Opinion
LA was a dress rehearsal for what Trump really has planned
Trump: Well, we’re going to have troops everywhere.
Reporter: What’s the bar for sending in the Marines?
Trump: The bar is what I think it is.
The 2026 and 2028 elections may have just gotten a lot more distant. First, the backstory.
It was around 2 a.m. on July 15, 2020, when Mark Pettibone, then 29, was walking home from a relatively calm Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Portland, Oregon. He hadn’t done anything more provocative than wearing a black shirt: no slogans, no mask, no glimmers of violence. Yet an unmarked minivan pulled up alongside him. Out jumped several armed men in camouflage, with no insignia, to slip a bag over his head and kidnap him.
“I was terrified,” Pettibone told reporters, his voice trembling with the memory. “It was like being preyed upon.”
He was shoved into the van, blindfolded, driven to the federal courthouse, interrogated, and held — with no Miranda rights, no paperwork, no explanation — for nearly 90 minutes before being released without charge or citation.
No uniforms, no accountability, no transparency, yet a citizen was stripped of his rights and dignity in a blurry high-stakes operation. And around the same time in Washington, DC, Donald Trump was trying to talk Gen. Mark Milley into having the National Guard shoot at protesters in that city.
This was not some fringe vigilante action. It was federal agents wielding brute force under cover of Trump’s executive order, agents whose silence spoke louder than any badge. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon called it an unconstitutional kidnapping. Legal scholars said probable cause was nowhere to be found.
Yet Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General under Joe Biden, decided it wasn’t worth investigating or prosecuting. Let’s just move on. And so here we are.
As Trump levels attacks on Los Angeles — sending in federal forces to “restore order” amid unrest provoked by ICE’s illegal tactics — Portland’s secret‑police saga shouldn’t just echo, it should ring alarm bells. If you thought that unmarked vans and invisible state power were confined to dystopian fiction, Pettibone’s story proves they already stalk our cities.
Trump and his neofascist sidekicks sending the National Guard into LA may look, on the surface, like another “law and order” stunt from a man whose political brand depends on hate and fear. But beneath the posturing lies something far darker and far more dangerous to American democracy.
This is not even remotely about suppressing unrest. Instead, it’s about setting an unconstitutional, anti-democratic precedent: that the president of the United States can deploy military force on a whim, against his political enemies, without state or local consent.
It’s about turning a democratic republic into an authoritarian stronghold. It’s about ending federalism — what political scientists and our Founders called our form of government — as we know it.
This is a test and a dress rehearsal. If he gets away with it, he will probably use this exact same formula — create a crisis worthy of television, bring in the feds, declare a state of emergency — to accomplish what he really wants to do.
For example, suspending the 2026 election. Yeah, that. Otherwise, Democrats might take the House and begin investigations of him that could lead to more prosecutions and convictions. And there’s no way he’s going to peacefully allow that.
For nearly 250 years, America has been guided by a simple democratic principle: that power flows from the people upward, not the other way around. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was unambiguous:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
We elect our sheriffs, our mayors and city councils, our governors and legislatures; those elections are our form of “consent.” They are closest to us, most accountable, and best positioned to determine how and when to protect public safety.
With very few exceptions having to do with the Civil War, World War II, and the defense of Civil Rights protestors, “keeping the order” through law enforcement has always been handled at the most local level possible so the people whose lives and daily activities are directly impacted have a say and can hold police and the people guiding them accountable.
But Trump has never cared for accountability. And now, like the autocrats he so admires — Putin, Erdoğan, Orbán — he is showing us that he sees local government not as a partner in governance, but as an obstacle to be crushed.
Let’s be clear: sending the National Guard into LA, especially when done over the objections of California’s governor and the LA mayor, is a direct assault on one of the foundational principles of American democracy: local control.
This is the classic blueprint for dictatorship — using federal military power to override the will of elected local leaders — and it reflects the way fascism has begun in nearly every nation that has lost their democracy over the past century.
Even more glaring proof that this isn’t about “law and order” is the simple reality that Trump isn’t responding to a rebellion or foreign invasion. He’s responding, instead, to protests against ICE arresting people without warrants, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment itself that says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Trump is attacking the very same protests that are explicitly protected by our Constitution, reflecting the saying so often attributed to Voltaire (it actually came from his biographer) that it’s become an all-America cliché: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
As the First Amendment makes explicit:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s what makes this move so chilling. When a president treats constitutionally-protected protest as insurrection and sends in federal troops over the objections of state and local elected officials, he’s not preserving order: he’s causing disorder and, in the process, destroying our democracy.
We’ve seen this movie before; as mentioned, in 2020, Trump deployed federal agents in unmarked military gear to Portland and DC. They tear-gassed peaceful demonstrators, beat and shot journalists, and abducted citizens off the streets. Americans shrugged. The media called it “controversial.” Garland decided other things were more important.
But the lesson Trump took from it was simple: it worked. He faced no consequences. The courts barely blinked and Garland looked the other way. So now Trump’s doing it again, only this time bigger, bolder, and with clearer political intent.
Sending the Guard to LA sends a message to every mayor and governor: If you oppose Trump, he can bring troops to your doorstep. And it sends a message to every American: If you protest, if you dissent, if you organize, you may one day be staring down the barrel of a gun flown in on orders from Washington, DC.
This is not hypothetical. It’s not alarmism. It’s a dry run for the eventual suppression of all dissent that seriously threatens the Trump regime. Just like in Russia, Hungary, or Turkey.
Deploying the National Guard for political purposes chills the First Amendment. Giving them the power to assault and arrest protestors breaks the Fourth Amendment. It tells the American people: stay quiet, or the military might show up.
That’s not democracy; that’s authoritarianism in plain sight.
Yes, Title 10 gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard during times of invasion, insurrection, or to overcome obstacles to enforcing federal law.
But Trump is taking it a step farther, giving Guard members the power to make arrests and point their guns at civilians, a clear and outrageous violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 in response to the violations of civil rights being perpetrated on civilians by the military during the post-Civil War occupation of the South.
That law explicitly forbids the military from turning their guns on civilians. Nonetheless, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is now so concerned that she’s begging Guard troops not to shoot at protesters. This should deeply shock every American.
As California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to Xitter:
“We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they’re actually needed.”
And let’s not pretend this is about safety. The same man who praised the “very fine people” who marched with torches in Charlottesville in 2017, after counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed; who pardoned violent insurrectionists after January 6; who routinely echoes Hitler when he calls his political opponents “scum,” “animals,” and “vermin”; does not care about public peace. He cares about control.
He wants to exercise domination and revenge against anybody (like Gov. Newsom) who dares stand up to him. And he’s now using federal armed forces to flex his power to lord over the rest of us in ways that would make our Founders puke … or revolt.
Police officers stand guard during a protest in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS/Aude Guerrucci assets.rebelmouse.io
If Trump is allowed to normalize the use of federal troops against American cities — particularly progressive cities that vote against him — it won’t stop with LA. Tomorrow it’s Chicago. Next month, New York. Then Seattle, Atlanta, Philadelphia. It becomes a pattern, then a doctrine: the president as enforcer-in-chief, sending muscle into any jurisdiction that refuses to obey.
That’s not federalism or anything remotely resembling law and order. That’s fascism.
And it’s not “coming” or “on its way.” It’s here, now.
And if he gets away with it, future presidents will do the same. The precedent — already weakly established here in Portland in 2020 — will be locked in. The checks and balances will have been destroyed.
That’s assuming there even are elections in the future.
As former Trump insider Lev Parnas said:
“According to my sources, there are discussions happening right now — within Trump’s most trusted circle — about invoking martial law if the protests ‘get out of hand.’ They’re looking for any excuse. Any video. Any act of violence. Any disruption. That’s all they need to justify a crackdown.
“And it gets worse. What I’m being told is that Trump allies — including elements connected to Proud Boys, III Percenters, and other far-right militia networks — are planning to infiltrate the June 14th protests. Not to support them. To sabotage them. Their goal? Create chaos. Spark confrontation. Trigger a response from law enforcement. And then hand Trump the justification he needs to clamp down.”
America is at a crossroads. We can pretend this is just another Trump stunt, something to be laughed at or dismissed, or we can recognize it for what it is: a direct assault on civilian government, an unconstitutional power grab, and a warning shot at the heart of democracy.
It’s time to stop normalizing the abnormal. Troops in the streets of American cities should send chills down our spine, not shrugs across the airwaves or the pathetic cheerleading we see on the billionaire-owned Fox “News.”
When a president uses the military against his own people to score political points, democracy itself becomes collateral damage.
And if Trump gets away with this like he did here in Portland in 2020, every new act of violence against the Constitution and people who disagree with him (Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is now threatening to deploy Marines) will become less scandalous, more “normal,” and more likely to lead to the next crackdown.
And then the state of emergency. And then the suspension of elections.
The time to speak out is now, not after Trump’s seized a dozen more cities and imprisoned thousands of us. Call your members of Congress, and I’ll see you in the streets next Saturday.
Pass it along.
Keep reading...
Show less
This Kansas town doesn’t hate enough. Trump admin plots vengeance
The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime.
What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don’t sufficiently detest immigrants.
Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn’t matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn’t have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you’re the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government.
It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days.
The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus “sanctuary jurisdictions” on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government’s inflammatory rhetoric: “DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.”
There’s a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let’s press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let’s try to figure out why.
Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here.
What’s important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won’t obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn’t mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one.
So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn’t spew enough hatred for the White House’s liking.
A senior DHS official told NPR that “designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: “Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don’t have one law or another on the books that they don’t qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.”
Note those phrases from the official and Noem: “Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.” “One law or another.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn’t matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it.
No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don’t break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone.
Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back.
“This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,” said National Sheriffs’ Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. “Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.”
Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: “We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.”
Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don’t want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE.
Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject.
Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job.
Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That’s OK. That’s protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Keep reading...
Show less
This eye-wateringly stupid fight is DeSantis' last gasp effort to be relevant
A few days ago, the University of Florida was all ready to welcome a brand-new president. They’d gotten rid of the useless (yet expensive) Ben Sasse and chosen a single finalist, a scientist called Santa Ono, former head of the University of Michigan.
The trustees liked him; Ron DeSantis liked him, especially since Ono, who was once all-in on diversity at UM, recently pulled a 180, loudly recanting his climate change-admitting, student protest-allowing progressive ways and parroting the governor’s War on Woke nonsense like a DeSantis Bot.
It wasn’t enough: The state university Board of Governors refused to give him the job.
Poor old weathervane Ono fell victim to a nasty social media campaign against him, led by such intellectual giants as Don Trump Jr., who squawked “WTF!” on the twixter; New College trustee Christopher “They’re eating the cats!” Rufo; Sen. Rick Scott; and the congenitally absurd Rep. Byron Donalds, who allowed as how while he didn’t know Ono, the man didn’t sound like he “comported with the values of the state of Florida.”
Au contraire, congressman. Given that Ono was prepared to abandon the principles of free speech, inclusion, and academic independence, I’d say he perfectly comports with the values of the state of Florida.
Especially when it comes to higher education.
DeSantis and his UF allies may have lost the Ono battle (more on the politics involved later), but he’s committed to the larger war: Florida may soon be celebrated in the MAGA-sphere as the first state to lay waste to its universities.
Santa Ono takes questions from University of Florida trustees before they unanimously approved him as the school’s president-elect on May 27, 2025. He was rejected by the state Board of Governors on June 3, 2025. (Photo courtesy UF)New College purge
The full-scale assault started in 2023, when DeSantis wrecked New College and took to installing ideologically aligned hacks as presidents and appointing university boards so bent on destruction they’d shame a Visigoth.
Former politico Richard Corcoran was not educationally, temperamentally, or administratively qualified to be president of the state honors college, yet there he is, DeSantis’ boy, drawing a huge salary and inviting accused rapists to speak on campus in Sarasota.
FIU and FAU got landed with dead-enders former Lt. Gov. Jeannette Nuñez and Republican state Rep.-turned private prison company vice president Adam Hasner.
Now the governor has turned his lizardy eye upon the universities of West Florida and Florida A&M with a view to undermining academic freedom, student opportunity, and scholarly rigor.
DeSantis, who loves to call Florida “free,” doesn’t want institutions of higher education to be free: He wants them cowed, cramped, and compliant.
In April, DeSantis claimed — with no evidence, mind — UWF was some kind of “indoctrination camp” run by “Marxist professors” and warned those crazy Pensacola lefties to “buckle up.” Big changes were coming.
To that end, he appointed a noisome bouquet of trustees, several proudly hostile to book-learning. Three of them were either rejected by the Florida Senate or else slunk off before they could be officially sent packing.
Adam Kissel, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and one of the discarded candidates, seemed puzzled by the snub. In an interview with UWF’s newspaper “The Voyager,” he claimed he’d been brought down by a “disinformation narrative” partially based on his comments lamenting the GI Bill’s negative effect on American society.
That would be the GI Bill that has enabled millions of veterans to get a college degree and join the middle class.
‘Cancel culture’
Kissel also complained about the general milieu in blood red Escambia County, claiming, “Cancel culture is still alive in Pensacola.”
After these embarrassing rebuffs, you might think DeSantis might rethink his approach but, of course, you’d be wrong. His newest trustee pick, another Heritage Foundation luminary, pitched a hissy fit about UWF students putting on a Halloween drag show in 2019.
(Halloween — you know, when people dress up in all sorts of outlandish ways?)
Zack Smith, a Pensacola native and former assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Florida, told UWF’s then-president Martha Saunders he had “concerns” (most of which seem to involve gay people asserting equal rights or Black people calling out systemic racism in America), including such outré actions as inviting one of the founders of Black Lives Matter to speak on campus (she’s an “avowed Marxist”!) as well as the UWF librarian suggesting Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist” as a good read for Black History Month.
God forbid students might encounter a critique of capitalism or an important and provocative exploration of race during Black History Month.
Pro tips for Project 2025 zealots:
- Capitalism is not beyond criticism. I refer Heritage True Believers to Mark 10:25 (the camel/rich man/eye-of-needle thing) and Matthew 6:24 (the God and Mammon thing) as well as analyses of our economic system, many written by those embedded in it.
- Marxism is a political philosophy. Like any other philosophy, it should be studied in universities. Merely hearing about it does not rot your very soul.
- Ibram X. Kendi is a distinguished scholar, a graduate of Florida A&M University who has gone on to win a National Book Award and a MacArthur Fellowship. Reading his work will not infect you with the Woke Mind Virus.
But — agree or disagree with what Kendi says — his book might make you think.
Imagine that: college students thinking.
Obeisance
Eye-wateringly stupid as Smith’s complaints were, they had the intended effect: Martha Saunders resigned, allowing DeSantis to put his education commissioner in as interim president.
The irredeemably unimpressive Manny Diaz Jr. has no higher ed experience, no terminal degree, and no business running what was, under presidents such as Judy Bense, a highly regarded archeologist, and Martha Saunders, an expert in communications theory, a university on its way up.
Unfortunately for UWF, odds are Diaz gets the permanent gig: That’s what happened at New College; that’s what happened at FIU.
DeSantis wants university presidents who realize they do not work for the institution, fostering knowledge, encouraging free inquiry, and serving education.
He insists they work for him. They must do his bidding, battling villains such as faculty unions, student journalists, Pride Month celebrations, critical race theory, gender studies, and African American studies.
Which brings us to FAMU.
DeSantis and his higher ed henchpersons have, in the past, tread pretty carefully with Florida’s only public HCBU.
Maybe it’s because FAMU is such a, well, let’s call it a “bargain.”
In 2024-25, FAMU’s enrollment was 9,980. New College’s was 850. FAMU’s appropriation was $50 million. New College got $52 million.
Even those of us who went to school in Florida can do that math.
Not that anyone should be surprised the state spends far more per student at predominantly white New College than at predominantly not-white FAMU.
Can’t be racism. Oh, no. Perish the thought.
Even though on Planet DeSantis, the very existence of a majority-minority student body is DEI gone wild.
At any rate, FAMU’s no longer flying under the governor’s radar. He just got to stick another of his favorites in the top job.
The good part: FAMU’s presidential search was unusually transparent, at least in comparison to the absurdly hermetic process at UF and other state institutions. The four finalists’ names were publicly announced and students, faculty, and community members were invited to meet them.
Three had solid-to-excellent qualifications. Contenders included the provost and vice president for academic affairs at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, the senior vice president for administration and finance at the University of Central Florida, and FAMU’s own senior vice president and COO.
The not-so-good part: Candidate Number Four.
Marva Johnson appeared almost out of nowhere, rumored to be a late addition pushed by trustee Deveron Gibbons, a DeSantis appointee.
As you’d expect, she has no higher education experience, but she has far more important qualities: She’s a telecom company executive, a MAGA Republican, and a crony of Ron DeSantis’.
Disquiet at FAMU
FAMU has long been a leader in the fight for civil rights and remains the nation’s top public HCBU, alma mater of politicians like former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and U.S. Rep. Al Green, musicians Common and Cannonball Adderley, satirist Roy Wood Jr., Wimbledon champion Althea Gibson, and art collector Bernard Kinsey.
Rattlers were horrified Johnson made the short list and held rallies protesting her candidacy. Movie producer, FAMU alum and big-time donor Will Packer said she might “do irreparable harm to the university’s relationship with its community and with its donor base.”
Naturally, she got the job.
And, like any self-respecting MAGA grifter, immediately demanded a salary of $750,000, nearly $300,000 a year higher than her predecessor.
Of course, she won’t make as much as the president of New College: He pulls in nearly a $1 million overseeing those 850 students.
Taxpayers might wonder why, when legislators and the governor keep whining about the need to cut budgets and save money, there seems to be no problem paying a gaggle of under-qualified nonentities huge amounts to be university presidents.
But universities in Florida and other MAGA-controlled states are no longer so much about education as they are about propaganda and power.
Republicans want to control curriculum, censoring anything that upsets white folks — topics such as slavery, genocide, colonialism, gender, women’s rights.
You’ve seen how Trump is going after Harvard and other universities, cutting off funding, trying to control hiring and admissions, denying foreign students visas.
Colleges in Utah, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, and (no surprise) Florida are being told to emphasize Western Civilization, the Constitution, and “Great Books.”
Ono’s crash and burn
MAGAs might not like it if universities really focused on, say, the Constitution. Students might realize that the current regime regularly violates it.
For Ron DeSantis, taming Florida’s universities feeds his desperate need for relevance. Spurned by the voters during his disastrous presidential bid, ridiculed by onetime patron Donald Trump, defied by the Legislature, DeSantis figures at least he can run — or ruin — education.
It’s not quite as smooth a conquest as anticipated.
The crash of Santa Ono’s UF candidacy was about the Right’s fear of DEI. But it was also about giving DeSantis a black eye.
The crash of Santa Ono’s UF candidacy was about the Right’s fear of DEI — they truly do want to Make America White (and Christian and male-dominated) Again — and hysteria over hiring someone who, despite his pathetic attempts to demonstrate that he’d drunk the Trumpy Kool-Aid, clearly knew better.
But it was also about giving DeSantis a black eye.
Signs indicate Casey DeSantis will run for governor when her husband terms out.
But she’s got all kinds of political problems, not least an investigation into her dodgy charity, Hope Florida.
Her husband is spewing spittle all over Tallahassee, accusing a “jackass” in the Legislature (the rest of us know him as Rep. Alex Andrade) of taking documents which “he dropped in a prosecutor’s office,” and hollering “that is not an organic investigation” and any accusation of money laundering is just a “smear.”
Then there’s her likely primary opponent, Rep. Byron Donalds. He’s been endorsed by Trump.
It’s no coincidence he led the MAGA campaign against Ono.
Higher education has always been political. Governors and legislators have never approved of professors (liberals, mostly) or students (snotty-nosed kids protesting) or faculty (probably Marxists).
But DeSantis has taken the politicization of universities to a whole new level of venality, pettiness, and dangerous repression.
The “Free State of Florida” isn’t.
As that famous novel (which could soon be on the banned books list) says: “Freedom is slavery” and “Ignorance is strength.”
Keep reading...
Show less
'I urge you': Here's the phone number all National Guard recruits need to know
Now that Trump’s tariffs have been halted, his One Big Beautiful Bill has been stymied, and his multibillionaire tech bro has turned on him, how does he demonstrate his power?
On Friday morning, federal agents from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted raids across Los Angeles, including at two Home Depots, a doughnut shop, and a clothing wholesaler, in search of workers they suspected of being undocumented immigrants.
They arrested 121 people.
They were met with protesters who chanted and threw eggs before being dispersed by police wearing riot gear, holding shields, and using batons, guns that shot pepper balls, rubber bullets, tear gas, and flash bang grenades against the protesters.
On Saturday, Trump intentionally escalated the confrontations, ordering at least 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed in Los Angeles County to help quell the protests.
He said that any demonstration that got in the way of immigration officials would be considered a “form of rebellion.” Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, called the protests an “Insurrection.”
Saturday evening, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to deploy active-duty Marines, saying, “The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil. A dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK. Under President Trump, violence and destruction against federal agents and federal facilities will NOT be tolerated.”
Friends, we are witnessing the first stages of Trump’s police state.
Last week, raids in San Diego and Massachusetts — in Martha’s Vineyard and the Berkshires — led to standoffs as bystanders angrily confronted federal agents who were taking workers into custody.
Trump’s dragnet also includes federal courthouses. ICE officers are mobilizing outside courtrooms across America and are immediately arresting people — even migrants whose cases have been dismissed by judges.
History shows that once an authoritarian ruler establishes the infrastructure of a police state, that same infrastructure can be turned on anyone.
Trump is rapidly creating such an infrastructure:
- Declaring an emergency on the basis of a so-called “rebellion,” “insurrection,” or “invasion.”
- Using that “emergency” to justify bringing in federal agents with a monopoly of force (ICE, DHS, FBI, DEA, and National Guard) against civilians inside the nation.
- Allowing those militarized agents to make dragnet abductions and warrantless arrests and detain people without due process.
- Creating additional prison space and detention camps for those detained.
- Eventually, as the situation escalates, declaring martial law.
We are not at martial law yet, thankfully. But once in place, the infrastructure of a police state can build on itself. Those who are given authority over aspects of it — the internal militia, dragnets, detention camps, and martial law — seek other opportunities to invoke their authority.
As civilian control gives way to military control, the nation splits into those who are most vulnerable to it and those who support it. The dictatorship entrenches itself by fomenting fear and anger on both sides.
Right now, our major bulwarks against Trump’s police state are the federal courts and broad-based peaceful protests — such as the one that many of us will engage in this coming Saturday, June 14, on the No Kings Day of Action (information here).
If you are in the National Guard or active-duty military and you believe you are being ordered to violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I urge you to call the GI Rights Hotline for advice and support, at 877-447-4487.
It is imperative that we remain peaceful, that we demonstrate our resolve to combat this tyranny but do so nonviolently, and that we let America know about the emerging infrastructure of Trump’s police state and the importance of resisting it.
These are frightening and depressing times. But remember: Although it takes one authoritarian to establish a police state, it takes just 3.5 percent of a population to topple him and end it.
Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/
Keep reading...
Show less
The hand-wringing is over — this is how we fight back
On election day 2020, I suggested on my radio program that if Joe Biden were to lose (something we did not expect, but after 2016 who knew what could happen) he, Harris, and Democrats in Congress should set up a “shadow government” to be a visible and ongoing opposition and alternative to a second Trump term.
Apparently, somebody on Team Trump was listening. Or they copped the idea from the same place I did: the UK, Canada and Australia, all countries where the party out of power assembles a “shadow government” with a “shadow cabinet” that regularly informs voters of how and why they’d run the government differently were they in power.
A mere six months later, in July of 2021, the last chief of staff of Donald Trump's first term, former Tea Party congressman Mark Meadows, appeared on a fringe rightwing TV internet show and repeatedly referred to Trump’s “Cabinet.”
“We met with several of our Cabinet members tonight,” Meadows said. “We actually had a follow-up ... meeting with some of our Cabinet members.”
Referring to Trump as “the president,” just as Trump did in daily fundraising emails, Meadows added in 2021 while Biden was president, Trump is “a president who is fully engaged, highly focused and remaining on task.”
Probably the best-known shadow cabinet is the one that forms in the UK every time a new government is formed. The first formal UK Shadow Cabinet is generally credited to the Labour Party, although the concept had existed in more informal forms earlier.
In 1921, J.R. Clynes became the leader of the Labour Party and led the opposition in the House of Commons. During his leadership, the party began to assign specific members to scrutinize and respond to the work of government ministers, laying the groundwork for what would become known as the shadow cabinet.
This structure became more formalized under Ramsay MacDonald, who succeeded Clynes as party leader in 1922. By the time Labour formed its first government in 1924, the shadow cabinet had evolved into a recognized body within the party, with designated roles mirroring those of the actual Cabinet.
The benefit of Democrats forming a shadow cabinet now will be twofold:
- First, it can serve as a platform for critiquing the policies and behaviors of the GOP. A press conference being held by a random member of Congress critizing, for example, Trump’s anti-labor policies won’t have anything close to the impact of the “Shadow Secretary of Labor” convening members of the press to hear a well-prepared presentation by a person fully qualified to be the next Labor Secretary. More credibility and more publicity.
- Second, having Democrats fill the shadow equivalents of every major position in the Trump administration gives each of the prospective candidates for the next Democratic administration an opportunity to fully inform themselves about the issues facing, in this case labor, and thus prepares each shadow secretary to hit the ground running after the next election.
Turns out that it’s not just good politics; it could become one of the best and most essential tools to fight for democracy’s survival.
Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC) gets it, calling for a Democratic shadow cabinet just like I did, only his suggestion came right after last year’s election. He’s calling for Democrats to “borrow from our British friends and appoint a shadow cabinet to fight back against the worst excesses of a second Trump administration.”
And he’s absolutely right, because what we’re witnessing isn’t normal Republican governance: it’s the final phase of a multi-generational corporate takeover of our government that began with the Powell Memo; runs through five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court gutting the Civil Rights Act and declaring that money is speech and corporations are persons; and now involves handing our entire government over to the richest man in the world so he can ravage and twist it to his own enrichment.
This goes way beyond simply having a Democrat provide the rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union speeches. The Shadow Cabinet should meet regularly and issue serious, high-credibility proclamations and analyses of Trump policies.
Republicans did this on a small scale during the Biden presidency, as I noted about Mark Meadows. Another Trump Shadow Cabinet member was Russell Vought, who literally described his work as creating “shadow agencies” that could rapidly implement their corporate-friendly agenda if Trump won in 2024. And, sure enough, they hit the ground running with their Project 2025 shadow governing platform!
Meanwhile, Democrats appear to be sitting around waiting for the next election cycle while rightwing billionaires and their political puppets dismantle everything from environmental protections to worker rights to women’s ability to vote.
Picture this: a Shadow Treasury Secretary explaining the tangible downsides of Trump’s pro-billionaire policies; a Shadow Labor Secretary denouncing attacks on worker protections; a shadow Environmental Protection Agency administrator exposing how corporate polluters are getting free passes. Every single day, holding daily press conferences, providing real-time counterpoints to this administration's lies.
This isn’t just some obscure parliamentary procedure borrowed from Britain: this is about creating what the British call “democracy’s insurance policy.”
When you have an administration literally governed by the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook and funded by billions from over 100 billionaire families and supported by a massive rightwing media ecosystem, you need an organized, systematic opposition that can cut through the corporate media’s sanewashing and both-sides-ism to speak directly to working Americans.
The genius of a shadow cabinet is that it would force Democrats to do what they should have been doing all along: articulate a clear, positive vision for America instead of just being the party of “we’re not Trump.”
While Trump and his billionaire backers are playing chess, Democrats have been playing checkers. Throughout the past four years, Trump’s people were drafting hundreds of executive orders and regulations, creating what they openly called “shadow agencies” to implement their agenda on day one.
We’ve seen the results, and they’ve been shockingly effective. Meanwhile, Democrats are still trying to figure out their messaging strategy.
A shadow cabinet would change that overnight. It would create 26 Democratic leaders — one for each cabinet position — who could provide daily, coordinated opposition to Trump’s corporate/billionaire agenda while simultaneously showing Americans what real public service looks like.
Commentator Bill Scher moved the idea forward quite a bit recently with an article in Politico outlining exactly who he’d suggest could serve in a Democratic shadow cabinet, from Letitia James for Shadow Attorney General to Samantha Power as Shadow Secretary of State and Lina Khan as Shadow Treasury Secretary. Former VP candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has also called on the DNC to create a shadow cabinet. Even fascism scholar Timothy Snyder has pushed the idea.
The corporate media and Republican talking heads are already attacking this concept, which tells you everything you need to know about how effective it would be. They’re terrified of organized Democratic opposition that can’t be dismissed or ignored.
Democracy may “die in darkness,” but it for sure dies when the opposition party refuses to organize effectively. A shadow cabinet isn’t just smart politics, it’s democracy’s best defense against fascism with a corporate logo.
The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for organized resistance is now. It’s way past time for Democrats to pick up the Shadow Cabinet idea and run with it.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump doesn't always chicken out — just ask these workers that he's screwing
He did it again. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump doubled the tariff on steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%.
And it’s the steelworkers who will pay with their jobs. Stay with me, and I’ll explain these weird, weird facts:
- Trump’s tariffs on foreign steel increased the amount of steel imported. Despite Trump’s tariffs, total steel imports are up 3.6% year to date compared to 2024 according to the American Iron and Steel Institute.
- Trump’s tariffs have reduced American steel production. Adjusted year-to-date output through May 24 was 36,287,000 net tons, down 0.5 percent from the same period last year.
- Trump’s tariffs on steel have raised prices on American goods from cars to computer mainframes. NUCOR, America’s largest steelmaker, raised its prices a stunning 38.5%, from $675/ton to $935/ton in the past year to March 2025. As steel is central to US production in all industries, these hikes are a big factor in inflation, adding 1.7% to prices throughout the economy, according to a Yale University study. This will cost the average American family $2,800 if the tariffs continue through the year.
- And the biggest shocker: Trump’s tariffs are costing American steel jobs. Despite Trump’s punitive tariffs, steel employment in the USA has flatlined and massive layoffs have been announced. In March, with Trump imposing the highest tariffs in a century, Cleveland-Cliffs, one of America’s largest steel producers, announced over 1,200 steelworkers will be laid off in Michigan and Minnesota.
As I’ll explain, steel employment is diving, not despite the tariffs, but because of the tariffs.
I’m motivated to write by Trump’s sickening PR stunt at a US Steel plant in Pennsylvania last week. I’m looking at Trump’s big belly and red tie posing with steelworkers in hard hats and coils of rolled steel around them. He’s not the first president to use steelworkers as a prop, but the first to do so while economically spitting in their faces.
The United Steelworkers asked me to investigate, so…
In 1977, a United Steelworkers of America official asked me, a young economist, if his union should join the call for tariffs on Japanese steel imports.
Hey, it made perfect sense: If tariffs raised the price of imported steel, then it’s a no-brainer that US buyers would replace the foreign metal with steel made in the good old USA.
But steelworkers aren’t idiots. They didn’t see any new jobs happening. “Oil Can” Eddie Sadlowski, the beefy leader of Steelworkers Great Lakes region, with the biggest slice of the country’s steelmaking capacity, had hunted me down at the University of Chicago Economics Department. He asked me why, though given new tariff protection, US Steel Corporation was cutting jobs at Southworks, Chicago, and Gary, Indiana.
I dug in. The numbers were clear as a bell. Every time the US put trade restrictions on Japanese steel, American steel production fell and employment dropped with it.
Like, huh?
As a forensic economist (a detective with a graduate degree), I quickly found the perpetrator: US steel industry price hikes.
Here’s how it works: Every time the US raises tariffs on steel, American companies, not having to face competition from lower prices from abroad, simply hike their own prices through the roof.
This year, the American Iron and Steel Institute expects manufacturers, protected by tariffs, will raise the price of hot rolled steel by a stratospheric 18.75%!
Prices rise and US production goes down. General Motors, for example, will replace steel with plastics or simply sell fewer cars.
American steel companies don’t care. The number of tons they sell may fall, but their profits take off. It’s the steelworkers, with steel shipments down, who get laid off.
Remember, steel companies are not in the business of making steel, they are in the business of making profits.
The only reason Trump’s tariffs haven’t tanked steel industry employment is, according to industry analysts, because of President Joe Biden’s trillion-dollar infrastructure program.
So, I’m not shocked that Trump’s tariff terrorism on steel imports has cost American steel jobs … and it will get worse.
Photo Op from Hell
So, with his steel tariff madness backfiring, Trump did what every huckster politician has done for decades: create a phony photo op. You’ve seen it before. A bunch of blue-collar workers in hard-hats and high-viz vests applauding some duplicitous politician standing in front of a bunch of coils of rolled steel. They’re saving jobs at this plant!
Well, thanks, Donald, that Pennsylvania mill wasn’t in jeopardy until you, Donald, blocked Nippon Steel from investing in the plant so it could stay open.
Here’s the story. As soon as he got into office, Trump scuttled a deal for Nippon Steel to buy out US Steel’s owners and put $14 billion into refurbishing their ancient factories. Trump scuttled the Nippon “White Knight” bid — on which he’s now done another TACO and reversed himself. (For the uninitiated, TACO stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”)
Basically, Trump told the steelworkers, “Praise me! I put out the fire and captured the arsonist! True, I’m the arsonist, but be grateful that I’ve stopped him.”
[By the way, it was Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), not Trump, who squeezed the billion-dollar commitment out of Nippon. Notably, Fetterman literally lives across the street from one of the US Steel mills.]
Who profits?
Is the president crazy, or is there something else going on?
I notice that two of the largest owners of US Steel are Stephen Schwarzman’s Blackstone Group and vulture capitalist Dan Loeb’s Third Point. Both are big Trump donors. Is protecting steelworkers the priority — or enriching Trump’s rich buddies?
According to a report written in consultation with the US Defense Department, with an in-your-face title, Trump’s Tariffs Enrich Steel Barons at High Cost to US Manufacturers and Households, Trump’s 25% steel tariffs in his first term added $270,000 to steel industry profits for each steel job “saved.”
Let me remind you that 225,000 Canadians belong to the United Steelworkers of America, brothers in the US union.
Don’t be fooled — a lot of Trump’s policy-by-threat, including the latest 25% tariffs on Canadian steel, is part of his attack on union rights. If the Canadian steelworkers are forced to cut wages, Americans must follow. (I negotiated contracts for the Steelworkers, so I can tell you, that threat is real.)
And Trump added this scorpion into the soup: he was proud to have forced Nippon Steel to hire American managers and create a special board of the directors for US operations. In other words, he’s given back management to the very knuckleheads and hedge fund asset-strippers that gave us the disaster that is US Steel today.
Trump’s aluminum foil hat
Trump has also imposed 25% tariffs on aluminum imports. As John Cleese would say, “What is the POINT? What is the BLOODY POINT?”
The US simply doesn’t have the aluminum capacity to replace foreign imports because the main ingredient in aluminum is not ore but electricity. Aluminum bearing bauxite ore costs just $286 per metric ton of aluminum product, but the electricity required is a breathtaking $2,400 per ton. Canada has electricity up the wazoo, a crazy amount of hydroelectric power to produce aluminum at prices that keeps US car companies in business.
There is no practical alternative to foreign aluminum. The result, Alcoa (formerly, Aluminum Company of America) is watching the wheels fall off its stock price despite new tariff “protection.”
That’s just one example of why Trump’s magical thinking about tariffs has cost America 136,000 jobs in manufacturing compared to 2023.
Tariffs 101
Tariffs suck. But sometimes they are just and justified. Years ago, I investigated Walmart for the company’s use of Chinese prison labor to make their products. Using enslaved labor and child labor was practiced by Walmart’s contractors, principally in China.
See my Guardian article, What Price a Storegasm?, read here by the great, late Ed Asner.
As to China, Americans have a moral imperative to impose targeted tariffs: Can we, with any sense of ethics, brutalize a Uyghur prisoner just to get a $15 toaster? Tariffs to punish ugly abuses are the right thing to do — but there’s no pretending the toaster-making jobs will return to the US.
And we don’t want those jobs.
When Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese-assembled iPhones, China cancelled its Boeing airline orders. Trump wants to return to America jobs putting those little screws into iPhones (which pays roughly $2.88 an hour in China), and in return, we give up $25.34 per hour jobs on the Boeing shopfloor. This is the “art of the deal”? Thank the Lord that Boeing got its orders back after Trump did his Chicken Dance in record time and cut tariffs on China.
So, when the TACO truck arrives and out pops an orange blob of bloviating bigot, don’t be fooled by those most dangerous of words, “I’m Donald Trump, and I’m here to help you.”
Keep reading...
Show less
Enough of this gaslighting BS
The Republican budget bill that recently passed the House adds onerous work requirements that would push millions of people off Medicaid. House Speaker Mike Johnson told “Meet the Press” last weekend that they’d only lose their healthcare if “they choose to do so.” But that, according to Charles Gaba, is “gaslighting bull–––t.”
“The entire point of imposing work requirements,” Charles told me, “is to either discourage eligible people from enrolling or to make the requirements difficult to comply with, resulting in millions being kicked off the program even if they are working or volunteering.”
Gaba is “the biggest powerhouse Democratic donor wrangler that nobody has ever heard of,” according to Politico. As the editor and publisher of ACAsignups.net, he’s also one of the country’s leading authorities on Obamacare, Medicaid and healthcare policy.
After the House Republicans passed their budget bill, I got in touch with Charles. I asked him straight up if the legislation guts Medicaid.
Yes, he said, but it does so much more harm than that.
If the congressional Republicans do not extend insurance subsidies passed during the pandemic, Obamacare enrollees will “face massive premium hikes — in many cases, three and four times higher than what they're paying right now,” he said.
That’s impacting some 24 million Americans — most of them, Charles reminds me, residing in red states.
The following is a long interview, but vital to anyone with a stake.
JS: Are the Republicans really going to gut Medicaid? Huge numbers of people who voted for and who support Donald Trump depend on it.
CG: The version of the budget bill passed recently by House Republicans absolutely would, if implemented, gut Medicaid — particularly for around 20 million Americans who are currently enrolled in Medicaid via the Affordable Care Act expansion that’s in effect across 41 states.
Obviously, there will be changes made to it in the Senate, so we don't know what the final version of the bill will be, and even if it passes through both the House and Senate, and is signed into law by Trump, there will no doubt be legal challenges to some provisions within it.
But yes, the current version passed by House Republicans would be pretty devastating to both Medicaid as well as ACA exchange enrollees.
There has been less attention to those ACA exchange enrollees. What does the budget bill do to the Affordable Care Act? What do those changes say about Trump and the GOP’s plans for the safety net?
The first way the budget bill hurts the ACA is what it doesn’t include — extending the improved tax credit formula under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
If the IRA subsidies expire this year, nearly all of the around 24 million Americans enrolled in healthcare coverage via the ACA exchanges will face massive premium hikes — in many cases, three and four times higher than what they're paying right now.
Millions will be priced out of being able to afford coverage at all, while most of the rest will have to either eat the higher premiums, downgrade to a lower-quality plan with higher deductibles, higher copays, a worse provider network or all of the above. Or they'll have to move to non-ACA coverage via so-called "junk plans," which have few if any of the patient protections required by ACA plans.
That’s what the budget bill doesn’t do to the ACA. What does it do?
It makes a bunch of changes to how ACA exchange enrollment and tax credit eligibility work. Some of these get pretty wonky, and some would "just" be codifying rules that are already being put into place by the Trump administration, but the list includes things like:
- Denying tax credits via ACA exchange plans to anyone who (ironically) gets kicked off of Medicaid for failing to meet the new "work reporting requirement" provisions.
- Changing the ACA's formula for determining "maximum out of pocket" costs (MOOP), so that enrollees would face hundreds of dollars in higher deductibles and copays.
- Weakening the ACA "metal level" rules to let insurance carriers make plans less comprehensive (ie, silver plans are supposed to cover around 70 percent of average enrollee costs; under the GOP changes, a silver plan cold cover as little as 66 percent.)
- Cutting the open enrollment period nearly in half, from the current 76 days down to 45 days.
- Mandating a $5 per month premium on some low-income enrollees who are currently eligible for $0 per month premiums.
- Adding a whole bunch of extra red tape to millions of enrollees for them to remain eligible for tax credits.
All of this illustrates Trump and the GOP's disdain for and hatred of the social safety net as a whole: If they can't get rid of it outright, they'll deliberately make it too cumbersome and complicated to work, thus allowing them to claim government itself doesn't work.
Or, as PJ O'Rourke once put it: The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
How are the Republicans going to justify taking health insurance away from people or making what they do have worse than it is?
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly used the "lazy young men playing videogames" stereotype, as who he claims they want to force into "getting off the couch to get a job" etc, even though there's no evidence that a lack of healthcare coverage inspires young men to seek employment and plenty of evidence that providing healthcare coverage to people makes them more likely to get and keep a job.
They're also trying to claim that millions of undocumented immigrants are "stealing" healthcare even though federal dollars don't pay for Medicaid for any undocumented immigrants. There's a few states that pay for Medicaid for that population using 100 percent state dollars, which is entirely up to the voters of those states. Yet the House Republican bill tries to blackmail those states into not paying for Medicaid for undocumented immigrants by threatening to withhold federal dollars for US citizens and documented residents if they don't.
I'm going to be generous and say Trump voters seem confused. A recent report by NPR suggested that they don't want Medicaid cuts for people they know, but do want cuts for some kind of make-believe freeloader. This seems to me a recipe for continued support for Trump, even as he's hurting his own people. Thoughts?
Sadly, that sounds likely to be the case. I listened to and read the NPR piece you mentioned, and everyone who talked about "waste" or "abuse" spoke in very vague terms without ever specifying who exactly they think is "abusing" or "wasting" Medicaid dollars.
In addition, they seem to simply flat-out refuse to believe that Republicans and Trump will take away their healthcare, because "that wouldn't be right" and "I need it," regardless of what's in the bill.
I've even read other articles where Trump supporters shrugged off the potential loss of Medicaid/ACA coverage, because they figured that Democrats would stop or reverse the cuts from happening, which seems like a rather twisted sort of justification for supporting Republicans.
That seems to be happening in the interplay between the House and the Senate. Trump voters want cuts for "those people." So the House bill passed. They don't want cuts for themselves. So the bill is stalling in the Senate. I don't know what any Democrat could say to Trump voters when the point for them is theater, not solving problems.
I know that Sen. Josh Hawley (R–MO) has been vocal about opposing any major cuts to Medicaid while Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has openly called for the IRA subsidies to be extended.
The House GOP bill does a lot to try to punish Democrats more than Republicans, but it would still be pretty devastating for millions of Republicans no matter what, making it difficult to square the circle.
While I noted there are more Medicaid expansion enrollees in blue House districts, there are more ACA exchange enrollees in red House districts, and even within those, there's still no way of knowing for certain whether a particular enrollees is a "one of their own" or not.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump deploys troops to crush dissent — and escalate his war on America
What is our moral responsibility as citizens of the United States when the President of the United States moves to deploy thousands of American soldiers against us?
Trump signed a memo late yesterday ordering 2,000 members of the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County after federal immigration agents in riot gear squared off with hundreds of protesters for a second consecutive day.
Trump’s action is extreme although technically legal. Governor Gavin Newsom did not call in the Guard. Title 10 of the United States Code allows a president to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” In a presidential memo, Trump said, “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
Why is he doing it, and why now?
Because Trump can’t stand to be humiliated — as he has been in the last two weeks. By senate Republicans refusal to quickly enact his so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. By Xi Jinping’s refusal to back down on trade (and restrict shipments of China’s rare earths, which American industry depends on). By Putin’s refusal to end the war in Ukraine. By the federal courts pushing back against his immigration policy. And, now, by insults and smears from the richest person in the world, who has a larger social media following than does Trump.
So what does Trump do when he’s humiliated? He deflects public attention. Like any bully, he tries to find another way to display his power — especially over people whom he doesn’t consider “his” people.
He has despised California since the 2016 election when the state overwhelmingly voted against him.
And what better Ground Zero for him to try out his police state than Los Angeles — a city teaming with immigrants, with Hollywood celebrities who demonize him, and wealthy moguls who despise him?
He is calling out the National Guard to provoke violence. As Governor Newsom said, “that move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”
Trump wants to escalate tensions. He wants a replay of the violence that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder — riots, mayhem, and destruction that allow him to escalate his police state further — imposing curfews, closing down parts of Los Angeles, perhaps seeking to subdue the entire state. And beyond.
Please do not give him this. Don’t fall into his trap.
We cannot be silent in the face of Trump’s dictatorial move. Silence is acquiescence. We must be brave in resisting him. But we must not succumb to violence.
What is needed is peaceful civil disobedience. Americans locking arms to protect those who need protection. Americans sitting in the way of armored cars. Americans singing and chanting in the face of the Americans whom Trump is drafting into his handmade civil war.
Americans who do not attempt to strike back, but who do what many of us did during the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements — peacefully but unambiguously reject tyranny. To be brave and non-violent in the face of tyranny, to be strong and restrained, to resist with our hearts filled with anger but not succumb to that anger — is difficult. But Martin Luther King Jr. taught us its importance, and George Lewis taught us how.
A humiliated Trump is the most dangerous Trump. But he will overreach. He already has. And this overreach will ultimately be his undoing.
As long as we keep our heads.
May we look back on this hellish time and feel proud of what we did.
Be strong. Be safe. Hug your loved ones.
Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/
Keep reading...
Show less
Are you not entertained? Demented sickos Trump and Musk are
With the nuclear-powered slap fight between the absolutely revoting Elon Musk and even more revolting Donald Trump continuing to fixate America, I’ll tell you how it ends.
This prediction is based on more than a decade’s worth of experience watching these two decadent slobs in the public eye, and is more reliable than any of the 14,000 polls, and 411,000 partisan influencers out there who are generally wrong about literally everything.
In the next few days, and maybe even before I am done publishing this blast, these two narcissistic gasbags will make a very public deal out of hugging it out in a never-ending series of social media posts that will put millions of eyes on their platforms, and millions of dollars in their bottomless pockets, while they heroically tell their tale of two titans of industry who have just battled through and survived a tremendous, spectacular, terrifying, incredible struggle that nobody has ever seen before.
The press will buy into all this hook, line and sinker, and will run endless stories of the fantastic, wild, fascinating terrific struggle, and the rest of us will be back to where we were before, but actually never left: living in a country in historic decline, where human rights are worth as much as a discarded wrapper from a hamburger inhaled by the America-attacking Trump, and Musk will be doing God knows what with all our personal information he has accumulated after being given free rein in our government.
Right-wing media will trumpet “Hail to the Victors” and Democrats will be pointing at the smoking carnage of what was, while what is actually happening is even worse than it was 24 hours before.
Two weeks from now all this will be forgotten, and we will be smack in the middle of the next existential crisis that will demand all of our time, while even more of our rights have been incinerated, and billionaires like Trump and Musk have even more of our money.
In short: all this is a really horrid show, because each of these demented sickos know that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. Both have been suffering loudly with their self-important approval ratings, and know that most idiots in America love a breakup and reconciliation story — even if it features two of the most ghastly people who have ever been hatched.
As long as they are both being talked about, they can kick their feet up and live comfortably inside their fat, miserable racist heads.
Are you not entertained?
Me?
I miss Joe Biden.
(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.)
Keep reading...
Show less
How did we start blaming Democrats for Republicans' choices?
Let me cut to the chase. Even if there were a “cover up” of the previous president’s infirmity, that’s not why Donald Trump won.
Yet that is the allegation hiding in the subtext of Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s new book. The sin in Original Sin is evidently the sin of pride, as in: Joe Biden was just too damn proud to let go of power. And due to his sinfulness, our democracy is now on the brink of collapse.
Most of the attention seems to be on the question of Biden’s cognitive decline. Virtually none is on the question itself and the reasons behind it. That’s because, according to the logic of the Washington press corps, it’s normal to blame Democrats for the choices of Republicans. The thinking goes that Trump didn’t win. Biden handed him victory.
Because Democrats are the only ones with agency, they are the only ones held accountable. Trump and the Republicans are therefore free to say whatever they want with an understanding among reporters who provide coverage that there’s no stopping them.
This is why there was so much reporting on Biden’s age, before the election and now afterward, but nothing close to equivalent coverage of the current president’s blindingly obvious mental deterioration. If there was a cover up for Biden, there is surely a cover up for Trump. But given the state of today’s news, we may never know about it.
The impact of this double standard goes beyond media framing. It can warp public understanding of politics, according to Scott Lemieux. Scott teaches constitutional law at the University of Washington. He’s probably best known as co-founder of Lawyers, Guns and Money.
In this interview, Scott explains why he believes that even if Biden had dropped out after the 2022 midterms, Vice President Kamala Harris would have been the Democratic nominee.
Scott said that to say Trump won because Biden didn't step down “is at best a vast oversimplification driven by a political vision in which Democrats are the only actors (and letting the press entirely off the hook for the normalization of Trump, even in the wake of January 6.)”
Let's establish some facts. Was there a cover up? Or are Tapper and Thompson pandering to the Republicans by piling on Biden?
This may not be a fully satisfying answer, but I think there's some of both. Clearly, Tapper and Thompson are playing on Biden's unpopularity and Republican desires to distract from Trump’s countless problems to sell books. But Biden does seem to have declined pretty substantially in his last 12 to 18 months in office. I think it's clear he should not have run again, and Biden's inner circle were not sufficiently candid with the public, or in advising the president.
How do this play into your view of Tapper and Thompson's book? Trump isn't a spring chicken either. He's corrupt to the core. Yet Tapper said recently that this “cover up” was worse than Watergate.
Unlike [Hillary Clinton's] EMAILS, or most of the Hunter Biden stuff, Biden's age and ability to run again, and the conduct of his closest advisors, were real issues worthy of coverage. But there remain real questions of proportionality. The risks of an aging president "mysteriously" became much less central to press coverage when Harris became the Democratic nominee, and the full-court press on this book is detracting from Trump's increasing incoherence and apparent lack of command of the policies being issued by his own administration.
Obviously, Tapper and Thompson have a book to sell, and it is what it is, but people will have a legitimate beef against the press if Trump’s age and decline don't get a proportionate amount of coverage.
We're talking about more than proportionality. We're talking about a press corps that tends to hold the Democrats accountable for the Republicans' choices. The New Yorker excerpt of Original Sin was titled "How Joe Biden Handed the Presidency to Donald Trump."
I would also take issue with the empirical assumption being made.
While I agree that Biden should not have run again, had he stepped down after the midterms, the result probably would have been Vice President Kamala Harris still being the nominee after an extremely divisive primary in which Gaza would have played a major role.
Any serious analysis of the 2024 elections needs to start with the fact that Harris did better than any other peer incumbent since 2021. That's not to say that she was a perfect candidate or ran a flawless campaign, but "Trump only won because Biden didn't step down in 2022" is at best a vast oversimplification driven by a political vision in which Democrats are the only actors (and letting the press entirely off the hook for the normalization of Trump, even in the wake of January 6.)
Related to the “cover up” of Biden's age are the allegations that elite Democrats covered up the truth about Biden's primary victory in 2020. You wrote recently about how this book invites rewriting that history, and rewriting it badly. Can you explain?
Tapper recently asserted that the 2020 primary was the result of a metaphorical "smoke filled room" in which "Barack Obama and others called Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren and all the others, and encouraged them to drop out and get behind Biden."
First, there's the factual sloppiness. Booker dropped out in January, Warren (and Michael Bloomberg) didn't drop out before Super Tuesday. That sloppiness isn't just incidental. When you look at what really happened — two minor candidates with little money and who had no appeal outside of the small white rural states frontloaded in the process dropped out, as happens in every competitive primary — it's very, very obvious that it was immaterial to the outcome of the race.
What actually happened is that Democratic elites were at best mostly lukewarm about Biden, and were hoping that a younger candidate would emerge. I'm sure there was some coordination between Obama and Klobuchar/Buttigieg after South Carolina and Alabama, but the conventional wisdom Tapper repeats gets cause and effect backwards. Party elites wanted to unite around Biden, because his win had become inevitable. It wasn't the reason Biden's win was inevitable.
An honest account of the 2020 primary would start with the fact that Biden was (for better or worse) the clear choice of Democratic voters, not the result of some elite conspiracy. And going forward, the left of the party needs to recognize that the strategy pursued by Bernie Sanders in 2020 -- run a factional campaign and hope to win as a minority candidate at a contested convention -- was a dead end, tactically and democratically, that shouldn't be tried again.
Last question. Swing for the fences. Why is political journalism so dumb? It could be really good, but it's not. And it's making us dumber. There seems to be no incentive in the other direction.
This is a complex question. I'm not sure I understand why. Obviously, there's plenty of good work being done by individual reporters and outlets. The biggest problem is at the editorial level. As you said earlier, there's a strong latent tendency to make Democrats the main characters of the political universe, and hold them to higher standards. This was particularly evident in 2016, when Trump was covered as a sideshow and Clinton was covered as if she was the president-elect.
One really glaring example was the refusal of any mainstream outlet to publish any of the hacked material about the Trump campaign provided by Iranian intelligence. In isolation, this is perfectly defensible. None of the material that surfaced was particularly interesting, and I think there should be a pretty tough standard for publishing hacked material, because of the bad incentives.
But it's impossible to square with the media's conduct in 2016, in which hacked material spun on behalf of Trump received enormous amounts of coverage despite containing no serious news value.
The press is not obliged to learn from its mistakes, but it owed the public an explanation, and the fact that editors generally didn't feel that it was owed one is very telling. I don't think there's an easy solution, but we need to start by acknowledging there's a real problem.
Keep reading...
Show less
SpaceX vs. MAGA: Drawing the battle lines between the billionaire and the brand
What happens when the sun and a star both decide they're the center of the universe? A supernova of petty tweets, wounded pride, and threats involving space rockets and federal contracts.
In a breakup messier than a Kardashian divorce, Trump and Musk—once mutual sycophants exchanging awkward praise and backroom favors—have gone full scorched Earth. It all started when Musk dared to criticize Trump’s “big, beautiful” spending bill, prompting the president to suggest maybe Musk should go play with his rockets elsewhere (preferably without government money).
Musk, offended that his emotional support billionaire status was being revoked, fired back by threatening to shut down space operations and maybe expose Trump’s name in the Epstein files. Subtle.
Trump, never one to be out-petulanted, hinted that SpaceX and Tesla might lose government funding, and also that Musk had “gone CRAZY,” which, coming from Trump, is a bit like being called dramatic by a telenovela villain.
The whole feud is now an ego cage match streamed in real time on social media, complete with subtweets, polls about launching new political parties, and the kind of high school energy that ends with someone keying someone else's Tesla. MAGA is aghast. Tech bros are torn. Democrats, meanwhile, are enjoying a rare day off from being the national punching bag.
In short: Trump and Musk are at war, Republicans are hiding under desks, Democrats are popping popcorn, and America remains held hostage by the world’s pettiest midlife crisis.
Somewhere in Washington, a lonely Tesla sits outside the White House—abandoned like the bromance that once was.
![]() |
Robe Rogers - Andrews McMeel
![]() |
Nick Anderson - Tribune Content Agency
![]() |
Tom Stiglich - Creators
![]() |
Mike Luckovich - Creators
![]() |
Pedro Molina - Counterpoint Media
![]() |
Chip Bok - Creators
![]() |
Matt Wuerker - Andrews McMeel
![]() |
Clay Bennett - Counterpoint Media
![]() |
Clay Jones - Claytoonz
![]() |
Bill Bramhall - Tribune Content Agency
Counterpoint provides a peek inside the world of Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonists. Sign-up for the daily newsletter at https://counterpoint.substack.com/.
Keep reading...
Show less
This is how Trump repays the folks who saved him from prison
Federal district courts are pushing back against the Trump administration, and at least so far they’re holding. During May, as reported in Democracy Docket, federal judges dealt Trump an embarrassing 96% loss rate, agreeing with plaintiffs who challenged his overreach in 26 of 27 cases.
Federal judges across the ideological spectrum concur that most of Trump's executive orders, along with official actions undertaken to effectuate them, exceed the scope of presidential authority, either by exceeding what Congress has explicitly authorized, or, in the absence of controlling legislation, by exceeding Article II authority.
Trump’s propaganda machine spins these losses as “judicial activism,” advancing Trump’s false narrative that adverse rulings have come fast and furious from “activist” judges appointed by Joe Biden and other Democrats. Trump media claim that these judges have acted out of partisan malice to “block President Trump’s agenda.”
But the data doesn't bear that out. According to a recent analysis by Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford, judges are ruling against Trump regardless of ideology. Overall, Trump has lost 72% of cases decided by Republican-appointed judges, compared to an 80% loss rate from Democrat-appointed judges. Given that facts and procedure vary widely by case, Trump’s loss rates of 72% and 80%, although remarkable, are too similar to support any inference of partisan bias.
Unprecedented losses reflect unprecedented actions
Conservatives have advised Trump that he could better shield his agenda from judicial scrutiny by working through Congress instead of trying to govern through fiat. Legislation, after all, could achieve his same policy objectives. Given the abdication of duty on display from GOP legislators, that’s fairly sound advice — if Trump were willing to exert more effort than tweeting threats from the toilet, “his” legislators, holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, would likely serve him well.
Other analysts, including Professor Bonica himself, interpret Trump’s judicial losses as pushback to his escalating attacks against the judiciary. Bonica believes that Trump’s attacks on the legal profession itself, including targeting judges and major law firms, triggered a defensive reflex. Since even partisan judges are loyal to the judiciary as an institution, Bonica writes, “When forced to choose between political allegiance and professional identity, many are choosing the latter.”
But legal analysts don’t see Trump’s losses as anything other than defense of the rule of law itself, something all judges take an oath to uphold. Trump’s efforts to expand his own authority are far, far beyond anything our relatively young democracy has ever experienced.
The Constitution incorporated express limitations, including separation of powers, to meet this very moment. These limitations were designed to check a rogue president of questionable sanity. Judges have put them into play as intended, as Trump has already:
- Defied at least three judicial orders on deportations, including a unanimous order from the Supreme Court
- Gutted federal agencies with no understanding of how they functioned or who they served
- Attacked institutions of higher learning by trying to infuse propaganda into their curricula
- Tried to reorder the global economy through nonsensical tariffs
- Tried to re-draw maps starting with the Gulf of America while hinting at a takeover of Canada, war with Denmark, and invasion of Mexico
- Ushered in a police state where masked agents with no badges grab people off the streets and imprison them abroad without due process
- Defied Congressional actions to address worsening climate change by blocking offshore wind projects, prioritizing coal and fossil fuels, and canceling $20 billion in clean air and affordable energy grants.
The only thematic consistency driving these acts is the goal of expanding Trump’s naked power, injury to the nation be damned.
Trump was triggered most by the tariffs ruling
Judicial pushback has been consistent, but the opinion that seems to have triggered Trump the most was the unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that struck down most of his tariffs, now stayed temporarily.
The CIT held that Trump’s broad tariffs usurped Congress’s powers based on supposed “emergency” powers. The CIT ruled that the 1974 Trade Act barred the president from using emergency powers in response to trade deficits, in part because trade deficits reflect many factors and many decades of policy decisions, refuting Trump’s “emergency” claim. The court found that Trump's use of emergency tariffs to gain leverage over other countries was not authorized by Congress, checking Trump’s attempt to confer unlimited powers on himself by recasting long-existing problems as “emergencies.”
The unanimous CIT decision, which Trump aide Stephen Miller called “judicial tyranny,” and press secretary Karoline Leavitt called a “brazen abuse of power,” came from three appointees — one from Ronald Reagan, one from Barack Obama, and one from Trump himself.
Trump attacks the Federalist Society
In response to the CIT ruling, Trump pointedly attacked Leonard Leo, the architect of the conservative judicial movement. Leo, who has long led the Federalist Society, is credited with stacking federal courts with conservatives including Trump’s own Supreme Court nominees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, the number one, decades-long goal of conservative activists.
All three justices also gutted Chevron to block administrative expertise, and joined the legally infirm 2024 immunity opinion that enabled Trump’s current crime spree, paving the way for him to solicit gifts from foreign leaders, pursue private real estate deals with dictators, sell presidential access through a family Bitcoin scheme, and issue pardons for tax evaders and anyone who commits political violence in his name.
But a license to crime is not enough for Trump. Trump’s attack on Leo shows that he expects “his” appointed judges to give him carte blanche permission to decimate the Constitution, to so grossly expand his own power that he’ll never face legal accountability again. Calling Leo a “sleazebag” and “a bad person,” Trump claimed Leo “probably hates America,” projecting his own animus onto Leo in trademark Trumpian fashion.
Leo brushed off Trump’s insults, essentially noting that with Trump, the Federalist Society got what it came for, and what’s a little name-calling among friends? Trump now knows he was Leo’s useful idiot, the same lesson he’s learning slowly, slowly — ever so slowly — from both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, the same lesson he’s learning from much sharper negotiators on the other side of the ‘taco.’
As Trump rails against the power his originalist enablers hold over him, the bitter irony is that if it weren’t for Federalist Society judges, Trump would be in prison today instead of gleefully wrecking the country.
Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her columns are found @ Alternet, Chicago Tribune, Howey Political Report, Indiana Democrats’ Kernel of Truth, Inside Indiana Business, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story, Salon, Smart News, South Florida Gay News, State Affairs, and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Keep reading...
Show less
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.