatched off the streets, at home, from their car with children in the back, or in a courtroom, the ultimate destination is a foreign hellhole.

Despite repeated legal setbacks demanding an end to these autocratic practices, the Trump administration continues to escalate the assault on the rule of law. Recent incidents illustrate the rising danger.

Federal agents have begun targeting judges and elected officials. In late April, the FBI arrested sitting state court Judge Hannah Dugan in Milwaukee on charges of obstructing immigration agents for allowing an undocumented immigrant who had properly appeared for a hearing to evade the federal officers who were waiting outside her courtroom.

Judge Dugan was handcuffed behind her back, her ankles later shackled, and publicly paraded outside. FBI director Kash Patel celebrated the arrest by posting a photo on X in a display obviously intended to intimidate other judges, as over 150 former state and federal judges emphasized in a letter. Attorney General Pam Bondi doubled down proclaiming, “nobody is above the law,” apparently omitting her boss, Donald Trump.

— (@)

Then, on May 9, federal agents arrested Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka for alleged “trespassing” when he, Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) and LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), arrived to inspect a New Jersey Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility that Baraka says has operated in violation of city and state certification of occupancy, inspections, and permits laws. A Department of Homeland Security official menaced that arrests are “definitely on the table" for the Congress members, despite their oversight rights at federal facilities, claiming they were “body-slamming” an ICE agent.

Persecution of judges and elected officials and warnings by Trump prosecutors to other critics are designed to silence resistance, as experienced in other dictatorial regimes. In Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, Ruth Ben-Ghiat quotes Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset reflecting on Franco’s murderous regime. “The threat in my mind of an eventual violence, coercion, or sanction that other people are going to exercise against me” bred conformity.

These steps coincide with the seizure of undocumented persons, foreign students, and even U.S. citizens by ICE and other federal agents. They are then hastily transferred to detention facilities in preparation for deportation or rendition abroad, typically without evidence, barring rights of due process, depriving them of contact with family or legal counsel, in open defiance of court orders.

Due process is mandated by the Constitution’s Fifth and 14th Amendments stating no “person,” not just citizens, can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property” without legal protection under law. Separately, the Constitution declares a right of habeas corpus, the ability to go to court to ensure a person is not improperly charged or unjustly imprisoned, as former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann explained on MSNBC.

In its crusade for mass deportations and renditions, the administration is “actively looking” at formal suspension of habeas corpus, says Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff and its most fanatical architect of immigration policy. Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck notes that "Miller doesn’t deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus—and that unilateral suspensions by the president are per se unconstitutional.”

Habeas corpus has been postponed just four times in U.S. history—during the Civil War, in response to the post-Reconstruction KKK terror campaign in the South, amid an insurrection against the U.S. 1905 occupation of the Philippines, and after the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack in Hawaii.

For some of those snatched off the streets, at home, from their car with children in the back, or in a courtroom, the ultimate destination is a foreign hellhole. By early May, Trump had already deported 152,000 people, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

More than 200 were dispatched to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador, in flagrant disregard of court rulings. One of them is Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Trump has doggedly rejected a unanimous Supreme Court order he “facilitate” his return despite the administration’s admission he was deported by mistake.

Further, Trump has expelled hundreds of others to countries not their own, including to Costa Rica, Panama, and the Guantánamo Bay prison in occupied Cuba. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear he is scouring for more rendition locations. “We are working with other countries to say… will you do this as a favor to us?... And the further away from America, the better.”

One plan near fruition this month, until blocked by a court order, involved expelling Filipino, Laotian, Vietnamese, and Mexican migrants to detention centers in Libya, which Amnesty International has depicted as a “hellscape.” Most, said Human Rights Watch, are “controlled by abusive, unaccountable armed groups. Such violations include severe overcrowding, beatings, torture, lack of food and water, forced labor, sexual assault and rape, and exploitation of children.”

Global Precedents of Fascist Practices

Beatings, torture, and starvation in CECOT and Libyan camps are chilling reminders of the most brutal end game of death camps by fascist dictatorships from Hitler’s Nazi Germany to Franco’s Spain, Pinochet’s Chile, and others. “The global history of (concentration) camps shows that most internees die from disease, overwork, or starvation rather than from execution,” notes Ruth Ben-Ghiat.

Within days of being appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, Hitler established models other authoritarian regimes would follow. Hermann Göring, second only to Hitler, was granted “extraordinary police powers” to brutally assault and round up political adversaries “with increasing ruthlessness,” writes Peter Fritzsche in Hitler’s First Hundred Days.

Soon, after a fire ravaged the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament, the Nazis enacted emergency legislation to fully unleash dictatorial powers, to ratchet up arrests, press censorship, and repression. Similarly, Trump has invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and is scheming to use the 1792 Insurrection Act and other emergency laws to legitimize autocratic moves, despite not meeting the constitutional requirements for either.

Fortunately, many Americans are aware of the history and what is at stake, tens of millions have protested in the streets, and Trump has failed to complete neutralization of the courts and political opposition, not for lack of trying.

By late March 1933, the Nazis had opened their first of many concentration camps, Dachau, near Munich, initially to incarcerate communists, socialists, then social democrats, gay men, gypsies, others labeled “asocials,” and eventually Jews. Notes Fritzsche, the Nazis, aided by friendly press coverage, successfully painted opponents as the “enemies from within” and racist and antisemitic dehumanization of their enemies as “subhuman”—a practice Trump has also employed.

“What distinguishes a concentration camp from a prison,” states the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “is that it functions outside of a judicial system. The major purpose of the earliest concentration camps during the 1930s was to imprison and intimidate the leaders of political, social, and cultural movements that the Nazis perceived to be a threat to the survival of the regime.”

Fortunately, many Americans are aware of the history and what is at stake, tens of millions have protested in the streets, and Trump has failed to complete neutralization of the courts and political opposition, not for lack of trying.

Victories have been won. One notable example is the court ordered freedom for Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk released from a Louisiana detention center after she was frighteningly seized by masked federal agents on the street for the “crime” of writing an op-ed protesting the Israeli-U.S. war in Gaza. The job for all of us is to build on that, and to never stop the pressure.

The Trump coalition includes four groups of people:

1. The MAGA (“make America great again”) base, mostly rural white men and women;
2. A group of Silicon Valley billionaires known as the Paypal Mafia;
3. A separate political movement called “religious nationalists”; and
4. The Trump crime family itself.

All four groups share one basic aim: to degrade our one-person-one-vote election system so a few billionaires and certain religious zealots can consolidate their political power to eliminate free and fair elections to become even more controlling and richer than they already are.

Here are brief descriptions of the four groups.

1: The MAGA Base: Who Are They?

The hardcore, mostly-rural MAGA base can be understood as an echo of the Confederacy. Philosophically, many of them are the same people who tried to destroy the United States to preserve slavery via the Civil War (1861-1865). In their view, the basic ideas that inspired the founding of the U.S. (1776-1788) are wrong: All humans are not created equal and should not have equal rights under law. In 2022, MAGA believers included about 15% of the U.S. adult population, or about 39 million out of 258 million adults.

The MAGA Base: What Do They Want?

For many MAGA believers, President Donald Trump has been sent by God to make American great again, restoring white power. To many of them, white men naturally should dominate all people of color and all women. To varying degrees, many of them scorn foreigners, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, LGBTQIA people, and anyone they think looks down upon them (the mainstream media, Hollywood, and college types, among others).

White MAGA confederates share a seething resentment that they are losing the power and privilege that they have always taken for granted. Trump is their retribution, and many of them find community by rejoicing in his sadistic cruelty.

Of course, they want to restrict the vote. To achieve that goal, they are working to limit or eliminate the right to “due process” guaranteed in the Constitution, which is a step toward their goal of curbing the authority of the judicial branch of government. They seek freedom—freedom to do whatever they want to whomever they please, and they have made real progress.

2: The Paypal Mafia: Who Are They?

The Paypal Mafia is a loosely-affiliated group of billionaires in California’s Silicon Valley with roots in apartheid South Africa. Nazi-saluting Elon Musk is the most famous of them, though Peter Thiel is likely more influential. Many have become devotees of a man named Curtis Yarvin, a racist and avowed monarchist who believes democracy is unworkable and has failed. Yarvin is friends with Vice President JD Vance, whose political career was launched and funded by Peter Thiel.

The Paypal Mafia: What Do They Want?

The Paypal Mafia wants the U.S. to be run by a king, whom they would call a “CEO” (but which Curtis Yarvin has bluntly called “a dictator”). Seriously. They want the nation run like a corporation because corporations are “efficient” (meaning tightly controlled). Another term for what they want is “techno-fascism.”

This “tech broligarchy” (which reveres unlimited male power) wants to “get government off its back” as it continues to create and sustain gigantic monopolies of dubious legality like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Paypal, Palantir, and so forth—while they freely explore the profit potential of crypto currencies and artificial intelligence, among other dangerous wild-west technologies. Obviously, they oppose one-person one-vote democracy, which might eventually break up their monopolies and curb their dangerous tech gambles.

3: Religious Nationalists: Who Are They?

Religious nationalism includes a large group of people who share an overwhelming desire for political power to eliminate democracy and who are exploiting religion to achieve that goal.

As Katherine Stewart has shown in two well-researched books, The Power Worshippers and Money, Lies, and God, this is not a religious movement. It is a radical anti-democracy political movement dressed up in religious disguise.

About one-third of U.S. adults (roughly 78 million people) either strongly support (26 million) or partially or moderately support (52 million) religious nationalism. Although they are often called Christian nationalists, their actions and goals have little to do with the teachings of Jesus—feed the hungry, house the homeless, welcome the stranger. None of that.

Christian nationalists are Donald Trump’s largest group of devoted supporters. Two out of three completely or mostly agree that God ordained Trump to win the 2024 election. Without religious nationalist support, Trump would never have become president. So, their wish is his command.

Religious Nationalists: What Do They Want?

As Katherine Stewart has shown, religious nationalists want political power so they can eliminate democracy from the United States. They want to end the separation of church and state; eliminate public education and, in its place, substitute particular religious teachings; ban abortion nationwide and restrict access to birth control; deprive gay people of the right to marry and rescind laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; eliminate no-fault divorce and restore “traditional” family roles in which men dominate; pack the federal judiciary with religious nationalists; allow corporations to discriminate openly against female employees (denying them access to birth control); declare “war” on progressive social policies and on “critical race theory;” end all restrictions on corporate monopolies; cut funding for science; get rid of governmental social safety nets (for example, social security, Medicaid, and food programs) so people will become dependent on churches for their survival; promote a Christian Nation identity in which conservative Christians have a right and a duty to enforce their values, sometimes by force; and of course make it hard or impossible for most people to vote.

Their core mission is to take over America and end democracy. Some of them are well on their way.

4. The Trump Crime Family: Who Are They?

Over the years, many people have compared Donald Trump’s family to a “crime family” and Trump himself to a Mafia godfather, demanding unquestioned loyalty from underbosses, enforcers, and associates.

Trump is always looking for ways to keep his soldiers and associates (in the three groups described above) loyal by giving them some of what they want. Meanwhile his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, are roaming across the planet making lucrative deals with people who seek privileged access to the President of the United States. Cryptocurrency has made such access simple and secret.

The Trump Crime Family: What Do They Want?

So long as Donald Trump can use his office to acquire gobs of money, push people around, receive endless praise and adoration from his subordinates, and inflict cruel revenge on those who stand in his way, he seems happy. His sons seem satisfied to score a few billion dollars here and there, based on their family ties to the president. At bottom, the family wants to retain power so they and their soldiers and associates can make boatloads more money. This requires modifying election systems so Republicans can win despite the odds against them.

Conclusion

So that, in a nutshell, is the Trump coalition. They all share one goal: to end one-person one-vote democracy. To do that, they first want to disempower the federal judiciary and eliminate the expectation of “due process.” Then, by making it difficult or impossible for large numbers of Americans to vote, they intend to remain in power forever.

It is up to the rest of us to make sure they don’t.

May 14 is celebrated in Israel as “Independence Day,” since it marks the end of British colonial rule over what had been the British Mandate of Palestine, and the proclamation of the new state of Israel. One day later, May 15, Palestinians commemorate the violent expulsion of around 850,000 Palestinians from their homeland, that started with the attack on Tiberias City on December 22, 1947. By January 3, 1949, 437 cities and villages had been destroyed and depopulated: 295 of them were obliterated through assaults or expulsion orders by Zionist troops,106 were depopulated in the midst of psychological warfare caused by the fall of neighboring villages or towns, and 36 fell victim to outright massacres committed by Zionist fighters. Many of the refugees fled to Gaza.

Palestinians refer to these 13 months as the beginning of the “Nakba,” Arabic for “catastrophe.” Every year since 1998, it has been commemorated on May 15 with the “Palestinian March of Return.” This year, however, the Association for the Defense of the Rights for the Internally Displaced Persons in Israel was forced to cancel the March. Organizers were informed that a crowd larger than 700 people or the presence of Palestinian flags would lead to “immediate police intervention.” Already since 2011, the “Nakba Law” made the commemoration ever harder, prohibiting the allocation of funds to all institutions that engaged in academic, cultural, artistic, or political activities that observe the Palestinian Nakba Day as a day of mourning. But things have become much worse.

After October 7, 2023, in May 2024, Sabreen Msarwi, a middle school teacher in Tayibe, was fired for participating in the March, and last April, in Tel Aviv, Meir Baruchin, a 62-year-old high school teacher who had been teaching history and civics for 35 years, was arrested for his Facebook posts that pleaded against the dehumanization of Palestinians: “For most Israelis, if you say Palestinian, they automatically think terrorists. They have no name, no face, no family, no hope, no plans—nothing.” For no other reason than refusing to engage in this multi-leveled erasure, for no other reason than defending Palestinian human and political rights, Baruchin was locked up for four days as a “high-risk detainee” in solitary confinement, while his apartment was ransacked by Israeli authorities.

As American citizens, whose tax dollars fund this moral abdication whether we consent to it or not, how do we face this reckoning?

It is particularly calamitous that the State of Israel, whose government claims to speak for all Jews worldwide, criminalizes remembrance, when, as Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi in his pathbreaking book Zakhor (Hebrew for “Remember!”) teaches us, remembrance is a religious commandment in the Torah, especially the remembrance of Exodus, the liberation from captivity and enslavement. Moreover, as the historian Enzo Traverso has argued, the “civil religion” of Holocaust memory has for decades “served as a paradigm for the remembrance of other genocides and crimes against humanity.” Traverso warns that if this “sacred and institutionalized memory serves only to support Israel and attack the defenders of the Palestinian cause on the pretext of antisemitism, our moral, political, and epistemological bearings will become unmoored, with devastating consequences.”

Yet, this is exactly what is happening. In a recent article, the renowned Israeli-American scholar of Holocaust studies Omer Bartov charges that the “memory of the Holocaust has, perversely, been enlisted to justify both the eradication of Gaza and the extraordinary silence with which that violence has been met.” How is it possible, he asks, “well into the 21st century, 80 years after the end of the Holocaust and the creation of an international legal regime meant to prevent such crimes from ever happening again, that the state of Israel—seen and self-described as the answer to the genocide of the Jews—could have carried out a genocide of Palestinians with near-total impunity? How do we face up to the fact that Israel has invoked the Holocaust to shatter the legal order put into place to prevent a repetition of this ‘crime of crimes’?”

It is then not only the denial of “the right to remember, to speak and to mourn” that marks this year’s 77th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel and the onset of the Nakba. This year’s May 14 and May 15 will be remembered by a particularly horrendous proof that international law has been shattered: A state unconditionally supported by the most powerful Western country, the United States, and by other Western countries, is intentionally starving an entire population. As of this writing, at least 57 Palestinians have starved to death in Gaza as a direct consequence of Israel’s 10 weeks long brutal blockade of food, water, and any other critical aid to the Palestinian population. The United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, estimates that 66,000 children in Gaza are now suffering from “severe malnutrition” due to the total siege which Sean Carroll, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit group American Near East Refugee Aid, has condemned as an “engineered system of deprivation.” This is, Carroll writes, “the moment of moral reckoning […]. When we talk about peace, we must ask: What kind of future are we envisioning if an entire people is left to suffer starvation?”

As American citizens, whose tax dollars fund this moral abdication whether we consent to it or not, how do we face this reckoning? It is high time to pressure our government to vigorously work toward a solution in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal political rights and security, and to support a vision offered by Israeli-Palestinian civic groups like Zochrot, Salt of the Earth, Standing Together, and A Land for All.

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser, predicted that the Trump Administration would flood media outlets and Democrats with rapid policy shifts to hinder their ability to respond effectively. During a Fox News interview on November 7, 2024, Miller stated that deportations would begin the moment Trump takes office. He emphasized a strategy of immediate action, signaling a broader plan to overwhelm critics with a barrage of changes. This tactic ensures that by the time opposition forms, public focus has already moved to the next initiative. The relentless pace keeps adversaries reactive, struggling to address each new policy. Media outlets, driven by the need for fresh content, amplify this whirlwind, often unable to sustain coverage on any single issue. This approach allows the Administration to advance its agenda while keeping opponents off balance, constantly addressing the latest development rather than mounting a cohesive defense.

What IS the Left? What should we fight for? How can we rebuild outside of the Democrats? Order my latest book “WHAT’S LEFT” here at Rall.com. It comes autographed to the person of your choice, and I’ll deliver it anywhere. Cost including shipping is $29.95 in the USA.

The post Trump’s Policy Tsunami: Drowning Democrats in Chaos appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Republicans are preparing to give trillions in tax handouts to millionaires and billionaires. How do they plan to pay for these tax handouts? By stealing health care from 13.7 million Americans, including destroying Medicaid as a functioning system for millions of seniors, children, and people with disabilities.

Older Americans and their families are often shocked to learn that, under most circumstances, Medicare doesn’t cover long term care. Medicaid does. In fact, Medicaid pays for over 60 percent of nursing home care. It also covers other types of long-term care, such as in-home care. And, Medicaid covers premiums and out-of-pocket costs for millions of low-income people with Medicare.

To qualify for Medicaid long term care, many seniors have to “spend down” their assets and savings. This is morally wrong. We will never stop fighting for a Medicare for All system, where everyone in America gets high quality health care that is free at point of service. But as flawed as the current system is, it’s far better than the Republican alternative — ripping away Medicaid, so that seniors who need long term care (and other care not covered by Medicare) can’t get it at all.

The bottom line: People will die because they can’t get the care they need.

Make no mistake: Republican Medicaid cuts will devastate seniors, ripping away critical care. Republicans are planning to make $880 billion in spending cuts to pay for the tax handout to the wealthy, and the majority of those cuts will come from Medicaid. It is impossible to cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid without hurting massive numbers of seniors.

Several of the Medicaid cuts they are considering amount to different ways of giving states far fewer federal dollars to spend on Medicaid. That means states will have to scale back their Medicaid programs, which will inevitably hurt seniors.

These cuts will hit all hospitals, but will almost immediately devastate rural hospitals, which rely on federal Medicaid dollars to stay afloat. America’s Essential Hospitals, the group representing these hospitals, says that the Republican plan “would cause children, pregnant patients, and disabled people to lose access to their coverage. Older populations living in nursing homes would also risk losing their health care coverage.”

If Republicans pass their Medicaid cuts into law, hospitals around the country — disproportionately in red states, which are more rural — will close. That’s on top of 200 rural hospitals that have already closed in the last decade. These closures won’t just impact people on Medicaid. It will devastate entire communities that rely on these hospitals.

Seniors with medical emergencies are in no position to drive hundreds of miles to a different hospital. This will also increase the burden on family caregivers, who will now have to travel further to get their spouse or aging parents to the hospital. The bottom line: People will die because they can’t get the care they need.

Congressional Republicans want to ruin the lives of millions more seniors, by taking away their Medicaid.

At the same time Republicans are planning these enormous Medicaid cuts, the Trump-Musk regime is breaking Social Security. They’ve pushed out 7,000 of the public servants who help Americans claim their earned benefits, with more layoffs to come. Field offices around the country have lost half their staff, leading to much longer wait times — if you can get an appointment at all.

Like the planned Medicaid cuts, these Social Security cuts are disproportionately hurting people living in rural areas and people with disabilities. If they can’t navigate the increasingly glitchy website, they may have to travel hundreds of miles to a Social Security office for an appointment.

The Musk henchmen running Social Security are also wrongly declaring people dead, cutting them off from their earned benefits as well as their credit cards and bank accounts — financial murder. People are flooding overwhelmed field offices, desperate to fix the error. In one keystroke, the Trump-Musk regime is ruining their lives. And Congressional Republicans want to ruin the lives of millions more seniors, by taking away their Medicaid.

All of this suffering is completely preventable. America is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Republicans want to rip health care away from tens of millions of people to give tax cuts to billionaires. Instead, let’s make those billionaires pay their fair share — and use the money to give everyone in America the health care they need.

Let’s suppose someone decides it would be a good idea to drive 80 miles per hour through a school zone while the amber lights are flashing. If something bad happens, as it would be likely to, and he kills one or more children, how would the law treat it?

He could tell the court that he sincerely didn’t “mean” to kill anyone, but that wouldn’t exonerate him. The court would consider the case at minimum as vehicular homicide, and more likely, given the aggravating circumstance of lethal speed in a school zone, it might well result in conviction for aggravated murder.

Absent a miraculous development of telepathic powers, we can’t read people’s minds and determine their “real” mental state; we can only infer intent from their behavior. If someone commits a reckless act whose adverse consequences are clearly foreseeable, then for all practical purposes, that person willed the consequences. This principle—who wills the means wills the ends—is applicable in law, but should also be valid in everyday life. It should particularly apply to the behavior of public officials who wield power over the rest of us.

With that in mind, let’s look at President Donald Trump’s first-term record. His handling of the COVID-19 pandemic plainly indicated an unconcern for the consequences of his ignoring the outbreak in its early stages during the winter and spring of 2020. As he told Bob Woodward, he wanted to downplay the disease so as not to spook the stock market, evidence of his preference for Wall Street over human life. His refusal to recommend masking and social distancing, and encouragement of crackpot Covid deniers, took a heavy toll.

Trump’s behavior during the pandemic alone should have disqualified him from ever holding elective office again.

According to Scientific American, “In the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency, more than 450,000 Americans died from COVID-19, and life expectancy fell by 1.13 years, the biggest decrease since World War II. Many of the deaths were avoidable; COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. was 40 percent higher than the average of the other wealthy nations in the Group of Seven (G7).” That equates to 140,000 excess deaths from his contempt for human life in a crisis whose outcome was predictable.

Trump’s behavior during the pandemic alone should have disqualified him from ever holding elective office again. Alas, the American people’s memory, knowledge, and judgment being what they are, we are now being forced, like hostages at gunpoint, to endure another four years of criminal behavior, carried out with our tax money.

We have already seen enough to expect the Trump regime’s second term to be like the first on steroids. Thus, gutting the Department of Health and Human Services’ infectious disease research and forcing out the FDA’s chief vaccine expert is exactly what it looks like: an effort to see that more Americans die prematurely. This same result will certainly come as well from cutting $12 billion from state health service grants.

The secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wants to implement placebo testing of vaccines, even though this methodology had been eliminated long ago because of ethical concerns: subjects administered a placebo could be placed at considerable health risk when the overall efficacy of vaccines has been demonstrated worldwide for the many decades. So why is Kennedy doing this?

The most benign explanation is that he is a paranoid crackpot who believes in his quack medical theories (in which case, why did the Republican Senate confirm him in the face of abundant evidence of his lack of qualification and risk to public well-being?). A harsher explanation might be that Kennedy, in line with his various crank theories, sees too many human beings as pestilential, and wouldn’t mind if there were fewer of them. In either case, every senator who voted to confirm him will be just as responsible for any excess deaths occurring as he would.

The same applies to veterans’ health programs. The VA under Trump has slashed personnel, cut programs, and halted clinical trials. In recent testimony, the department’s secretary, Doug Collins, succeeded in matching his own bumbling incompetence with arrogance and nastiness. Yet the Republican senators who pretended to be critical of him in the hearing for the benefit of their veteran constituents had voted to confirm him, so if any veterans die from lack of health care, it will be their responsibility as well as that of Collins.

Why did the Trump cabal eliminate the terrorist data base at the Department of Homeland Security? Given that most domestic terrorism cases have a right-wing motivation, they must want to see more terrorism: it is useful in cowing the rest of the population. As for terrorist incidents in general, they can serve as an excuse for martial law. We can similarly conclude that wiped-out towns and lives ruined by natural disasters is the intended result of slashing FEMA.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 420 Americans die from Salmonella each year. The CDC also estimates that about 1.35 million people get sick from salmonellosis, and 26,500 are hospitalized. So why did Trump’s Agriculture Department withdraw a proposed rule that would have limited salmonella content in raw poultry and required producers to test their products before sale?

You might say it was lobbying by the poultry interests. In that case, it reflects the same attitude of willful contempt for human life on the part of Trump and his minions: that the profits of corporate contributors are more important than the safety of the American people.

Where does this contempt for human life come from? Any rational person who observed Trump over the past decade would conclude that he is a pathological narcissist who is indifferent to others. But that only leads to another question: why do so many Americans not only support him, but treat him as a near-deity?

At the core of Trump’s base are tens of millions of religious fundamentalists who believe in the Apocalypse. If the end is at hand, if in fact it could come at any moment, why worry too scrupulously over a life or two, or, for that matter, over the functioning of society at a level above that of the bronze age? The behavior of Trump’s supporters, particularly their “Covid parties” and “measles parties,” suggests an actual courting of disease and death. Their relation to Trump is like that of the ancient Carthaginians, sacrificing their children to the destroyer-god Baal.

Where does this contempt for human life come from? Any rational person who observed Trump over the past decade would conclude that he is a pathological narcissist who is indifferent to others.

There is another, more secular, source of this willingness to let people die: survivalists whose rabid fear of economic collapse, social breakdown, and anarchic violence ironically leads them to hope for the very chaos they supposedly abhor, because it would prove them to have been right all along.

Right-wing media have long egged on the paranoid with ads prophesying imminent economic or social collapse. Since the 1970s oil shock, an abiding feature on the American scene has been the right-wing survivalist, hoping for the national Götterdämmerung that will vindicate his having stockpiled 10,000 rounds of ammunition and a horde of Krugerrands.

Religious lunatics and bunkered-in survivalists have been a feature of society for decades, but what gives their vision the potential for fulfilment is a newer, third element: the neo-reactionary tech bros. What the apocalyptics and survivalists supply in numbers, the Silicon Valley billionaires provide in money: they are already a mainstay of funding for Trump’s political operations.

According to Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, tech bros like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen believe they have the money and means to carry out what the two authors call End Times Fascism. Musk’s effort through DOGE to destroy the government’s health and safety infrastructure is precisely what will bring a societal collapse nearer—and that’s a good thing in the eyes of these neo-reactionaries, because it makes survivalist prepping all the more critical while culling the unwanted.

Their goal is like something foretold in Neal Stephenson’s novel "Snow Crash" over three decades ago: the destruction of the traditional nation-state and the creation of city-states ruled by tech moguls and serviced by AI robots and whatever number of the lower orders of humanity are deemed necessary.

This nightmarish vision is now the de facto program of the Republican Party, regardless of what its official platform contains. The deaths that will occur from the cutting or elimination of the programs I have mentioned are not an accident or unforeseen consequence.

No, on the contrary: Republicans want you to die.

Pope Leo XIV just labeled Artificial Intelligence one of the main threats facing humanity, saying it poses challenges to “human dignity, justice, and labor.” He’s right, but it’s even worse than that: It represents, unless it’s rigorously regulated, a threat to democracy itself.

In every generation, the enemies of democracy change costumes, but their playbook remains eerily familiar. They lie, divide, intimidate, and exploit every available tool to consolidate power. In the 1930s it was radio, in the 2010s it was social media, and now, in 2025, the newest and most dangerous weapon in the authoritarian arsenal is artificial intelligence.

Make no mistake: AI is not just another technology. It is power, scaled. And in the hands of the far right, it becomes the most effective tool for dismantling democracy ever invented.

We’re not just fighting bad actors anymore: We’re fighting machines trained to think like them.

Authoritarians—whether MAGA-aligned in the United States or part of the global movement that includes Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and others—are not blind to the potential of AI. They understand it instinctively: its ability to simulate, to deceive, to surveil, and to dominate. While progressives and democratic institutions have scrambled to comprehend its implications, the authoritarians have already started weaponizing it with devastating efficiency.

Let’s look at the mechanisms.

AI can now generate millions of personalized political messages in seconds, each calibrated to manipulate a voter’s specific fears or biases. It can create entire fake news outlets, populate them with AI-generated journalists, and flood your social feed with content that looks real, sounds real, and feels familiar, all without a single human behind it. Imagine the power of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine, but with superintelligence behind the wheel and zero friction. That’s where we’re heading.

And that’s just the beginning.

Authoritarian regimes can—and already are—using AI to surveil and intimidate their citizens. What China has perfected with facial recognition and loyalty scoring, MAGA-aligned figures in the U.S. are watching closely, eager to adopt and adapt. Right-wing sheriffs and local governments could soon use AI to track protestors, compile digital dossiers, and “predict” criminal behavior in communities deemed politically undesirable.

If the government knows not just where you are, but what you’re thinking, organizing, or reading—and it can fabricate “evidence” to match—freedom of thought becomes a quaint memory.

This isn’t theoretical. In 2024, we saw AI-generated robocalls impersonating former President Joe Biden telling voters to stay home (and millions did). In the next cycle, we may see entire election campaigns waged by AI bots masquerading as voters, influencers, and even public officials.

U.S. President Donald Trump, during the 2024 election campaign, reposted a fake AI image of Taylor Swift endorsing him, over her objection; many believed she’d become a Trump supporter. As the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted:

Meanwhile, deepfake audio clips of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Slovakia’s opposition head, Michal Šimečka, ignited social media controversies when they spread rapidly before fact-checkers exposed them as fabrications. The destructive power of deepfakes also hit home in Türkiye when a presidential candidate withdrew from the May 2023 election after explicit AI-generated videos went viral. In Argentina’s October 2023 presidential election, both leading candidates deployed deepfakes by creating campaign posters and materials that mocked their opponents—tactics that escalated into full-blown AI memetic warfare to sway voters.

The goal often isn’t just to win; it’s to delegitimize the democratic process itself. Because once trust is broken—once people believe that “both sides lie” or that “you can’t believe anything anymore”—then strongmen step into the void with promises of order, purity, and salvation.

And when they do, AI will be there to enforce it.

Imagine a future where police departments outsource their decision-making to “neutral” algorithms, algorithms coded with the biases of their creators like Elon Musk is doing by training Grok on Xitter. Where AI-driven systems deny permits, benefits, or even due process based on behavioral profiles. Where loyalty to the regime is rewarded with access, and dissent is flagged by invisible systems you can’t appeal.

That’s not democracy. That’s techno-feudalism, wrapped in a red-white-and-blue flag.

It’s already happening in Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, the Philippines, and Thailand, according to the Carnegie Endowment. They add:

In the E.U.’s Eastern neighborhood, countries like Georgia, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine face a deluge of hybrid threats and AI-generated disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing societies, disrupting electoral processes, and derailing people’s democratic aspirations.

If we allow the far-right to continue merging political power with AI without guardrails, we will see the rise of a system where freedom is algorithmically rationed.

Elections will still happen, but outcomes will be massaged. Dissent will still exist, but only in controlled pockets, easy to monitor and suppress. History books will be written, edited, and distributed by code optimized for obedience. The “news” will be whatever the regime’s AI decides you should see.

This is not science fiction. It is the logical endpoint of unregulated, authoritarian-aligned artificial intelligence.

So what do we do?

We must treat AI regulation as a democratic survival issue. That means:

• Banning the use of deepfakes in political ads.
• Enforcing transparency on algorithmic decision-making.
• Creating unbiased public, open-source alternatives to corporate-controlled models.
• Creating disinformation infrastructure as we would biological or nuclear weapons that are not just dangerous, but potentially civilization-ending.
• Demanding that social media outlets publish their algorithms so we can see how we’re being manipulated.

And we must do it now.

Because history teaches us that once authoritarianism takes root, it rarely gives up power voluntarily. The longer we wait, the more embedded, autonomous, and intelligent these systems become. We’re not just fighting bad actors anymore: We’re fighting machines trained to think like them.

The battle for democracy in the age of AI will not be won with slogans or optimism alone. It will take law, oversight, courage—and above all, vigilance. As always, democracy is not a spectator sport. If we want to preserve the sacred right of self-governance, we must recognize the existential threat in front of us and act with urgency.

This time, the fight isn’t just against the usual suspects.

This time, the algorithm is watching.

At two hospitals tucked in the quiet corners of Bellingham, Washington, an unfolding labor struggle cuts to the heart of the crisis in American healthcare. At PeaceHealth St. Joseph and PeaceHealth United General, hospitalists, including physicians and advanced practice providers, have walked off the job. However, this isn't a fight over salaries. It is a strike for the soul of their profession.

As members of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD), these clinicians are demanding the right to advocate for their patients without fear of retaliation. They're calling out a system in which metrics and margins take precedence over urgent care and human dignity, discharges are prioritized over medical necessity and unsafe staffing has become the norm.

Despite a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board affirming their union, PeaceHealth, a large nonprofit hospital system, refuses to negotiate. The hospitalists are caught between two employers: Sound Physicians, which hires and pays them, and PeaceHealth, which controls their working conditions. Both point fingers, while the providers bear the burden.

We are striking to have a voice in our working conditions to ensure we can provide the best care for our patients.

In the following interviews, I speak with Katie Pernick (KP), Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP); Dr. Andy Radvany (AR), Hospitalist; and Joe Crane (JC), organizing coordinator, UAPD. They discuss how their struggle is rooted both in the specific conditions of Bellingham, Washington, and reflective of broader national dynamics, connecting clinical workplaces to the growing labor movement, the accelerating corporatization of healthcare, and a rising wave of collective action among white-collar and caregiving professions.

Can you describe specific examples of how PeaceHealth's policies have impacted patient care or safety in Bellingham or Sedro-Woolley?

Katie Pernick stands outside PeaceHealth St. Joseph. (Photo: Brian Pernick)

KP: For too long, healthcare has been dictated by insurance companies and hospital corporations. Healthcare decisions need to be made by physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APC), not by administration looking at what a patient is costing them. We are striking to have a voice in our working conditions to ensure we can provide the best care for our patients. For example, two years ago our contract was adjusted, without our input, to require us to see more patients. As hospitalists we are interacting with everyone: the patient, families, nurses, therapists, social workers, and specialists. That does not include the patients' imaging, lab work, and exam findings. All this information has to be integrated to provide a detailed plan of care. To do it for 16 or more acutely ill patients a day is a lot to ask. The increase in patient load has put patient care at risk and doesn't allow us the time needed to properly assess patients and their understanding of their illness, their symptoms, and conversation to allow the patient to have a voice in their care.

Another example is the early discharge requirement. Administration would like us to send patients home by 10:00 am. If I were to try to meet this requirement daily, I would have to cut down on time spent educating the patient on medications, their illness, and what to expect on return home. This doesn't consider that I would be seeing my sickest patients later in the day in favor of seeing my patients that are well enough to go home first. Hospital administration regularly adds busy work not related to patient care. This is more distraction from providing care for my patients.

No one's death should be part of an investment strategy.

Finally, over the years there have been several times where someone in administration has called me to tell me a patient had been in the hospital long enough and I needed to discharge the patient. In these situations, the administrator had not personally been to see the patient or assessed the patient, it was solely on how they looked in the chart and that according to insurance the patient should have been well by that time.

How has the refusal of PeaceHealth to recognize your union affected your ability to advocate for patients or voice safety concerns on the job?

KP: Patients trust us to care for them, and it is time for physicians and APCs to stand up and advocate on a larger scale for them. We want a say in our working conditions so we can provide the best care for patients and continue to do so. We want to address issues like the ones outlined above. I work with amazing people who truly care about their patients. When you are constantly asked to compromise your personal and moral ethics to care for patients it leads to moral injury, distress, and burn out. I can feel it happening to me on days when I have too many patients and feel like someone isn't getting my best.

Do you see your strike as part of a larger trend of healthcare worker organizing across the U.S.? If so, how?

KP: I hope so. Healthcare dictated by the moneymaking corporations isn't the best healthcare. I know so many physicians and APCs who are tired of not being able to provide appropriate care. We need to fight on a larger scale and stand together. American healthcare cannot continue in this way. Just this week the Hospitalists at Skagit Regional, another Sound Physicians site, voted in favor of unionizing by an overwhelming majority. I know several of my colleagues have been getting many questions about our experience from other hospitalists around the country.

Many countries with strong public health systems (like the U.K. or Canada) have unionized physicians. Do you see international models as informing your approach here?

Joe Crane (in sunglasses) stands with striking workers. (Photo: Pierre King)

JC: The biggest problem with comparing the different systems isn't the public model versus nonprofit groups like PeaceHealth. The problem is that in America, we have companies like Sound Physicians that invest private equity money to make money from people in the worst moments of their lives. No one's death should be part of an investment strategy. Before we can start looking at how other unions in other countries are organized and fight back, we must fix a system that makes billions for investors when patients are sick and dying.

What role do corporate healthcare contractors like Sound Physicians play in undermining worker power and continuity of care?

KP: Estimates put 20% of healthcare dollars being spent on administrative tasks. Instead of turning down a patient for a life changing medication or medical device, what if we just said yes, they need this? Healthcare contractors like Sound add a layer of wasted medical dollars. I have two employers to answer to. More people sitting behind desks instead of directly caring for patients.

How has the community responded to the strike so far, and what do you want patients and families in this region to understand about your goals?

KP: I believe the majority of our community supports our union. PeaceHealth is a major local employer, and its decisions directly affect a wide segment of the population. Over the past year, its insurance policies have drawn criticism, and across the system, both in hospitals and clinics, providers are exhausted and overwhelmed. Our patients see it too; they can read the fatigue and strain on our faces.

Sound Physicians hospitalists have unionized under UAPD. PeaceHealth's advanced practice clinicians have done the same. Our nurses are in the midst of contract negotiations with Washington State Nurses Association, and our support staff have unionized with Service Employees International Union and are striking this week. When such a significant portion of an employer's workforce is organizing and protesting, it speaks volumes. PeaceHealth administrators often claim they are listening and seeking compromise, but if that were truly the case, how could so many workers be this frustrated?

It echoes the banking crisis of 2008, when profit-driven incentives corrupted the mortgage industry. Now, similarly perverse incentives are spreading through medicine like a cancer.

To our community, I want to say: We care deeply. We want the best for our patients. We want to return to work next week. But we also want a meaningful voice in the decisions that shape our ability to provide safe, ethical care. That means a seat at the table with PeaceHealth leadership.

To our colleagues, from dietary aides and housekeeping to radiology techs, phlebotomists, nurses, and beyond, we stand with you. We see the sacrifices you're making. That workers already struggling to make ends meet are willing to forgo a week's wages speaks to just how unfair these contracts are. Your courage underscores why this fight matters, for all of us.

How do you respond to the argument that physician unionization is incompatible with traditional notions of medical professionalism?

KP: When healthcare took a turn toward factory assembly line care and not an individual who needed tailored care, we went away from traditional medicine. When doctors are told they can only spend 20 minutes with a patient we turned away from traditional medicine. When I was told the reason I take so long to see patients is because I take too much time getting to know them, we turned away from traditional medicine.

Unionization is a return to the medical profession ideals in a time when corporations want to keep us quiet and subservient. The role of the Physician and APC's is to advocate for patients. Corporate healthcare took our professional autonomy; we want it back. They have not listened to us before. Unionization is the path back to traditional notions of medical professionalism. This is the path forward.

What do you think the growing labor unrest across industries, from Starbucks to Amazon to hospitals, says about the state of democracy and worker power in America?

JC: Something is broken in this country. More Physicians have unionized in the last two years than in the prior 20 years. As a union organizer, people might assume that this surge of unionization makes me happy; it does in the sense of seeing people come together and fight back, but it also breaks my heart how broken this system in our country is. Over $400 million per year are spent trying to crush workers who'd like to have a voice. Here in Bellingham, Washington, clinicians are taking to the strike line not for more money, but for the simple ask of wanting to care for their patients in the best possible way. Sound and PeaceHealth are taking money they made off sick human beings and are spending that money to try to make sure the physicians can't advocate for their patients. Our system is broken, but our UAPD members are standing up and fighting back, and we will win this fight.

Dr. Andy Radvany protests outside the hospital. (Photo: Pierre King)

AR: Americans are pushing back against an economy where CEOs earn hundreds or even thousands of times more than their lowest-paid workers—a level of inequality rare in other developed nations. Executive pay has long outpaced reason, symbolizing a broken system.

Employee-owned WinCo offers a compelling alternative. It has created many millionaires among workers, without minting a single billionaire, proving that shared ownership can build wealth more equitably.

With a national election coming up, what would you like to see from political leaders in terms of healthcare reform and labor protections for clinicians?

JC: With the coming election, we need political leaders to stand up and fight with healthcare workers. We need to strengthen our labor laws. Your doctor shouldn't fear retaliation for advocating for their patients, and companies shouldn't profit from their constituents' sickness in a hospital. Doctors shouldn't have to strike just to be able to advocate for their patients. The politicians need to stand up and join the fight. If for no other reason, then they, too, will be patient someday. Do they want to be a profit margin on a spreadsheet or a human being getting the best possible help from a clinician who isn't afraid to speak up for their patient?

AR: I would like to see bills pushing back against C-Suite compensation, and private equity buyouts of healthcare interests. Medicine should not be for-profit business. The problem has grown exponentially, and hospital closures and lack of access are the result.

These are my patients, and their healthcare decisions should be made by me, not hospital administration.

Twenty years ago, many treatments and procedures that could be expedited to save money and keep patients out of the hospital are now delayed, until hospitalization becomes the only way to get them done quickly. This benefits hospital profits, not patients.

Meanwhile, corporate incentives have infiltrated even nonprofit health systems, distorting priorities. Executives chase bonus structures that reward volume and revenue, not outcomes or care. It's a systemic issue, deeper than any one boardroom. In many cases, leaders are doing exactly what they've been incentivized to do. It echoes the banking crisis of 2008, when profit-driven incentives corrupted the mortgage industry. Now, similarly perverse incentives are spreading through medicine like a cancer.

The words, "Patients over profits" are projected onto the building of PeaceHealth St. Joseph. (Photo: Bellingham Trouble Makers)

If this strike succeeds, or fails, what precedent do you believe it will set for other hospitalists and healthcare workers nationwide?

KP: This strike is personal for me. This is my community. My patients are friends, friends of friends, parents of people I see at the gym, and the cashier that knows me from my weekly shopping. These are my patients, I don't know just the information in the chart (ie; imaging reports, lab work, vital signs). I know who has a sick cat at home, who is hoping to get out of the hospital before their grandchild's birthday next week, and who is scared to go home. These are my patients, and their healthcare decisions should be made by me, not hospital administration.

I hope our strike stirs more resistance from healthcare workers. We are the people that have the greatest opportunity to affect change in healthcare. It won't be able to come from the patients; they are effectively trapped by our healthcare system to accept what is given by their insurance. We need to stand for what is right, and we need to start now. Change is slow, but hope is already spreading.

There’s a familiar myth in American politics: that of the no-nonsense business leader who cuts through red tape and gets results. It fuels the belief that running a country is just like running a company—and that executives, with their boardroom instincts and bottom-line mindset, are exactly what government needs.

But that myth collapses under the weight of what corporate leadership has actually become—and what happens when it migrates into public office.

Economist William Lazonick has spent decades analyzing that transformation. He argues that corporate America has abandoned its commitment to innovation and productive investment, replacing it with a laser focus on cost-cutting, price gouging, and tax dodging to boost profits so they can do more stock buybacks—all in the name of maximizing shareholder value. Most executives are no longer rewarded for building durable businesses or contributing to the real economy—they’re rewarded for how efficiently they extract value from the companies that they control.

We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.

Lazonick calls this model a “scourge,” blaming it for weakening U.S. technological leadership, driving massive inequality, and destabilizing the broader economy. Now, he warns, this same extractive logic is infiltrating the federal government.

The ongoing 2025 budget debates are a case in point. Under the guise of “efficiency” and “fiscal responsibility,” the Trump administration has proposed slashing $163 billion from federal spending—cuts that would gut education, housing, and medical research—all of which are essential for value creation. The language mirrors what executives have long used to justify layoffs, offshoring, and disinvestment. But in this case, it’s not a corporation being hollowed out. It’s the state itself.

Lazonick argues that this shouldn’t surprise anyone. “Because these people have gotten away with looting corporations, they’ve come to believe it’s their right to loot the state,” he says. Even among tech figures who’ve built or have led the building of real products—like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg—Lazonick notes a mindset of entitlement: “They treat the resulting wealth as entirely their own, as if they alone earned it.” That thinking now shapes public policy, where deregulation and budget cuts benefit the wealthy while dismantling protections for workers and consumers.

Take Musk, for example. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he’s worked to weaken regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board—both of which would typically oversee parts of his business empire. At the same time, his companies continue securing massive federal contracts, including a potential $2 billion FAA deal, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest. As Lazonick and colleague Matt Hopkins argue in a recent piece for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Musk has advanced through a “perilous system of corporate governance” driven by shareholder primacy—fueling inequality and eroding America’s technological leadership. His tenure at DOGE is simply more of the same: dismantling oversight, channeling public resources into private ventures, and treating government as just another asset to extract.

Musk’s corporate empire—Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink—owes much of its success to taxpayer-funded research and government support. Tesla was launched with the help of federal loans and electric vehicle subsidies. SpaceX builds on decades of NASA-funded R&D and now depends on billion-dollar public contracts. Even Neuralink draws heavily on publicly funded neuroscience work. Despite the mythology of private-sector genius, these companies are deeply rooted in public investment. Yet the public sees little return.

And the mindset isn’t limited to Musk. President Donald Trump and his family are taking the corporate model Lazonick describes to new heights, using government as a platform for private enrichment. Eric Trump recently promoted the family’s latest crypto venture, making the president a major crypto player while shaping federal policy toward that very industry. The Trump family’s 60% stake in World Liberty Financial, now attracting major investment, has intensified concerns over conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, under Eric’s leadership, the Trump Organization has struck a controversial $5.5 billion deal with a Qatari state firm to build a luxury golf resort—despite Trump’s previous pledge to avoid foreign deals while in office.

Trump has also issued executive orders to “streamline” federal procurement and contract reviews. While marketed as anti-waste measures, critics see them as a backdoor for directing government business to favored contractors, including those with family ties. The line between public service and private gain has rarely been thinner.

Lazonick warns that the stakes are high. When corporations prioritize shareholder payouts over real investment, society loses—but when governments adopt the same model, the consequences are compounded. We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.

To reverse course, Lazonick argues we need deep structural reform in how corporations—and by extension, governments—operate. That means banning stock buybacks; reining in executive compensation tied to manipulated stock performance; and reinvesting profits in innovation, workers, and communities. It means embracing a stakeholder model of governance that sees corporations not just as wealth machines, but as stewards of social value.

Because if we don’t fix these systemic flaws, the looting won’t stop. It’ll only deepen—and spread.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Trump administration has been using television, social media, and AI-generated digital graphics to advance its policies. This particular thought experiment started when my friend and I were watching the evening news. There was Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem prancing triumphantly in front of detainees in the CECOT concentration camp in El Salvador where Venezuelan immigrants had been deported. Noem was dressed to kill for the occasion with a designer outfit and a $50,000 Rolex watch. The dynamics of the event were telling. She scolded the detainees like they were 10-year olds caught smoking and, curiously, she did not target gang activity but rather illegal immigration as the cause of their plight.

The prisoners (mostly men) were naked from the waist up, packed into tiny cells, and looked like caged animals. While viewing this quasi-surreal and clearly staged event, my friend turned to me and said: “It looks like Auschwitz.” I will have to say that the unquestionable dehumanization in this image still haunts me. This spectacle alone should’ve struck some variant of fear and loathing into the minds and hearts of every American about how aspects of the immigration crisis are being handled.

Political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.”

Thankfully some media pundits got the message. But, in some cases, they appeared more focused on Noem’s watch than the evocative images of dehumanizing treatment. One commenter writing in USA Today looking to win the “too much information” award noted: “The watch that she wears in the video was identified as an 18-karat gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona, as first reported by The Washington Post, and reportedly sells for $50,000.” Good to know. The writer went on to say that “except for President Donald Trump, presidents in recent decades have opted for more modest timepieces to avoid being labeled as elitist, according to The New York Times. For example, President Joe Biden was criticized by conservative media for wearing a $7,000 watch to his inauguration.” Also good to know. Eventually, however, the writer did feel compelled to point out that “the juxtaposition of Noem’s luxury accessory and her setting was noted by critics and human rights groups.”

The Power of the Viral Photo Op

The Noem footage appeared to be little more than a calculated video-based photo op. It was apparently designed to demonstrate that the Trump administration was fulfilling its campaign promise to deal with the immigration problem. But it made me think of a larger trend. It seems that, thanks to the pervasiveness of our “global village” and how easily digital tech can be used to shape our collective thinking, political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.” The poet Robert Bly has pointed out that, cognitively speaking, television images bypass the parts of the brain involved in rational processing and nest comfortably in the so-called reptile brain where raw emotion dwells, a phenomenon well understood by the advertising industry. The political analysis of Trump’s actions that surfaces in the mainstream media needs to take his admittedly skillful media manipulation into far more serious account.

To understand Trump’s control of the media (and hence the typical voter mindset) it’s helpful to look at the work of the French media theorist Guy Debord. In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord addresses the media-induced degradation of contemporary life where authentic social interactions have been replaced with their mere representation. He posits that “passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Here it’s worth noting that Debord was writing this well before the advent of the internet, which added yet another layer to the commodification of societal and political interaction.

The Spectacle of the “Imperial Presidency”

It was the media theorist and prophetic thinker Marshall McLuhan who pioneered the concept of the global village in the 60’s. Decades later, heightened media awareness expanded even more, wrought by a combination of television, the internet, social media, and telecommunications technologies which some refer to as the New Media. This new mediasphere has radically altered our collective awareness while subtly shaping the underpinnings of political dynamics. Its effects on polity and political outcomes are incalculable. While television viewership has been declining for some time, the images generated by television often become viral social media fodder in a kind of endless feedback loop. So, in this sense, television is still a force majeure in our perceptions of accelerating world events.

The televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been cited as a political milestone. For the first time in history, the televised image may have helped elect a president. The election of a former television actor, Ronald Reagan, continued on this trajectory. An article by Matthew Wills framed it this way:

“Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,” writes Tim Raphael in his analysis of the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system. Throughout his eight years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan’s success to the potent combination of advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.)

If Reagan plowed this territory, then Donald Trump, with his many years of experience as a Reality TV star, turned it into an art form. Trump learned to use the media to advance what historian Arthur Schlesinger called “the imperial presidency.” The New Media, in combination with the trajectory of politics as “performance art,” has accelerated this process significantly. As just one example of many, one of Trump’s recent media plays has been to allow television coverage of a two-hour Cabinet meeting. Given in historical terms that this is an unprecedented event, it seems important to ask: Where does what appears to be or is sold as “transparency” cross the line into being mere performative optics? And while the Biden presidency was characterized by Oz-like behind-the-scenes operation in terms of press conferences, speeches, and media events, Trump is quite the opposite. Many of his visits with foreign leaders are attended by the media, staged, and televised. In this sense, while there is nominally more transparency there is also the deliberate use of optics for political advantage.

It’s likely that the meme fodder of Donald Trump’s imperial presidency will only increase in frequency and intensity. This media saturation has a purpose: It creates displacement sucking up available bandwidth in both the media and our own cognitive processing. “All Trump, all the time” is a familiar trope that we will somehow have to learn to live with and correct for. Back in the day, you could spot the occasional bumper sticker that said: “Kill your television.” On one level at least, there was a certain wisdom to that. But the advent of full-blown technocracy now makes it very difficult to turn away from a kind of forced participation in the now all-pervasive digital mediasphere.

Dear Little One,

I do not know your government name. But I know what my government wants to name you. Criminal. Terrorist. Problem. A threat to national security. Better off dead. Everything they’re naming your father: Mahmoud Khalil. Everything except a precious child of God, which you are.

When I heard two plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents abducted your father for protesting the genocide in Gaza, I trembled. When I found out he was captured at Columbia University, where I teach, right in front of your mother, Noor, who had been carrying you in her womb for eight turbulent months, my chest sank into my stomach.

I have not stopped thinking of you since. Your heart has been beating on the door of my conscience.

I’m here to tell you, Little One, that the world is yours. All of it. Not because you have the right to own the Earth, but because you have a responsibility to steward its survival and splendor.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I was surprised your father was taken. I’m the child of persecuted people who were kidnapped, locked in chains, and ripped away from their families by the founders of this country. I know America became the most powerful nation on Earth by seizing the labor of Black folks and the land of Indigenous people. I also know that Columbia, where your father helped lead the student protests, was never an institution that values freedom—academic or otherwise. It is a gatekeeper of the U.S. empire and the largest real estate owner in New York City.

That’s why I won’t belabor what the circumstances of your birth already prove. Fascism is here. It is criminal to learn. Telling the truth can get you doxxed, locked up, or kicked out of the country. Nobody is safe.

I wish this were not the case. I wish I could write to you about the beauty of the Earth without the brutality of its inhabitants. I wish I could show you the majesty of the Amazon, the Earth’s largest rainforest, without the greedy CEOs that have remade it into a commodity. I wish I could describe the sound and smell of Baltimore, Miami, and St. Louis without the pop! of a cop’s gun or the stench of a homeless woman languishing on the street.

I wish I could paint you a picture of your people, the Palestinian people, without barren olive trees, countless checkpoints, shopping malls built atop graves, and a 25-miles-long open-air prison where over 50,000 Palestinians, including nearly 16,000 children, have been slaughtered by the Israeli military. I wish I could read you a story without the cries of a mother and her baby buried beneath rubble.

But I’m afraid that the writing is on the wall, Little One. And the wall—whether snaking through Palestine or enclosing the borders and prisons of America—is stained with blood and wrapped in barbed wire.

I do not mean to frighten you. Only to share what you need to know to survive. Not just your little limbs and endearing eyes, but your precious heart. For those who think they hate you will attack your inner life. Do not be complicit. We can only lose if we surrender the sword of truth and the shield of self-regard. So guard your heart. Reject bitterness and hatred. Heartbreak is better than having no heart at all.

The truth is: It is themselves they fail to love. And this is but one symptom of the sickness we bear today. The decay of moral life, the death of the human spirit.

But all is not lost. The miracle of this moment is that even genocide cannot exterminate our will to live, nor the love that endures through the pain. This is what makes you profoundly dangerous to the powers that be, although you have yet to take your first step or mumble your first word. For you are proof of irrepressible life.

A new world is not waiting to be born. It is here!

I caught a glimpse of its beauty at Columbia’s encampment. Sprawled between sleeping bags was a makeshift library, medical clinic, food stations, art murals, music circles, and signs that read “Stop Funding Genocide” and “Jews for Free Palestine.” Muslim students held Jummah while Jewish students observed Seder and Christians organized Sunday service. Professors and organizers co-led teach-ins on global politics and the history of student activism as kids flew kites and police helicopters hovered above.

There was no fee to learn or break bread or receive medical support. The only debt we accrued is the love and care we owe to one another. The encampment was education (and life!) at its best. Not because it was perfect. It wasn’t. But because it modeled what it means for a multiracial and multifaith community to learn how to live together and support each other.

Some will try to convince you that opponents of genocide are champions of hate. Don’t be fooled by their lies. Their efforts to defame your father and all those acting with moral courage reveal who they are, not you.

James Baldwin, who came of age not far from where your father was abducted, knew this better than any writer I’ve read. In 1963, just a few months before four Klu Klux Klan members bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, brutally murdering four black girls during Sunday school, he penned a letter to his teenage nephew, James. “I said that it was intended that you should perish in the ghetto, perish by never being allowed to go behind the white man’s definitions, by never being allowed to spell your proper name.”

Little One, know this. The world will try to define you by your zip code, skin color, religious tradition, and native tongue. And some will try to make you feel small and worthless. But identity is a birthright, not a birthmark. Your right, and responsibility, is to decide who you will grow up to be.

I pray you grow strong and beautiful. I pray you grow to be curious and committed to something bigger than yourself. I pray you cherish life, even when it hurts. I pray you and your father laugh together beneath the shade of olive trees. I pray you and your mother dance until the stars shimmer. I pray you reap the fruits of their labor, and all of us who sow seeds of freedom on this wretched Earth. I pray you fight so that, one day, no child will become a martyr. I pray you always believe another world is possible. And that—even beneath the shadow of death—there is beauty in the struggle.

When I found out you were born, I felt a mixture of fury, relief, and joy. I hate that your father is trapped in a cage in Louisiana, over 1,400 miles away, as your mother brought you into this world in New York City. I hate that this government kept him from holding her hand and hearing your very first cry. I wept at the idea of you weeping without his tender touch and wonderstruck eyes.

And yet, I thank God you entered History’s gates at such a time as this. I know that may sound strange, even cruel. If we do not change course, by the time you’re able to read this letter, Miami might drown; the Amazon may be no more; and another generation of Palestinian children will have grown up beneath war-torn skies. This is not the world any child should inherit, or any adult should have to endure.

But, alas, here you are. And I’m here to tell you, Little One, that the world is yours. All of it. Not because you have the right to own the Earth, but because you have a responsibility to steward its survival and splendor.

The sunset is yours to cherish. The evergreen is yours to tend and explore. Children are yours to raise, teach, and protect. Elders are yours to learn from and look after. Walls are yours to tear down. Wars are yours to end. Secrets are yours to keep. Ancestors are yours to grieve, honor, and avenge. Your parents are yours to love. And you, you are ours to keep! We belong to each other.

Please know that you are loved. And that, with love, we will fight for your life, and for your father’s life, and for every and all life—to the death.

Sumud and Salām,

nyle

In the shadows of immigration raids, bipartisan backing for what many now call thea U.S.-Israeli genocide in Gaza, campus crackdowns, and detention centers holding even lawful permanent residents, a new reality is emerging: digital footprints now determine your fate—and political dissent is punished more swiftly than violence.

Hannah and Aurélien once believed in the American dream. But they left in protest of what they came to see as the American nightmare. In an age of always-on surveillance and algorithmic profiling, dissent is no longer about what you do—it's about what you signal. And for many, what you signal online can determine whether you're allowed or welcome to stay.

The same platforms exposing Israel's genocide and humanitarian crisis in Gaza are also turning social networks into risks—where silence can sting, but speaking out can cost jobs, visas, friends, or even safety.

For Aurélien, the rupture came online. Palestinian sources from inside Gaza pierced through sanitized media narratives—a moment Palestinian writer Kareem Haddad calls the "Instafada"—revealing a silence among institutions and friends he could no longer ignore.

For Hannah, it was her mosque's muted response to the Israeli assault on Gaza that cut deepest.

The Double-Edged Sword of Surveillance and Awakening

The same platforms that once promised democratized speech—Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook—have become instruments of surveillance, not just for the state but within social ecosystems. Posts are scraped, likes archived, retweets scrutinized—by immigration officials, employers, colleagues, friends, and communities. A person's digital presence is now not just expression, but liability.

Yet, it is also where many—like Aurélien—first encountered narratives that shattered their illusions of American and Israeli exceptionalism.

Aurélien, a French national in his 30s, spent over a decade in New York, climbing the ranks of corporate finance—from investment banking to high-growth startups. He was poised for U.S. citizenship, embedded in a network of cosmopolitan professionals and close-knit friends. By every traditional measure, he had made it.

In this way, technology plays both villain and whistleblower: exposing the violence of the empire while empowering it to identify, isolate, and expel dissidents.

But beneath the surface, cracks formed. The work felt hollow. The wealth he generated—the systems he mastered—seemed built to serve power, not people. Then came October 7, 2023, and the illusion collapsed.

Aurélien mourned the Israeli lives lost. He had Jewish friends, including his best friend Mike, who once took him in after a divorce. But as Israel's retaliatory campaign unfolded—broadcast by Palestinian sources online—his grief gave way to horror for Palestinians

"The narrative collapsed," he said. "The sanitized language of U.S. media didn't match what I was seeing: homes flattened, children killed, dehumanizing rhetoric from Israeli officials—all backed by the country I lived in and paid taxes to."

Friends and colleagues either looked away—or justified the violence with chilling indifference. At dinner parties, Palestinians were called "animals" and "low IQ." His workplace fundraised for Israel while parroting debunked atrocity claims.

Maintaining friendships became impossible: "If my friendship depends on me staying silent about genocide, then it's not a friendship worth having."

"People around me seemed to be moving on," he said. "I was waking up to horrifying images every day. I couldn't look away. I was struggling with work and genocide balance."

He began speaking out online, debating, and diving into history—especially through Jewish scholars like Ilan Pappé, Norman Finkelstein, and Judith Butler. Their insights helped him understand the violence—but it cost him. Colleagues drifted away. Friends cut ties.

Raised Catholic, Aurélien had always believed hatred could never be the answer. Amid escalating brutality, he recalled early lessons: "When Jesus instructed us to forgo retaliation for personal offenses and turn the other cheek instead, and the importance of forgiveness—as he forgave even those who betrayed and crucified him."

He describes experiencing "some sort of spiritual awakening." Career success, financial security, social acceptance—all lost their meaning. "I felt complicit of genocide with every paycheck, and my life did not make sense any longer," he said. "I craved a community that would share my indignation and with whom I could process it all."

For Aurélien, injustice wasn't abstract. It was unbearable: "I wanted to quit everything in protest of this world going rogue and normalizing genocide," he said. "I wanted to feel proud of myself again."

The language of profit no longer made sense. He saw how the same logic justifying market efficiencies—data, prediction, performance—also justified militarism and suppressed dissent.

"I realized I wasn't just living in a country that supported genocide," he said. "I was part of the machinery. That's what broke me."

Aurélien quit his job, sold his belongings, and set sail for France. A storm wrecked his boat mid-crossing—but his course was already set. Back home, he lives more modestly, closer to family, and more aligned with his conscience.

Though France's foreign policy often mirrors the U.S., Aurélien found something he had lost: community.

"It remains a tough time," he says of the French left's struggle. "We certainly feel the rise of fascism here too. Many on the left are exhausted, while morale is very high on the far-right."

Yet despite France's contradictions, he found breathing room: a tradition of dissent. He points to Charles de Gaulle's condemnation of Israel's 1967 occupation and former President Jacques Chirac's refusal to join the Iraq War as signs of a political culture where dissent had deeper roots.

"The French resistance is certainly stronger than in the U.S., where both Democrats and Republicans are genocide supporters," he said.

Even now, Aurélien remains critical—calling French President Emmanuel Macron's Gaza response "lip service"—but he sees a society where speaking out still feels possible.

Aurélien joined La France Insoumise, one of the few major parties to openly support Palestinian rights. He no longer feels isolated.

According to a January 26, 2024, Palestine Chronicle analysis, unlike the U.S., France has shown signs of political recalibration: criticizing the Gaza war, sending humanitarian aid, and refusing to join U.S.-led retaliation against Yemen's Ansarallah.

Driven more by geopolitics than morality, this shift has nonetheless opened new space for dissent.

"For me, leaving was not an escape," Aurélien says. "It was a moral necessity."

Now, he has traded Wall Street deadlines for slower mornings at home, reconnecting with family, rebuilding old friendships, and living a "more modest lifestyle" focused on meaning, not metrics.

"There's still a lot of uncertainty in this new chapter," he says, "but I've never regretted the decision."

His career has transformed. In New York, he made $20,000 a month; now, he hopes to make between $1,500 and $5,000—a trade-off he embraces. Rather than finance, he dreams of teaching ethics. It's a slower, less certain road, but one that feels right.

In this way, technology plays both villain and whistleblower: exposing the violence of the empire while empowering it to identify, isolate, and expel dissidents. But exile doesn't always begin with the state. For Hannah and Aurélien, rejection started closer to home. Their own communities—religious, professional, social—turned against them for refusing to go along with the prevailing status quo.

When Community Becomes a Gatekeeper of Dissent

If Aurélien's disillusionment unfolded in the secular spaces of finance, Hannah's rupture came in a place she once held sacred: her religious community. He faced alienation in boardrooms and dinner parties; she faced it in prayer halls and community WhatsApp groups, where she once hoped to mobilize support for Palestine.

For 17 years, Hannah built a life in Virginia rooted in faith, education, and service. As a longtime Islamic studies teacher at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), one of the largest Muslim institutions in the country, she devoted herself to nurturing youth and upholding the values she believed Islam demanded most: justice, compassion, and accountability.

When Israel's assault on Gaza began in October 2023, Hannah was overwhelmed by what she saw online: bloodied children, entire families erased.

There is no clear communal mechanism for Muslims to report discrimination for political speech when it comes from within their own institutions.

In February 2024, she learned that ADAMS Beat—a children's choir affiliated with her mosque—was scheduled to perform the U.S. national anthem at a Washington Wizards game. To her, it felt tone-deaf: a public gesture of allegiance to the government funding what she views as genocide. She emailed the Board of Trustees questioning the optics. The board denied institutional involvement, but public posts describe the group as a "masjid youth choir." Hannah pressed further.

Three weeks later, she was fired.

The HR email cited defamation and derogatory remarks about ADAMS and its imam on social media. Stunned, Hannah asked for evidence. None was provided in the board's emails to her, copies of which were reviewed. A longtime community volunteer—whose name is being withheld to avoid reprisal—also sent a email to ADAMS leadership criticizing the opaque process and urging a fair investigation into Hannah's firing. Still, on April 5, Hannah received a formal termination letter. The accusations had grown: harassment, intimidation, and violation of the organization's code of ethics.

Still seeking answers, Hannah appealed directly to ADAMS leadership—including Imam Mohamed Magid, the mosque's religious director for over 25 years and one of the most influential Muslim figures in American interfaith and policy circles.

When her efforts were met with silence, she turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S. On May 17, 2024, she filed a formal complaint alleging that she had been terminated in retaliation for her pro-Palestinian views and advocacy. Less than two weeks later, CAIR declined to take up her case, citing limited resources and internal prioritization protocols.

In October 2023, journalist Angelina Chapin, writing for The Cut, reported that CAIR offices across the country were overwhelmed by a surge in discrimination complaints related to pro-Palestinian advocacy. Zainab Chaudry, director of CAIR's Maryland chapter, described the crisis bluntly: She and her colleagues were working 18-hour days just to keep up with the flood of cases. The volume, Chaudry said, was "unprecedented."

But to Hannah, the rejection felt like more than bureaucratic triage. By then, she was asking deeper questions—not just about her firing, but about Imam Magid's deep involvement in policymaking circles and interfaith partnerships with groups critics identify as central to the "Islamophobia industry." These institutions support anti-Muslim rhetoric and legislation, and shape policies that criminalize Muslim political expression.

Her complaint, she realized, wasn't only about her own case—it touched a nerve running through the broader Muslim nonprofit landscape. The more she looked, the more she saw how figures like Magid had become key intermediaries between Muslim communities and state power—operating in spaces shaped by surveillance programs, interfaith "diplomacy," and lobbying efforts sympathetic to Israel.

Magid is with the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council (MJAC), a program of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the most influential pro-Israel advocacy groups in the country. AJC has championed bipartisan legislation critics argue conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, effectively criminalizing Palestinian solidarity and silencing dissent. They have spearheaded the same efforts at the United Nations. Magid also played a central role in the Obama-era Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative—a program widely denounced by civil liberties advocates, including CAIR itself, for disproportionately targeting Muslims and embedding law enforcement into community spaces.

In 2017, CAIR mapped CVE's ecosystem of surveillance and profiling—a network in which Magid himself has played a legitimizing role as chairman of Muflehun. AJC's 2022 990 filing lists Muflehun as a grant recipient. Yet by 2022, CAIR publicly praised his appointment to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), calling his interfaith and humanitarian work "stellar" and his leadership "a valuable asset."

"How can the same organization that documents how Muslims are being criminalized," Hannah asked, "turn around and praise someone who helped build the partnerships that enable it?"

She began sharing what she found in community WhatsApp groups: AJC's record on Palestine, CVE's impact on Muslims. She urged fellow congregants to ask questions and called for a public town hall where Magid could explain his affiliations and engage with those troubled by them.

The calls went unanswered.

Former allies and friends distanced themselves. Leadership ignored her. And within the community she had served for nearly two decades, few were willing to risk being seen as divisive by joining her.

A Gap in CAIR's 2024 Civil Rights Report?

CAIR's 2024 Civil Rights Report recorded 1,201 employment discrimination complaints in 2023—a dramatic surge tied to pro-Palestinian speech and what the report called the "targeted suppression of political expression." But all these cases involved external actors: employers, universities, and government agencies.

Hannah's case is different—and absent. She was fired by a Muslim institution for pro-Palestinian advocacy. This form of intra-communal retaliation remains largely undocumented—and unaddressed.

There is no clear communal mechanism for Muslims to report discrimination for political speech when it comes from within their own institutions. Few attempt to file such complaints—not because the harm is less real, but because organizations like CAIR are viewed as vital defenses against far greater external threats: state surveillance, criminalization, and structural Islamophobia. Speaking out against a mosque or Muslim nonprofits often isn't just discouraged—it's often seen as disloyal within parts of the community.

If Muslim nonprofits are committed to shielding their communities from surveillance and repression, shouldn't they also educate them about how certain interfaith and government alliances may reinforce—rather than dismantle—those very same systems of control?

As part of reporting this story, CAIR was asked: How does CAIR handle intra-community disputes—especially those involving powerful Muslim institutions? Has CAIR received other complaints of retaliation by Muslim leaders or organizations since October 7, 2023?

As of publication, CAIR, ADAMS Center, and Imam Magid have not responded to requests for comment.

This points to a deeper problem: There is no watchdog for Muslim nonprofits, no infrastructure to address communal harm when it's inflicted from within. Even the most established civil rights groups remain silent or inaccessible when the power lies with institutional leaders—especially those embedded in interfaith, nonprofit, or government-linked spaces—rather than with overtly hostile external forces.

While a few dissenting voices have raised alarms, their reach remains limited—even when those individuals are respected within their communities.

In his detailed critique, Muslim scholar Hatem Bazian illustrates this clearly. His article holds the AJC accountable for its long-standing role in legitimizing Islamophobic figures and discourses, and sees MJAC as a public relations buffer for an organization deeply embedded in the Islamophobia industry.

However, this scrutiny still focuses overwhelmingly on external actors, rarely turning inward to examine the role that some Muslim leaders and institutions play in enabling, partnering with, or legitimizing these very forces.

This raises urgent questions: If Muslim nonprofits are committed to shielding their communities from surveillance and repression, shouldn't they also educate them about how certain interfaith and government alliances may reinforce—rather than dismantle—those very same systems of control?

Organizations like American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) have made some effort to fill this gap—publishing in-depth guides that name problematic partnerships and offer criteria for navigating interfaith engagement. CAIR has done the same, as have others. But these resources often circulate within activist circles without broad distribution. There is an absence of systematic education on these topics and community-wide transparency.

As Hannah's case shows, when individuals question the legitimacy of these entanglements, they're often isolated—not protected—even by the institutions ostensibly built to defend them—the very institutions that issue civil rights reports.

Access at the Cost of Accountability

In many Muslim nonprofits, access has become currency—to political platforms, interfaith grants, philanthropic dollars, and elite partnerships. Within that framework, figures like Magid become indispensable.

For Hannah, this realization came slowly. Over time, she saw the issue wasn't just Magid himself. It was the broader institutional ecosystem that surrounds him. In that system, a figure like Magid isn't just influential—he is essential. His name opens doors.

If you question the institution, you may lose your job. If you question its leadership, you may lose your place in the community. If you go public, you may be seen as a threat to communal unity.

An AI image shared widely in community WhatsApp groups.

"There's a cost to speaking out," said one former ADAMS volunteer, who requested anonymity. "You don't just lose your position—you lose your place. You're seen as disloyal. Even if what you're saying is true."

This dynamic is not unique to ADAMS. During Friday prayers on April 18, 2025, Masjid As-Sabireen in Sugar Land, Texas, hosted mayoral candidate Naushad Kermally—a figure many local pro-Palestinian activists accuse of being a "Zionist normalizer." During jummah, when an 11-year-old child heckled Kermally near the end of his speech, the boy was reportedly threatened with arrest by an unelected influential community member.

In the same incident, a Muslim woman, Amina Ishaq, was handcuffed by off-duty officers overseeing security and parking after she protested the platform given to Kermally outside the prayer hall. According to reports, mosque leaders allegedly instructed the officers to remove her—a decision that sparked widespread outrage across the Sugar Land and greater Houston Muslim community and beyond.

Amina Ishaq (in yellow) protests.

A petition soon followed, demanding public apologies, resignations, and a formal pro-Palestinian policy from the Islamic Society of Greater Houston (ISGH), one of the largest Muslim organizations in the United States, overseeing 21 mosques.

"Threatening arrest and intimidation of a child are the direct tactics of Israeli Defense Forces," the petition reads.

Masjid As-Sabireen has since stated it is reviewing the incident. But the silence and initial willingness to enforce arrest and removal highlight how dissent is increasingly criminalized—not by external actors, but within the very institutions meant to safeguard the community. The day after the protest, Sabireen leadership posted "No Protest" signs on the property, further deepening the community's sense of betrayal.

An image of a no protest sign at the mosque was shared widely by the community.

These tensions—between access and accountability, dissent and discipline—are no longer isolated to one mosque or one city. They reveal a deeper fracture across Muslim communal life in the U.S., where dissent over Palestine can provoke institutional backlash.

It's within this fractured landscape that Hannah's story unfolded.

With no organizational support, no forum for resolution, and nowhere left to turn, she made the painful decision to leave the country she once called home. She had no job waiting, no extended family in Turkey—unlike Aurélien, who returned to a familiar home in France. Hannah sought a place where her values wouldn't put her at odds with her own community. Her departure won't appear in any official count, but it reflects a growing reality—people quietly escaping moral compromises they can no longer make at home.

Just as Hannah walked away from a religious institution that betrayed its ideals, Aurélien left a system that equated success with virtue. From different worlds, both were moved by the same force: a conviction that conscience demands action—even at the cost of exile.

The Stirring of Political Emigration?

Hannah's and Aurélien's departures may be anecdotal, but they're not isolated. They hint at a deeper undercurrent—one harder to trace, but increasingly difficult to ignore.

There is no official data tracking how many people are leaving the U.S. for political reasons. These exits are largely invisible—there's no departure form, no exit interview, and no system that logs political dissent. While the U.S. monitors noncitizens for visa compliance, it does not track their motives for leaving. The only indicators come from destination countries, tax filings, or voluntary surveys—none capturing political intent with any real accuracy.

Occasionally, high-profile cases reported in the media offer rare glimpses into a possible but largely unquantified trend. Momodou Taal, a dual citizen of the U.K. and the Gambia and a Cornell University student, left the country after ICE ordered him to surrender, citing fear for his safety. Ranjani Srinivasan, a PhD scholar at Columbia University, fled to Canada, seeking refuge with friends and family after expressing support for Palestine on social media. While these two saw the warning signs and managed to leave, others were not so fortunate. Some were arrested after their student visas were revoked, then relocated far from their communities—often to detention facilities in Louisiana. Mahmoud Khalil, married to a Palestinian American, is among the most widely reported cases. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish student at Tufts University, remains in custody after co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed. Her legal team continues to fight for her release.

In the wake of Gaza, AI surveillance, and rising speech crackdowns, we may be witnessing the early stirrings of a new chapter—not of people arriving to seek protection, but of people quietly leaving to find it.

However, not everyone can leave. Many are here—with families, careers, and lives that cannot easily be uprooted. For Khalil, a descendant of Nakba survivors, leaving is not an option; he is effectively stateless. Fighting back through the legal system becomes the only path forward.

While the cases of Hannah, Aurélien, Taal, and Srinivasan cannot on their own prove the stirring of a larger political departures, they are nonetheless striking. They begin to suggest an emerging pattern. Historically, moments of political repression or upheaval in the U.S. have triggered outward migration, even if such movements were not immediately visible through official data. Today's landscape may well echo that trend. We cannot yet quantify it, but we can begin to recognize its outlines.

Civil rights organizations like Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report a sharp uptick in inquiries from immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful residents—all expressing fear that their pro-Palestinian speech could lead to surveillance, job loss, or deportation.

In this climate, political expression in support of Palestine is becoming increasingly incriminating. Digital speech is no longer just monitored; it's flagged—and increasingly weaponized as justification for expulsion.

Though rarely labeled as such, political migration has long been part of the American story—from Vietnam War resisters who fled to Canada, to Black radicals escaping FBI persecution during the Cold War, to post-9/11 Muslim immigrants targeted by surveillance. Scholars like Professor Sundari Anitha (University of Sheffield) and Professor Ruth Pearson (University of Leeds) define political migrants as those who are forced to leave their home countries due to policies that target particular groups or punish dissent.

By this definition, a quieter form of political migration may now be unfolding within the U.S. In the wake of Gaza, AI surveillance, and rising speech crackdowns, we may be witnessing the early stirrings of a new chapter—not of people arriving to seek protection, but of people quietly leaving to find it.

The table below outlines these historical waves of political departures. Though no comprehensive data exists yet for this current chapter—what we may call the Gaza Genocide Era—the warning signs are already flashing: revoked visas, job terminations, silent departures.

Fleeing Empire: From Vietnam to Gaza

This table highlights major moments in U.S. history when individuals fled political persecution, repression, or fear.

Event

Estimated Scale

Impact and Legacy

Vietnam War (1960s–70s)

50,000–60,000 draft resisters (up to 125,000 by some estimates)

Many resettled permanently in Canada; Carter's 1977 amnesty allowed some to return.

Civil Rights / Cold War (1950s–60s)

A few hundred to low thousands (notable individuals)

Figures like W.E.B. Du Bois and Black Panthers sought refuge abroad, challenging U.S. racial and political repression.

Post-9/11 War on Terror (2000s)

200–400 U.S. military deserters to Canada; thousands of Muslim immigrants sought asylum

War resisters fled renewed U.S. militarism; NSEERS profiling triggered mass Muslim departures.

1st Trump Presidency (2017–2021)

Record 16% of Americans (50 million) considered leaving; 10,000 emigrated to Canada in 2017

Political fear spiked post-2016; citizenship and emigration interest surged, but follow-through was limited.

Punishing Dissent Against Israel (2023–2025)

No firm data yet; 1,700+ student visas revoked; anecdotal exits

Growing repression of pro-Palestinian speech; silent departures, surveillance, and workplace firings signal a new McCarthy-era climate.

From COINTELPRO to Clicks: Tracking Dissent

In the past, political dissent meant being physically tracked—your presence at meetings, your associations, your affiliations. Surveillance required labor, attention, and manual documentation.

Today, your digital trail does that work automatically.

A single post, message, or tweet can now trigger consequences—from the government, employers, schools, and even your own community. Where the state once had to watch you, now it only needs to read you.

This is the shift: surveillance that is ambient, invisible, and always-on.

Like Muslims, Jewish Dissenters Are Paying a Similar Price for Speaking Out

Hannah's dismissal from a prominent Muslim institution for her anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian advocacy echoes a widening pattern across American Jewish spaces, where even mild dissent is increasingly met with censure.

A 2024 In These Times investigation by journalist Shane Burley documents how synagogues, Jewish schools, and nonprofits have removed anti-Zionist Jewish staff—sometimes for even minor expressions of Palestinian solidarity.

But while the outcomes may appear similar, the internal dynamics differ.

The parallels raise a deeper question: When institutional power, respectability politics, and funding all hinge on the suppression of Palestinian solidarity, who gets protected—and who gets cast out?

Jewish professionals have been speaking out—sometimes collectively, often at great personal cost. They launched petitions, published open letters, and challenged what one rabbi described as a "state of crisis." Even in progressive institutions, In These Times reported, employees were instructed not to wear clothing deemed political. "It is not normal," one dismissed staffer said, "for almost the entire Hebrew school team to quit mid-year." As the investigation concluded, "Support for Israel and its government's assault on Gaza appear to have become a defining feature of employability, and those Jewish professionals who are speaking out in solidarity with Palestinians are often finding themselves unemployed."

Hannah, by contrast, stood mostly alone. She had no institutional backing, no public defense from colleagues, and little recourse beyond a few emails. Those who advocated for her—even quietly—risked being sidelined themselves. And unlike the Jewish communal landscape—which includes more intra-community advocacy efforts and donor alternatives—few such support systems exist for dissenting Muslim Americans.

One group, however embattled, has access to some platforms. The other, fearing both internal backlash and external scrutiny in a a heightened surveillance reality, is largely forced into silence.

The parallels raise a deeper question: When institutional power, respectability politics, and funding all hinge on the suppression of Palestinian solidarity, who gets protected—and who gets cast out?

Unless institutions are willing to confront their own complicity, the cost of silence will not just fall on the dissenters—it will ultimately consume the communities themselves.

Under Siege: Why Communities Police their Own

The American Muslim and Palestinian communities are no strangers to surveillance, profiling, and collective punishment. But that very external pressure has often made it harder to name harm that comes from within. Unlike the Jewish communal ecosystem—which does have a few alternative advocacy organizations (IfNotNow, JVP), donor networks, and a better alternative organizing infrastructure, that can bring internal issues to light and offer an alternative—Muslim and Palestinian communities have fewer such channels. As a result, many community members remain silent about intra-communal betrayals for fear of fragmenting fragile communal bonds within.

This dynamic has come into sharp focus since October 7, 2023. While one high-profile case, involving ISGH, has surfaced, many others remain buried. Over the years—and especially since 9/11—educators, youth leaders, and community organizers within mosques and Muslim-led nonprofits have described retaliation for raising concerns about institutional complicity, government collaboration, or the silencing of Palestinian advocacy. But few go public. They fear being accused of "airing dirty laundry."

As sociologist Alice Goffman notes in On the Run, when communities live under constant surveillance and threat, internal conflicts often go underground. Similarly, scholar Megan Goodwin argues that minority faith communities often suppress grievances to project model citizenship.

If the price of speaking up is exile—not just from the country, but from your own people—then we must ask: What kind of community are we trying to save?

In contrast, Jewish institutions—despite their own complex dynamics—have a more robust internal public square. Progressive Jewish professionals, journalists, and rabbis who've been fired or marginalized for anti-Zionist views have been able to document, organize, and speak out collectively, as the In These Times investigation demonstrates. Their networks, from JVP to rabbinical circles—have created space for accountability, even when the broader communal infrastructure resists it.

Within Muslim communities, institutional gatekeepers often operate without accountability. Many organizations depend on relationships that, if jeopardized, can sever ties to influential community donors and donor networks. The political stakes are higher, the funding base more fragile and thinner, and the risk of being labeled divisive or "extremists" is always looming.

In the face of mounting marginalization, Muslim communities—and other minorities—have often drawn internal red lines aimed at preserving a sense of cohesion, even when those boundaries enforce silence around abuse or injustice. Since October 7, and particularly amid the intensifying crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy, those pressures have escalated, echoing the post-9/11 climate. But this time, many Muslim and Arab Americans are refusing to simply keep their heads down. Instead, they are asserting their rights and demanding justice—sparking an unprecedented wave of internal reckoning and communal self-examination.

This is the unspoken context behind Hannah's story. She is not alone—but she is one of the few who has spoken out.

The Exit Wound

If the price of speaking up is exile—not just from the country, but from your own people—then we must ask: What kind of community are we trying to save?

Across institutions once believed to be spaces of belonging—mosques, synagogues, nonprofits, boardrooms—people are learning that belonging is conditional.

Not on truth, but on obedience.

The crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech, bipartisan and accelerating, has made one thing clear: The cost of dissent has always been high. What's changed is how quickly that cost is enforced.

Hannah's story, Aurélien's departure, the courage of an 11-year-old boy, and Amina's protest at the mosque all point to the same truth: The real measure of any community or institution is not how it performs unity, but whether it has the courage to confront discomfort with integrity—and respond with reform, accountability, and a commitment to justice.

For those still inside—in their communities, in their country—the challenge now is endurance.

How do you preserve your voice inside communities that reward proximity to power over justice and truth?

One answer lies in building parallel spaces: small collectives and networks, spaces where solidarity, memory, and dissent can survive. They are fragile. They are imperfect. But they are vital.

Because if the institutions built to protect us now exist to contain us, the work ahead is not just resistance—it's reconstruction.