This genius fix could divert Trump's narco onslaught
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
Today I want to share with you a statement by former federal judge Mark L. Wolf explaining why he resigned from the federal bench in early November. I found it sobering and troubling. The statement appeared in The Atlantic.
By way of background, Wolf served in Gerald Ford’s Justice Department at the same time I did, under Attorney General Edward Levi, who had been president of the University of Chicago. (I was assistant to the solicitor general; Wolf was special assistant to then-Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman — later a federal appeals court judge — and Edward Levi.) It was a time when Levi and the department struggled to recover public trust after the Watergate scandal.
Wolf went on to lead the public corruption unit at the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, securing more than 40 convictions, including of officials close to Democratic Mayor Kevin White. Ronald Reagan named Wolf to the federal bench in 1985. He has been considered a conservative jurist.
***
By Mark L. Wolf
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed me as a federal judge. I was 38 years old. At the time, I looked forward to serving for the rest of my life. However, I resigned Friday, relinquishing that lifetime appointment and giving up the opportunity for public service that I have loved.
My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.
When I accepted the nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, I took pride in becoming part of a federal judiciary that works to make our country’s ideal of equal justice under law a reality. A judiciary that helps protect our democracy. That has the authority and responsibility to hold elected officials to the limits of the power delegated to them by the people. That strives to ensure that the rights of minority groups, no matter how they are viewed by others, are not violated. That can serve as a check on corruption to prevent public officials from unlawfully enriching themselves. Becoming a federal judge was an ideal opportunity to extend a noble tradition that I had been educated by experience to treasure.
My public service began in 1974, near the end of Richard Nixon’s presidency, at a time of dishonor for the Department of Justice. Nixon’s first attorney general, John Mitchell, who had also been the president’s campaign manager, later went to prison for his role in the break-in at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex and for perjury in attempting to cover up that crime. His successor, Richard Kleindienst, was convicted of contempt of Congress for lying about the fact that, as instructed by the president, he’d ended an antitrust investigation of a major company after it pledged to make a $400,000 contribution to the Republican National Convention. The Justice Department was also discredited by revelations that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had obtained and disseminated derogatory information about political adversaries, including Martin Luther King Jr.
I joined the Department of Justice as a special assistant to the honest and able Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman. Soon after, in 1975, President Gerald Ford named Edward Levi as attorney general to restore confidence in the integrity of the department. Levi, then the president of the University of Chicago, had a well-deserved reputation for brilliance, honesty, and nonpartisanship. Ford told Levi that he wanted the attorney general to “protect the rights of American citizens, not the President who appointed him.”
I organized Levi’s induction ceremony and was there when he declared that “nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by word and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.” For the next two years I served as one of Levi’s special assistants, working closely with a man who was always faithful to this principle.
With Levi as my model, in 1981 I became the deputy United States attorney and chief federal prosecutor of public corruption in Massachusetts. In about four years, my assistants and I won more than 40 consecutive corruption cases. Many convictions were of defendants close to the powerful mayor of Boston at the time. As a result, I received the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award and was appointed a federal judge.
Some of the cases over which I presided as judge involved corruption and were highly publicized. Most notable was the prosecution of the notorious Boston mobsters James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “the Rifleman” Flemmi. Both, it turned out, were also FBI informants. Agents in the bureau, I discovered, were involved in crimes and egregious misconduct, including murders committed by Bulger and Flemmi. I wrote a 661-page decision detailing my findings. This led to orders that the government pay more than $100 million to the families of people murdered by informants whom the FBI had improperly protected. Their FBI handler was convicted twice and sentenced to serve a total of 50 years in prison.
I also presided over a six-week trial of a former speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. After he was convicted of demanding and accepting bribes, I sentenced him to serve eight years in prison.
I decided all of my cases based on the facts and the law, without regard to politics, popularity, or my personal preferences. That is how justice is supposed to be administered — equally for everyone, without fear or favor. This is the opposite of what is happening now.
As I watched in dismay and disgust from my position on the bench, I came to feel deeply uncomfortable operating under the necessary ethical rules that muzzle judges’ public statements and restrict their activities. Day after day, I observed in silence as President Trump, his aides, and his allies dismantled so much of what I dedicated my life to.
When I became a senior judge in 2013, my successor was appointed, so my resignation will not create a vacancy to be filled by the president. My colleagues on the United States District Court in Massachusetts and judges on the lower federal courts throughout the country are admirably deciding a variety of cases generated by Trump’s many executive orders and other unprecedented actions. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly removed the temporary restraints imposed on those actions by lower courts in deciding emergency motions on its “shadow docket” with little, if any, explanation. I doubt that if I remained a judge I would fare any better than my colleagues.
Others who have held positions of authority, including former federal judges and ambassadors, have been opposing this government’s efforts to undermine the principled, impartial administration of justice and distort the free and fair functioning of American democracy. They have urged me to work with them. As much as I have treasured being a judge, I can now think of nothing more important than joining them, and doing everything in my power to combat today’s existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.
What Nixon did episodically and covertly, knowing it was illegal or improper, Trump now does routinely and overtly. Prosecutorial decisions during this administration are a prime example. Because even a prosecution that ends in an acquittal can have devastating consequences for the defendant, as a matter of fairness Justice Department guidelines instruct prosecutors not to seek an indictment unless they believe there is sufficient admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trump has utterly ignored this principle. In a social-media post, he instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek indictments against three political adversaries even though the officials in charge of the investigations at the time saw no proper basis for doing so. It has been reported that New York Attorney General Letitia James was prosecuted for mortgage fraud after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of Donald Trump’s former criminal-defense lawyers, questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against James. Former FBI Director James Comey was charged after the interim U.S. attorney who had been appointed by Trump refused to seek an indictment and was forced to resign. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the third target of Trump’s social-media post, has yet to be charged.
Trump is also dismantling the offices that could and should investigate possible corruption by him and those in his orbit. Soon after he was inaugurated, Trump fired, possibly unlawfully, 18 inspectors general who were responsible for detecting and deterring fraud and misconduct in major federal agencies. The FBI’s public-corruption squad also has been eliminated. The Department of Justice’s public-integrity section has been eviscerated, reduced from 30 lawyers to only five, and its authority to investigate election fraud has been revoked.
The Department of Justice has evidently chosen to ignore matters it would in the past have likely investigated. Some directly involve the president. It has been reported that at a lavish April 2024 dinner at Mar-a-Lago, after executives from major oil companies complained about how the Biden administration’s environmental regulations were hurting their businesses, Trump said that if they raised $1 billion for his campaign he would promptly reverse those rules and policies. The executives raised the money, and Trump delivered on his promise. The law may be unclear concerning whether Trump himself could have been charged with conspiracy to bribe a public official or honest-services fraud. In addition, Trump himself may have immunity from prosecution if similar payments for his benefit continued after he became president. However, the companies that made the payments, and the individuals acting for them, could possibly be prosecuted. There is no public indication that this matter has been investigated by Trump’s Department of Justice.
As a prosecutor and judge I dealt seriously with the unlawful influence of money on official decisions. However, Trump and his administration evidently do not share this approach. After Trump launched his own cryptocurrency, $TRUMP, his Department of Justice disbanded its cryptocurrency-enforcement unit. The top 220 buyers of Trump’s cryptocurrency were invited to a dinner with Trump. Sixty-seven of them had invested more than $1 million. The top spender, Justin Sun, who was born in China and is a foreign national, reportedly spent more than $10 million. Sun also reportedly spent $75 million on investments issued by a crypto company controlled by Trump’s family. It is illegal for people who are not U.S. citizens to donate to American political candidates, and the most that anyone can donate directly to one candidate is $3,500. Ordinarily, the Department of Justice would investigate this sort of situation. There is, however, no indication that any investigation has occurred. Rather, a few months after Sun started purchasing tokens from the Trump-family cryptocurrency company, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its fraud suit against Sun and his companies pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. (Sun and his companies have denied any wrongdoing.)
Trump is not the only member of his administration whose conduct is apparently shielded from investigation. In September of last year, Tom Homan, who became Trump’s “border czar,” reportedly was recorded accepting $50,000 in cash in return for a promise to use his potential future public position to benefit a company seeking government contracts. The FBI had created the fictitious company as part of an undercover investigation. Typically, an investigation of that sort would have continued after Homan became a Department of Homeland Security official, with the FBI seeking any additional evidence of bribery. However, after Trump took office, the investigation was shut down, with the White House claiming there was no “credible evidence” of criminal wrongdoing. Weeks after the FBI investigation was reported, Homan denied taking $50,000 “from anybody” and has said he did “nothing criminal.” An honest investigation could reveal who is telling the truth.
There is also the matter of Trump’s executive orders. A good number are, in my opinion, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, contrary to the express language of the Fourteenth Amendment, one order declares that not everyone born in this country is a U.S. citizen. Trump’s administration also has deported undocumented immigrants without due process, in many cases to countries where they have no connections and will be in great danger. Although many federal judges have issued orders restraining the government’s effort to implement those executive orders, some appear to have been disobeyed by members of the Trump administration. Trump has responded by calling for federal judges to be impeached, even though the Constitution permits impeachment only for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” such as treason and bribery.
Trump’s angry attacks on the courts have coincided with an unprecedented number of serious threats against judges. There were nearly 200 from March to late May 2025 alone. These included credible death threats, hundreds of vitriolic phone calls, and anonymous, unsolicited pizza deliveries falsely made in the name of the son of a federal judge, who was murdered in the judge’s home in 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer.
Over the past 35 years I have spoken in many countries about the role of American judges in safeguarding democracy, protecting human rights, and combatting corruption. Many of these countries — including Russia, China, and Turkey — are ruled by corrupt leaders who rank among the worst abusers of human rights. These kleptocrats jail their political opponents, suppress independent media that could expose their wrongdoing, forbid free speech, punish peaceful protests, and frustrate every effort to establish an independent, impartial judiciary that could constrain these abuses. These kleptocrats have impunity in their countries because they control the police, prosecutors, and courts.
In my work around the world, I have made many friends, young and old, who have been inspired by the example of American judges, lawyers, and citizens. They have suffered greatly for trying to make their countries more like ours. Among them are impartial judges who have been imprisoned in Turkey, a brilliant young Russian lawyer who was alleged to be a spy and forced into exile, and a Venezuelan law student who almost lost sight in one eye while protesting his country’s oppressive government. They courageously share what have historically been our nation’s convictions. These brave people inspire me.
I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy. I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.
I cannot be confident that I will make a difference. I am reminded, however, of what Sen. Robert F. Kennedy said in 1966 about ending apartheid in South Africa: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave.
And as Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney wrote, sometimes the “longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.” I want to do all that I can to make this such a time.
Shocking as this moment is, none of us should pretend we weren’t warned. When Donald Trump installed Pete Hegseth — a television provocateur whose public record is soaked in belligerence, booze, and culture-war performance — as America’s Defense Secretary, the world could see exactly where it was headed.
Still, nothing prepared us for the Washington Post revelation that Hegseth personally ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” on a small wooden boat off the coast of Trinidad on Sept. 2.
You’d expect rogue militias or failed-state paramilitaries to speak that way. You don’t expect it from the man running the Pentagon.
What the Post reports is almost too grotesque to absorb.
After the first U.S. missile ripped the boat apart and set it burning, commanders watched on a live drone feed as two survivors clung desperately to the charred wreckage.
They were unarmed. They were wounded. They were no threat to anyone. They were simply alive; inconveniently alive for a man who had allegedly already given the order that there be no survivors.
And so, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the strike, the Special Operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second missile. It hit the water and blew those two men apart.
History tells us to watch out for nations that lose their moral compass in real time.
It starts when the powerful stop seeing human beings as human. It accelerates when the government itself denies any obligation to justify its killings.
And when leaders begin lying to Congress and the public to cover what they’ve done, you’re no longer looking at isolated abuses. You’re staring straight into the machinery of authoritarianism.
Instead of telling Congress that the second strike was designed to finish off wounded survivors, Pentagon officials claimed it was to “remove a navigation hazard.”
That isn’t just spin: it’s an attempt to rewrite reality.
The Post quotes Todd Huntley, a former Special Operations military lawyer now at Georgetown Law, saying exactly what any first-year law student would immediately recognize: because the U.S. is not legally “at war” with drug traffickers, killing the people on that boat “amounts to murder.”
Even if a war did exist, Huntley notes, the order to kill wounded, unarmed survivors “would in essence be an order to show no quarter,” which is defined under the Geneva Conventions as a war crime.
This isn’t an obscure legal debate. This is basic civilization. Armed states do not execute helpless people in the water.
And yet this is now U.S. policy. The boat strike on Sept. 2 was not a one-off. It was the beginning of a campaign.
The Post reports that since that first attack, Trump and Hegseth have ordered more than 20 similar missile strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing at least 80 people.
The administration insists the victims were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. But in classified briefings to Congress, Pentagon officials have not provided even one single verified name of a trafficker or gang leader they’ve killed. Lawmakers from both parties say they’ve been shown nothing beyond grainy videos of small boats being destroyed from the air.
If these men had truly been high-value cartel operatives, Trump would be parading names and photos across every rally stage in America. The silence tells its own story.
Experts warn that many of the dead may not have been traffickers at all. They may have been border-crossing migrants, subsistence fishermen, or small-scale smugglers whose crimes did not remotely justify summary execution.
International human rights groups are already calling these killings extrajudicial and illegal. Some foreign governments are asking whether the United States has effectively created a free-fire zone over parts of the Caribbean, and several have limited intelligence sharing with us for fear of being complicit in prosecutable war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This, too, has been part of the authoritarian playbook since ancient times.
Pick a foreign or criminal “other,” paint them as subhuman monsters, and then declare that the normal laws of war, morality, and basic decency no longer apply.
For years, right-wing media has been hyping Tren de Aragua as a kind of supercharged successor to MS-13, just as Trump once used MS-13 as a bludgeon to justify abuses at home.
The fact that the administration has produced no evidence for its claims isn’t a bug: it’s the point. When the government fabricates an omnipresent threat, it gives itself permission to kill whoever it wants.
This may also explain the ferocity with which Hegseth and Trump went after Democratic lawmakers when they reminded U.S. service members that they are duty-bound to disobey illegal orders.
Those officers weren’t being dramatic: they were issuing a warning grounded in fresh blood. And Hegseth’s and Trump’s panicked rage — calling for the death penalty for six members of Congress, including a decorated war hero and a CIA officer — now makes perfect sense: he knows perfectly well what he’s already ordered.
The strike on Sept. 2 is not just a policy failure; it’s a moral collapse. If the Post’s reporting is accurate — and multiple congressional offices say it is consistent with what whistleblowers have told them — then the United States has engaged in the deliberate killing of wounded, unarmed men floating in the sea.
That is the kind of conduct that topples governments, triggers war-crimes investigations, and leaves scars on nations for generations.
Nobody elected Trump or Hegseth to serve as judge, jury, and executioner for impoverished people in wooden boats. Nobody gave them the authority to murder suspects without trial. And nobody gave them the right to lie to Congress about it.
Congress must not let this pass. These allegations demand immediate public hearings, subpoena power, and full investigative authority.
If Hegseth gave an order to “kill everybody,” he must be removed and prosecuted.
If U.S. commanders falsified reports to mislead Congress and the public, they must be held accountable.
And if Trump approved or encouraged these actions, then impeachment and criminal referral are not optional: they’re required to defend the rule of law.
America doesn’t have many chances left to prove to the world, and to ourselves, that we still believe in the value of human life and the restraints of democratic power. This is one of them.
Coldwater residents have learned a valuable lesson: Actions have consequences.
Their town’s twice-elected mayor, Joe Ceballos, has been charged with felony voter fraud by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. Ceballos appears to have registered and cast ballots in multiple elections, despite not being a citizen. While you might expect townsfolk to respond with anger, that’s not the situation at all.
Indeed, a remarkable profile of Ceballos by veteran Kansas journalist Roy Wenzl shows a town shocked that such a good guy — “He’s more American than I am,” a friend said — would be charged. He’s a die-hard Republican in a place full of them. More than 83% of Comanche County voters picked Donald Trump for president last year. More than 78% appear to have chosen Kobach in 2022.
“If deportation happens, I can tell you that Kobach will have trouble showing up here, especially if he asks to stay with us for a while,” said Dennis Swayze, a rancher who mentored Ceballos.
But the attorney general hasn’t done anything wrong here. Kansas voters know precisely where Kobach stands and what he means to do. They have voted for him repeatedly. Trump, likewise, made no secret of his desire to oversee the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. Violent or nonviolent, with legal status or not, immigrants would be targeted.
That’s what Kobach and Trump promised.
Trump on immigrants in late 2023: “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country.”
Kobach just last month on the Coldwater case: “It still effectively takes the vote away or cancels the vote of a U.S. citizen.”
Most town residents voted for these men. Whether they realize it or not, they’re getting what they wanted. On Election Day, they chose cruelty.
Expressions of dazed disbelief punctuate Wenzl’s story like infuriating landmines: “If you know Joe, you know Kobach picked the wrong guy” “Deportation would be, as I told Joe, like sending me to Egypt.” “He doesn’t take anything about America for granted.”
Residents who know Ceballos agonized about his voter registration, wondering if they should have provided better guidance. He made an honest mistake back in 1991, they say, and the mayor shouldn’t be made to pay the price.
But as they agonized, none appears to make the leap that their blind allegiance to a party that demonizes immigrants might have contributed to the problem.
Even today, even after these events, Ceballos’ friend Ryan Swayze offered this thumbnail political analysis: “Democrats think the government provides, while Republicans think the government should let us just do our thing.”
Republicans just let them do their thing, huh? Not in this case!
Here are some hard truths for the people of Coldwater.
As sure as if every Republican voter of Coldwater lined up to cast a stone at Ceballos, their choices at the ballot box in 2024 and 2022 had the same traumatic effect. They did this to their friend. They did this to their mayor. They did this to their beloved town fixture. And until they figure this out, our country and our state is not going to get better.
Take responsibility. Own up to your actions.
People whose brains have been liquefied by conservative propaganda believe they’re never to blame for adverse consequences. Setbacks always must be the doing of nefarious leftists. They’ve been turned into perpetual victims, always losing to a Clinton or an Obama or a Soros. But, of course, the fact is they’re part of one of the most successful political movements in American history. That political movement has goals and policies that are meant to be enacted.
If you demand responsibility and accountability from others, you must be willing to demand it from yourself as well. Follow conservative Republican beliefs to their logical conclusion and you will see many more good people punished for honest mistakes.
I didn’t feel great after reading Wenzl’s story. The mayor has all but admitted to the charges against him and said he voted in practically every election over the past 30-some years. If convicted of a felony, he seems likely to face deportation. Removal from the country could happen anyway, his lawyer fears.
That will leave Coldwater, Kansas and the United States all worse off. I sympathize with the mayor and wish state officials could show more empathy.
But that’s not what the majority of the public wanted. That’s not what Coldwater voted for. They should sit with that shame.
To paraphrase Walt Kelly: They have met the enemy and he is them.
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.
Thursday was probably, politically and spiritually, the darkest Thanksgiving for our nation in our lifetimes. So how about a quick story out of America’s earliest history that eerily echoes this moment and may give us some hope?
Donald Trump has told us he’s going to use the 1807 Insurrection Act to declare a state of emergency, which will allow him to round up not only undocumented immigrants but also his political opponents, who he refers to as “the enemy within.” He came to power using Willie Horton-style ads trashing trans people and is happy to demonize anybody else who stands up to his hunger for absolute power.
In an age-old technique usually employed during wartime, Trump regularly uses the rhetoric America has employed against foreign enemies to characterize Americans who disagree with him and his policies. Remember the “raghead” slurs against Arabs from the Afghan and Iraqi wars? Or politicians referring to Vietnamese in the 1970s as “slants” and “gooks”?
My dad, who volunteered to fight in World War II straight out of high school, called Germans and Japanese “krauts” and “Japs” to his dying days. American propaganda during wartime encouraged popular usage of these racist characterizations.
In this regard, Trump’s trying to lie us into two different wars. The first is an external war against Venezuela, using America’s drug problem as an excuse. The other is something very much like a 21st-century version of a second civil war. A war by Americans against Americans, with his masked secret-police ICE army at the forefront.
Often history tells us how the future may turn out: Trump isn’t the first American politician to use lies and slanders to whip up a war-like frenzy. Or to use the language of war for political gain.
George Bush Jr wasn’t the first president to have lied to us about foreign affairs and war, or to use lies to justify eviscerating the Constitution. For example, Lyndon Johnson lied about a non-existent attack on the US warship Maddox in the Vietnamese Gulf of Tonkin. William McKinley (the presidency after which Karl Rove has said he’d modeled the Bush presidency) lied about an attack on the USS Maine to get us into the Spanish-American war in the Philippines and Cuba.
But most relevant to today's situation were John Adams’ version of Trump’s slanders when Adams sent three emissaries to France and criminals soliciting bribes approached them late one evening. Adams referred to these three unidentified Frenchmen as “Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z,” and made them out to represent such an insult and a threat against America that it may presage war.
Adams’ use of “The XYZ Affair” to gain political capital — much like Trump demonizes the pilots of small boats off the coast of Venezuela and anti-ICE protestors in his fantasized “war zones” like Portland for political gain — nearly led us to war with France and helped Adams carve a large (although temporary) hole in the Constitution. Similarly, much like Trump’s anti-media “enemy of the people” rhetoric, Adams then used that frenzy to jail newspaper editors and average citizens alike who spoke out against him and his policies.
The backstory is both fascinating and hopeful.
In the late 1790s, Adams was president and Jefferson was vice president. Adams led the Federalist Party (which today could be said to have reincarnated as the Republican Party), and Jefferson had just brought together two Anti-Federalist parties — the Democrats and the Republicans — into one party called the Democratic Republicans. (Today they’re known as the Democratic Party, the longest-lasting political party in history. They dropped “Republican” from their name in the 1820-30 era).
Adams and his Federalist cronies, using war hysteria with France as a wedge issue, were pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts through Congress, and even threw into prison Democratic Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont for speaking out against the Federalists on the floor of the House.
Adams was leading the US in the direction of a fascistic state with a spectacularly successful strategy of vilifying Jefferson and his party as anti-American and pro-French. He was America’s first Trump, albeit nowhere near as toxic or psychopathic.
Adams’ rhetoric was described as “manly” by the Federalist newspapers, which admiringly published dozens of his threatening rants against France, suggesting that Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans were less than patriots and perhaps even traitors because of their opposition to the unnecessary war with France that Adams was simultaneously trying to gin up and saying he was working to avoid.
On June 1, 1798 — two weeks before the Alien & Sedition Acts passed Congress by a single vote — Jefferson wrote a thoughtful letter to his old friend John Taylor.
“This is not new,” Jefferson said. “It is the old practice of despots; to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order. And those who have once got an ascendancy and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantage.
“But,” he added, “our present situation is not a natural one.”
Jefferson knew that Adams’ Federalists did not represent the true heart and soul of America, and commented to Taylor about how Adams had been using divide-and-conquer politics, and fear-mongering about war with France (the XYZ Affair) with some success.
“But still I repeat it,” he wrote again to Taylor, “this is not the natural state.”
Jefferson did everything he could to stop that generation’s version of Trump, but Adams had the Federalists in control of both the House and the Senate, and pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. In protest, Jefferson left town the day they were signed, never to return until after Adams left the presidency.
Jefferson later wrote in his personal diary how it would — like today, with California and Illinois leading the charge against Trump’s neofascist agenda — fall to the states to prevent the loss of American democracy:
“Their usurpations and violations of the Constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the [Democratic] Republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch.”
Democratic Republican Congressman Albert Gallatin submitted legislation that would repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Federalist majority in the House refused to even consider the motion, while informing Gallatin that he would be the next to be imprisoned if he kept speaking out against “the national security.”
Adams then shut down almost 30 newspapers, throwing their publishers, editors, and writers in prison. The most famous to go to jail was Ben Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache. Within a few months, Adams had effectively silenced the opposition.
Then he went after average citizens who spoke out against him.
Adams and his wife traveled the country in a fine carriage surrounded by a military contingent. As the Adams’ family entourage, full of pomp and ceremony, passed through Newark, New Jersey, a man named Luther Baldwin was sitting in a tavern and probably quite unaware that he was about to make a fateful comment that would help change history.
As Adams rode by, soldiers manning the Newark cannons loudly shouted the Adams-mandated chant, “Behold the chief who now commands!” and fired their salutes.
Hearing the cannon fire as Adams drove by outside the bar, in a moment of drunken candor Luther Baldwin said, “There goes the President and they are firing at his arse.” Baldwin further compounded his sin by adding that, “I do not care if they fire thro’ his arse!”
The tavern’s owner, a Federalist named John Burnet, overheard the remark and turned Baldwin in to Adams’ thought police: The hapless drunk was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for uttering “seditious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States.”
It was the darkest moment in our new nation’s short history. But then a new force arose.
When Adams shut down the Democratic Republican newspapers, pamphleteers — that generation’s version of Substack writers not affiliated with national publications — went to work, papering towns from New Hampshire to Georgia with posters and leaflets decrying Adams’ power grab and encouraging the state governments to stand tall with Thomas Jefferson.
One of the best was a short screed by George Nicholas of Kentucky, “Justifying the Kentucky Resolution against the Alien & Sedition Laws” and “Correcting Certain False Statements, Which Have Been Made in the Different States” by Adams’ Federalists.
Thomas Jefferson. (Rembrandt Peale/New York Historical Society)
On Feb. 13, 1799, then-Vice President Jefferson had a courier hand-deliver a letter and copy of Nicholas’ pamphlet to his old friend Archibald Stuart (a Virginia legislator, fighter in the War of Independence, and leader of Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans).
“I avoid writing to my friends because the fidelity of the post office is very much doubted,” he opened his letter to Stuart, concerned that Adams was having his mail inspected because of his anti-war activities.
Jefferson pointed out that “France is sincerely anxious for reconciliation, willing to give us a liberal treaty,” and that even with the Democratic newspapers shut down by Adams and the Federalist-controlled media being unwilling to speak of Adams’ war lies, word was getting out to the people.
Jefferson noted:
“All these things are working on the public mind. They are getting back to the point where they were when the X. Y. Z. story was passed off on them. A wonderful and rapid change is taking place in Pennsylvania, Jersey, and New York. Congress is daily plied with petitions against the alien and sedition laws and standing armies.”
Jefferson then turned to the need for the pamphleteers’ materials to be widely distributed across states that might resist Adams.
“The materials now bearing on the public mind will infallibly restore it to its republican soundness in the course of the present summer,” he wrote, “if the knowledge of facts can only be disseminated among the people. Under separate cover you will receive some pamphlets written by George Nicholas on the [Alien and Sedition] acts of the last session. These I would wish you to distribute....”
The pamphleteer — today he would have been called a Substack writer — was James Bradford, and he reprinted tens of thousands of copies of Nicholas’ pamphlet and distributed it far and wide. Hand to hand, as Jefferson did with his by-courier letter to Stuart, was how what would be today’s independent progressive writings are distributed via email.
In the face of the pamphleteering and protests, the Federalists fought back with startling venom. It was led by a media machine — the remaining newspapers — largely owned by wealthy Adams backers as the Jefferson-backing newspapers had been shut down and their publishers and editors imprisoned.
Vicious personal attacks were launched in the Federalist press against Jefferson, Madison, and others, and President Adams and Vice President Jefferson were no longer on speaking terms. Adams’ goal was nothing short of the complete destruction of Jefferson’s Democratic Party, and he had scared many of them into silence or submission.
“All [Democratic Republicans], therefore, retired,” Jefferson wrote in his diary, “leaving Mr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where I then presided as Vice-President.
“Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of [Democratic] Republicans in phalanx together, until the legislature could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the [Democratic] Republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the [Democratic] Republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair; and the cause would have been lost forever.”
But Jefferson in the Senate and Gallatin in the House held their posts and fought back fiercely against Adams, thus saving — quite literally — American democracy. Jefferson and Madison also secretly helped legislators in Virginia and Kentucky submit resolutions in those states’ legislatures decrying the Alien & Sedition Acts. The bill in Virginia, in particular, gained traction.
As Jefferson noted in his diary, between his and Gallatin’s resistance in Washington, DC and several state governments standing up against Adams’ having shut down their newspapers and using the army to threaten their protestors:
“By holding on, we obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by their celebrated resolutions, saved the Constitution at its last gasp. No person who was not a witness of the scenes of that gloomy period, can form any idea of the afflicting persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our country however.
“The spirits of the people were so much subdued and reduced to despair by the XYZ imposture, and other stratagems and machinations, that they would have sunk into apathy and monarchy, as the only form of government which could maintain itself.”
The efforts of that century’s truth-tellers made great gains. The states were fighting back, even challenging Adams’ massive, naked power grab and war-mongering. As Jefferson noted in a Feb. 14, 1799 letter to Virginia’s Edmund Pendleton:
“The violations of the Constitution, propensities to war, to expense, and to a particular foreign connection, which we have lately seen, are becoming evident to the people, and are dispelling that mist which X. Y. Z. had spread before their eyes. This State is coming forward with a boldness not yet seen. Even the German counties of York and Lancaster, hitherto the most devoted [to Adams], have come about, and by petitions with four thousand signers remonstrate against the alien and sedition laws, standing armies, and discretionary powers in the President.”
Americans and several state leaders were so angry with Adams, Jefferson noted, that the challenge was to prevent people from taking up arms against Adams’ Federalists. He worried out loud that the resistance may, if it erupted into violence, give Adams an excuse to declare an insurrection and totally end democracy:
“New York and Jersey are also getting into great agitation. In this State [of Pennsylvania], we fear that the ill-designing may produce insurrection. Nothing could be so fatal. Anything like force would check the progress of the public opinion and rally them round the government. This is not the kind of opposition the American people will permit.”
Like today’s progressive movement led by people like Bernie Sanders, JB Pritzker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Gavin Newsom, and Elizabeth Warren, Jefferson knew that peaceful protests had greater power than police violence or even threats like Trump‘s war-mongering against Venezuela today.
“But keep away all show of force,” he wrote to Pendleton, “and they will bear down the evil propensities of the government, by the constitutional means of election and petition. If we can keep quiet, therefore, the tide now turning will take a steady and proper direction.”
A week later, Feb. 21, 1799, Jefferson wrote to the great Polish general who had fought in the American Revolution, Thaddeus Kosciusko, a close friend then living in Russia. War for political purposes was the great enemy of democracy, Jefferson noted, and peace was its champion. And the American people were increasingly siding with peace and rejecting Adams’ call for war.
“The wonderful irritation produced in the minds of our citizens by the X. Y. Z. story, has in a great measure subsided,” he noted. “They begin to suspect and to see it coolly in its true light.”
But Adams was still President, and for him and his Federalist Party even a “little war” with France would have helped tremendously with the upcoming election of 1800. And in France some leaders wanted war with America for similar reasons.
Jefferson continued:
“What course the government will pursue, I know not. But if we are left in peace, I have no doubt the wonderful turn in the public opinion now manifestly taking place and rapidly increasing, will, in the course of this’ summer, become so universal and so weighty, that friendship abroad and freedom at home will be firmly established by the influence and constitutional powers of the people at large.”
And if Adams’ rhetoric led to an attack on America by France?
“If we are forced into war,” Jefferson noted, “we must give up political differences of opinion, and unite as one man to defend our country. But whether at the close of such a war, we should be as free as we are now, God knows.”
The tide was turned, to use Jefferson’s phrase, by the election of 1800, as Dan Sisson and I document in our book, The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from Tyranny and Faction — and What This Means Today.
The abuses of the Federalists were so burned into the people’s minds when Jefferson's party came to power in 1801 and he freed the imprisoned newspaper editors, that the Federalists disintegrated altogether as a party over the next two decades.
As may well happen to Trump’s GOP two or four years from now.
All because average citizens and pamphleteers — and a handful of progressive politicians and states — stood up and challenged the lies of a fear-mongering president, and politicians of principle were willing to lead.
America has been burdened by lying presidents before, and even one who tried to destroy our Constitution like Trump is today threatening to do. But in our era — like in Jefferson’s — we are fortunate to have radical truth-tellers and political allies to warn us of treasonous acts for political gain.
If we stand in solidarity with today’s truth-tellers, and more politicians step forward to take a leadership role, then it’s entirely possible that with the elections of 2026 and 2028 American democracy can once again prevail.
By Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, US Army War College.
As an analyst who has worked on security issues for over 30 years, I've been monitoring the US military build-up in the Caribbean for months.
The US administration now has the potential to take decisive military action in Venezuela.
Washington has described Nicolás Maduro as the leader of a terrorist group and deemed his regime illegitimate.
The US has named its mission in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean "Operation Southern Spear" and briefed President Donald Trump on military options.
The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford gives the US Joint Task Force established in the region the option to launch a high volume of attacks against land targets, should Trump give the order. According to media reports, there are now 15,000 troops in the region, including marines on ships and some 5,000 personnel at bases in Puerto Rico.
This massive deployment has, arguably, sought to convince Maduro's loyalists that US action is now an option on the table.
The message is clear: if a military solution is pursued, the US is highly likely to be successful.
This quantity of US military hardware in the region has not been seen since "Operation Uphold Democracy" in Haiti in 1994, when American-led forces helped end the military regime that had overthrown the democratically elected government.
The most modern aircraft carrier in the US Navy is the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Its ability to rapidly launch and recover the 75 modern fighter aircraft on board would allow it to generate a significant number of strikes against Venezuelan targets. This would serve as a complement to the substantial numbers of missiles and other weapons on the other ships in the region.
It joins an Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. This group includes a helicopter dock ship and two landing platform vessels capable of transporting the 2,200 marines of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and their vehicles and equipment onto land, should they be needed.
If such an event occurs, they would be transported by V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, helicopters and rapid air cushioned landing craft with the capacity to carry marines and heavier equipment over the beach to their objectives.
In addition, the US has six destroyers and two cruisers with hundreds of missiles for both land attack and air defence and an AC-130 gunship capable of delivering high volumes of missiles against land targets.
The special operations force's support ship, the "Ocean Trader", is also in the region and there is at least one attack submarine under the water's surface.
Then on nearby US territory in Puerto Rico, the US has at least 10 F-35s, the most advanced fighter jet in the world. Flight tracking shows on Nov. 21 at least four additional aircraft were flown into the region from the US.
These capabilities are further complemented by rapidly deployable assets from nearby bases in the continental US, from which the US has already flown sorties with B-52 and B-1 bombers.
At least one MQ-9 Reaper attack and surveillance drone has also been deployed in the region.
The imbalance of military firepower cannot be overstated. The small number of man-portable Igla-S anti-aircraft weapons that Maduro can rely on could take out a handful of US helicopters. But it is likely that few are in workable condition and even those may not be in the hands of people who know how to use them.
Venezuela has around 63,000 soldiers, 23,000 troops in the National Guard and 15,000 marines. There are also unknown thousands in the militia. A submarine, two frigates, two corvettes and several missile and patrol boats are patrolling the coast. But they are massively dwarfed by the number, power and reach of what the US has stationed there.
Any move by Venezuelans to oust Maduro themselves could be supported by limited US operations on land targets, including military leaders and facilities supporting what the US alleges are drug operations.
Should a home-grown attempt be unsuccessful, a large-scale, decisive US operation to capture or eliminate the regime's leadership, is one option.
One way this could be done could involve a massive barrage of missiles and strikes by stealth aircraft, supported by electronic warfare, special operations missions, and clandestine operations from inside the country. The aim would be to take down the regime’s air defence systems, command nodes, fighter aircraft and other threats.
Whether the United States would follow up such an operation with "boots on the ground" is not certain.
But if Washington has the will, the US certainly has the military might needed to remove the US-designated terrorist group "Cartel de los Soles," including its alleged head, Maduro, which it claims is a threat to US interests.
I'm not writing to you today about all the things I am thankful for as our 2025 holiday season visits us, because I am too damn busy with what makes me furious to type otherwise.
We are a country at war against fascism, and its racist, evil residue. We are at war against a dark, lawless, centralized force that does not believe all men and women are created equal, and do the bidding of soulless billionaires who fund all this hell to pad their absurd fortunes.
You can say I don’t have my priorities straight, and in return I will do you the courtesy of suggesting you quit reading now, to save you your precious time. Hopefully, we can catch up again next week.
To the brave who have stayed, I will endeavor to put down words of molten steel that do you justice, and send my gratitude for your heart and soul. You are what is needed in abundance right now as we stare down the most dangerous time in America since the 1860s.
So thank you for your fight.
I have always loved the notion of Thanksgiving and hope to celebrate it with vigor again someday. It was a time for friends, food, football and family. It was a break from school, and later the chaos of working a 50-hour-a-week job, that never seemed to love me as much as I loved it. Journalism always called, and I always listened, but Thanksgiving was my day to try to tune it all out.
Now I refuse to tune anything out, because there is danger everywhere. It is in our streets and in our homes. In our churches and our government. In our workplaces and in our personal business.
This Thanksgiving, I did not invite anybody into my home who I know supports the grotesque, anti-American Donald Trump, nor did I accept any invitation to be anyplace where I might find people who do.
And you can save the high-minded, snooty lecturing that goes something like this: “Come on, Earl, can’t you just let it go one day, and drop the politics?”
No. No I can’t. And I don’t understand how anybody can. We aren’t dealing with a difference of politics in 2025 America, we are dealing with a difference in human decency and monstrous vulgarity.
Democracy vs. monarchy.
I have my lines, and I won’t be crossing them. Ever.
Besides, I don’t trust myself not to haul off and belt a Trump supporter at some gathering, because I unabashedly hate these people and the tiny, no-good things they stand for with a blistering rage. I hate them for enabling this hell, and the hurt they are unnecessarily bringing to millions of lives here and around the world.
They are heartless, thoughtless bullies, who only look after themselves, because they are too weak in mind and body to carry anything else besides what they stuff in their big mouths and bottomless pockets.
Look, I tried for the better part of eight years to reason with these people, but I’m done with that. Old friendships, are now dead and gone. If Trump appeals to you, then you’ll want no part of me, because it turns out we have nothing in common.
You go your way, and just keep on going …
Our democracy is hanging by a thread, and I will not surround myself with people who make excuses for racists, and make it harder, not easier, for people to feed themselves, clothe themselves, and get the medical care they deserve.
And I have lost every inch of patience I might have had in the reserve for the selfish and willingly ignorant who don’t have the decency to care either way. They are the ones who really fry my ass.
You know the type. They’ll tell you how tired of it all they are, and that they have enough problems in their lives without having to deal with the rest.
How nice for them that they can concentrate only on themselves at the expense of the millions who are less fortunate. Turns out, they are the reason we are here, and how Nazi Germany happened so many decades ago.
Indifference is nothing but appeasement wrapped in a suffocating cloak of willing ignorance. It’s weak, and lifeless.
Believe me, I wish more than anything it wasn’t this way. I wish I could wake up and sit down with my cup of coffee, devour my newspapers, and then write about beautiful things. I know they are out there, and I endeavor to be among them whenever possible. But these days I see these things as needing our protection from bloodthirsty Republican politicians, and the corporate raiders who fill their overflowing bank accounts, who are coming after them.
Our air, our water and our animals are all under steady attack by these corporate heathens who worship guns, and killing above all, and then have the gall to tell us how important life is.
Just this week, it was announced Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency will be abandoning air pollution rules that save thousands of lives a year. What kind of sick ghoul would support such a thing? Hundreds of thousands of children with asthma will now be at risk, because some fat cat loser believes in profits over breath.
As I climb toward the end of my life, I want it known that I stood for what is good and right — on Thanksgiving and every day. I want it known that I stood for an America that I served in the Navy back in the ‘70s when we knew oppressive places like fascist Russia were the enemy, instead of the strong arms of the cowardice Republican Party.
I want it known I stood for voting rights, equal rights, and women’s rights.
I want it known I stood for our environment and its air, water and wildlife that make life truly worth living.
I want it known I stood for democracy and against fascism.
I want it known that if you can’t stand for at least this much then you are my enemy, not my friend, and I will work tirelessly to defeat you and your morbid kind.
Because if these anti-American fascists will come after a patriot’s patriot like Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), they’ll damn sure come after us.
They are desperate, have no ideas for improving America, and stand with a woman-abusing, draft-dodging, America-attacking goon, who is rotting from the inside out.
They must be stopped, because they are traitors. All of 'em.
This might not be the message you wanted to read as we steam through the holidays, but I am mad and indignant. I am giving more than I get.
I am not standing for this shit.
We beat this rotten son of a bitch fair and square once, and then didn't do all we could to make sure he stayed beaten. I am furious about this, and will never let it go.
I’ll give plenty of thanks when he and his terrible kind are gone.
Until then, I will rage.
I will fight.
I will resist.
And I will never give up the ship.
A kakistocracy is a system of government where the most unfit, incompetent, and unscrupulous individuals are in power. Such a system does not reflect rational decision-making. Instead, Trump’s kakistocracy is emerging as the consequence of systemic failures (by Donald Trump’s design), corruption (ditto), and societal dynamics (manipulated, but not wholly created, by Trump).
Malevolence may also be a factor. Outside his naked lust for power, profit, and retribution, Trump has shown little interest in governing. After DOGE trashed most federal services, the only departments left fully operational are Trump’s well-funded instruments of power and control: ICE/DHS, FBI, DOJ, DOD, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the US military.
But as Trump seeks to grossly expand his reach through these entities, it is gratifying to watch his hand get slapped back, largely due to his and his administration’s incompetence, by federal courts insisting on the rule of law.
On Monday, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out Trump’s cases of political retribution against James Comey and Letitia James, after a parade of incompetence.
The cases were dismissed without prejudice when Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was acting without authority when she obtained the Comey and James indictments. This slap came not for Halligan’s career-ending errors, like failing to present the complete indictment to the complete grand jury, misstating the law to jurors, or for doing Trump’s illegal partisan bidding, but because her appointment as the interim U.S. Attorney was unlawful under both federal law and the US Constitution.
The arcana of judicial appointment procedure may seem boring, even inconsequential, but what Trump tried to do with Halligan demonstrates that it is anything but. Judicial appointments are governed by the article II of the Constitution, and 28 U.S.C. § 546. Under these authorities, a president gets to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for a 120-day appointment. When that 120-day period runs out, the authority to fill the position then shifts to the federal judiciary, not the president acting through his Attorney General.
That shift is enormously consequential. It was designed to block rogue actors from appointing one interim US attorney after another, running through a roster of unethical lawyers willing to break the law by pursuing cases based on politics rather than law.
That is exactly what happened with Halligan.
Judge Currie held that the initial 120-day appointment clock began in January with Trump’s appointment of Erik Siebert, the previous interim U.S. Attorney. Seibert’s 120-day interim period expired on May 21 but the district court judges, following federal law, reappointed him to serve until the vacancy was filled. Trump then nominated him for the full-term position, so he continued to serve.
However, in September, Siebert refused Trump’s request that he pursue criminal charges against Trump’s political enemies, Comey and James. Trump loyalists claimed James falsified property records to receive better loan terms, and that Comey made a false statement to Congress, despite the lack of evidence. Seibert spent five months investigating but ultimately determined there was not enough evidence to proceed with either case. (When Fair Housing officials agreed in internal memos that James committed no crime, they were dismissed.)
Because Seibert refused to pursue unethical and unsupported indictments, Trump wanted to fire him, but Seibert beat him to the punch and resigned. At that point, AG Pam Bondi backdoor-installed Halligan as Seibert’s replacement, but that decision was up to the courts, not Trump. Because Halligan was not legally appointed to serve as interim US attorney, the court ruled that she had no authority to pursue the Comey and James indictments and threw them out.
When Seibert said no, he wouldn’t risk his law license to pursue Trump’s wet dream prosecutions unsupported by law, he wrote a “declination memo,” a standard memo outlining the reasons why. That memo featured prominently in a related hearing that revealed yet another lawless DOJ move.
DOJ counsel refused to answer another judge's simple “yes or no” question about whether Seibert wrote such a memo. When Judge Michael Nachmanoff got irritated by the DOJ lawyer’s cagey responses, he pressed until the lawyer finally admitted the reason for his reticence: Because Todd Blanche, Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, instructed him not to admit the declination memo existed.
Federal trial attorneys know that lying by omission to a federal judge, or a lack of candor in response to any judge’s inquiry, if proved, is grounds for disbarment. I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that many of Trump’s DOJ lawyers will find alternative careers when Trump leaves office.
In the meantime, these dismissals are gratifying because they prove that evil intent can be thwarted — trumped, if you will, by vast incompetence.
As a 30-year litigator, I know it is unseemly — unprofessional, even — to enjoy seeing a strident lawyer with more confidence than competence get her comeuppance for acting unethically.
But in this space, I’m a political writer suddenly laughing at the realization that authoritarianism can’t prevail here because it requires competence. It’s funny as hell and the schadenfreude is delicious.
This week’s shooting of two National Guard members by a gunman identified by the authorities as an Afghan national was horrific.
But Trump’s response has been disproportionate and bigoted. He vows to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.” He intends to deport legal immigrants born in countries the White House deems “high risk.”
He threatens to strip U.S. citizenship from naturalized migrants “who undermine domestic tranquillity.” He plans to deport foreigners deemed to be “non-compatible with Western Civilization.” He wants to detain even more migrants in jail — in the U.S. or in other countries — without due process.
In addition to the unconstitutionality of such actions, these threats stir up the worst nativist impulses in America — blaming and scapegoating entire groups of people for the act of one gunman.
Apart from Native Americans, we are all immigrants — all descended from “foreigners.” Some of our ancestors came here eagerly; some came because they were no longer safe in their homelands; some came enslaved.
Almost all of us are mongrels — of mixed nationalities, mixed ethnicities, mixed races, mixed creeds. While we maintain our own traditions, we also embrace the ideals of this nation.
Here’s how Ronald Reagan put it in a 1988 speech, in which he explained:
“I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, ‘You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won’t become a German or a Turk.’ But then he added, ‘Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.’”
A person becomes an American by adopting America’s principles, especially those principles summarized in the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Carl Friedrich wrote that “To be an American is an ideal, while to be a Frenchman is a fact.”
As an immigrant friend once put it to me: “I was always an American; I was just born in the wrong country.”
I don’t think I’ve ever quoted Reagan before. He was wrong about so many things. Yet Reagan understood something fundamental to this nation that Trump doesn’t have a clue about: America is an idea — a set of aspirations and ideals — more than a nationality.
The only thing Trump knows is that he needs to fuel bigotry. His Straight White Male Christian Nationalism requires prejudice against anyone who’s not.
Like dictators before him, Trump’s road to tyranny is paved with stones hurled at “them.” His entire project depends on hate.
America is better than this.
We won’t buy Trump’s hate. To the contrary, we’ll call out bigots. We won’t tolerate intolerance. We’ll protect hardworking members of our community. We’ll alert them when ICE is lurking.
We will not succumb to the ravings of a venomous president who wants us to hate each other.
Donald Trump and his allies are using the long-employed tactic of demonizing a targeted population to turn public opinion against them. In carrying out ICE deportation raids on undocumented immigrants, they are using dehumanizing rhetoric to portray their targets as undesirables whose deportation cleanses the country.
Trump began by smearing undocumented immigrants as “murderers and rapists,” inspiring fear among Americans and creating a fictitious bogeyman. Nearly two centuries ago, Southerners used similar rhetoric, characterizing Black men as biologically inferior brutes, a nightmarish threat to every white woman.
Rather than using neutral terms such as “undocumented” or “unauthorized” in referring to immigrants, Republican politicians and conservative commentators use the dehumanizing pejorative “illegal alien” or just ”alien.” Trump has called them “animals” and “invaders” who are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The vile intent is to inspire fear, create negative public opinion, and justify mass deportations.
Along similar lines, during World War II, racial epithets were used to instill fear and hatred of Japanese-Americans and justify their incarceration in relocation camps. Hitler and the Nazis referred to Jews as “vermin,” “rats” “parasites,” and untermenschen (sub-human) to foster hatred among Germans as a prelude to unspeakable atrocities.
Hitler also attempted to erase from German minds the contributions of Jews to culture, science, business, law, and medicine. Similarly, Trump and his allies are trying to erase from American minds the contributions undocumented immigrants have made.
There are approximately 14 million undocumented immigrants in the US; 94 percent of undocumented immigrant households have at least one working adult, compared to only 73 percent of U.S.-born households; over half of undocumented immigrants have lived and worked in the US for a decade or more.
If there were a supply of Americans willing to labor in the fields, work in slaughterhouses and on poultry farms, clean America’s 1.8 million hotel rooms, and buss tables and clean kitchens in America’s half-million restaurants, employers would hire them. Undocumented immigrants have provided the essential low-wage workforce which major industries depend on.
In 2023, undocumented immigrants paid $89.8 billion in taxes and contributed $299 billion to the economy as consumers. The amount spent on undocumented immigrants for medical, educational, and police services is significantly less than their contribution.
That undocumented immigrants come to the US for the free services is a favored falsehood of the right. Mexican immigrants have been coming to the US since the 1940s to escape poverty and find work. When there is a significant drop in job opportunities in the US, such as in the recession of 2008 or during the COVID-19 pandemic, undocumented immigration drops. When job opportunities rise, immigration rises too.
American employers have not only welcomed undocumented immigrants, they have recruited them. For decades, farmers have used farm labor contractors to recruit workers from other countries, predominantly Mexico. American employers have been complicit in keeping the border crossings of undocumented immigrants flowing.
It is unlawful for any US employer to recruit or hire undocumented immigrants, yet thousands have done it with relative impunity for decades. While undocumented immigrants are being deported in record numbers, employers suffer no consequences aside from a growing shortage of workers.
Many of these employers are Republicans, including the vast majority of farmers who have been among Trump’s most faithful supporters. For years, Trump has employed undocumented immigrants. The man who calls undocumented immigrants “murderers and rapists” has gladly employed them unlawfully for his personal gain.
The Trump administration’s claim that deportation of undocumented immigrants focuses on those with criminal records is a lie. Less than 10 percent of deported undocumented immigrants have criminal records beyond traffic tickets and non-violent misdemeanors. If undocumented, Trump would be among the criminal deportees based on his record as a convicted felon and a convicted sexual abuser.
Over 90 percent of undocumented deportees have no criminal record, and the vast majority have been employed in the US, abiding by the law and filling the employment needs of American businesses.
Deportations are tearing apart families, separating mothers and fathers from their American-born children. The children have the option of leaving with their parents, remaining in the US under guardianship, or being put in foster care. Not surprisingly, many end up leaving with their parents, torn from their country of birth, facing poverty in a foreign country.
Rather than being dehumanized and deported by the heartless, hypocritical Trump administration, undocumented immigrants should be recognized by all Americans for their decades-long contributions to the country. They boost the US economy, provide essential workers for major US industries, enrich the culture, exemplify strong family values, and have helped put food on the tables of the American people for over half a century.
For Americans who condemn undocumented immigrants for the “crime” of entering the US illegally, they must equally condemn the thousands of employers who hire them and a government that has turned a blind eye for over 70 years.
All undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for years, abided by the law, and paid their taxes have earned a pathway to citizenship, a belief shared by Republican president Ronald Reagan. As a nation, we owe them no less. Today, however, they must live in the shadows, under constant threat.
The way undocumented immigrants are being treated by the Trump administration is a disgrace, bringing shame that history will record. Men and women who for decades have provided their labor to help enrich the country and make a better life for themselves don’t deserve to be vilified and thrown out.
As Hitler rounded up the Jews, most Germans remained silent. As the US government forced Japanese-Americans into camps, most Americans remained silent. As Trump-instructed ICE agents round up undocumented immigrants for deportation, will we remain silent too?
If unjust treatment of a people by a government is met with silence, that treatment will grow and flourish. As John Stuart Mill said in 1867, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Time and again, history has proven him right.
President Donald Trump’s saber-rattling about potential military action in Venezuela is indeed about drugs, but not cocaine. It is about a far more dangerous drug that former President George W. Bush admitted (in his 2006 State of the Union address) the US is addicted to.
Oil.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world — 300 billion barrels — even larger than reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Trump and his oil industry friends may imagine that by deposing President Nicolás Maduro and installing a friendly government there, the US would have unlimited access to this huge oil reserve, which is five times larger than the proven reserves in the US.
Never mind the fact that for any hope of future climate stability, most of this oil needs to stay right where it is: in the ground.
We’ve seen this tragic play before. The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which, as it turned out, it didn’t.
As US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq War at the time: “Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.”
The invasion killed tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians, and destabilized the broader Middle East region for years.
And now here we go again. A similar pretext — this time “drug interdiction” — is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela. But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on.
Oil.
As Colombian President Gustavo Petro recently stated on the US-Venezuela threat: “Oil is at the heart of the matter.”
Instead of admitting their addiction, the damage it causes, and committing to recovery, hardcore junkies are always desperate for more supply. It seems Mr. Trump and his oil industry friends are the most dangerous narco-traffickers we need to worry about.
This commentary was originally published by Big Pivots.
The Sand Creek Massacre comes to mind in reading about U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a decorated combat veteran who declared that members of the U.S. military must refuse illegal orders.
“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” said Crow and five other members of Congress, all of them veterans of our armed forces or intelligence services, in a video posted last week.
President Donald Trump went ballistic, branding them as traitors.
“HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” said a social media post that Trump shared.
He later backtracked, saying he didn’t actually call for their deaths. Not sure what hanging short of death looks like. Crow and other legislators did report death threats.
Denver7 talked with a former U.S. Army officer, Joseph Jordan. His law firm specializes in defending service members under investigation. He cited the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says service members must obey orders, unless they are “patently illegal,” such as one that “directs the commission of a crime.”
But the code says those who disobey orders risk facing a court martial. A military judge decides if an order was lawful.
Writing in the New York Times, David French, an attorney who served in Iraq, as did Crow, parsed details of the relevant federal law. Shooting a prisoner is unambiguously illegal, said French. Bombing a home that is thought to contain insurgents is not.
Looming large is the legality of Trump’s orders to kill those on boats in the Caribbean who may — or may not — be carrying narcotics. Trump, said French, “has put the military in an impossible situation. He’s making its most senior leaders complicit in his unlawful acts, and he’s burdening the consciences of soldiers who serve under his command.”
At Sand Creek, on Nov. 29, 1864, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer refused to allow their men to participate in killing about 200 Cheyenne and Arapahoe natives, most of them women and children.
The Great Plains in 1864 were contested territory. Colorado had become a U.S. territory in 1861, but the Cheyenne and other tribes who had migrated over the previous 150 years to build lives around the plentiful buffalo herds were not consulted. Friction was growing. Murders had occurred.
Desperate to figure out a co-existence, a delegation of Arapahoe and Cheyenne leaders had traveled to Denver that September. Colorado’s territorial governor, John Evans, was present but remained largely silent. The natives left, believing they had been assured safety if they remained in place in southeastern Colorado. About 350 of them and various other individuals were camped along the dry creek bed that November.
Colonel John Chivington had other ideas. He was a hero from an 1864 Civil War battle in New Mexico. He had been at the peace negotiations that September. But perhaps hoping to embellish his reputation and win a seat in Congress, Chivington set out from Denver for Fort Lyons, near today’s Las Animas. There, he detained anybody who he thought would interfere with his plans.
Marching overnight, Chivington and his men arrived at the Sand Creek encampment at dawn. The natives had hoisted the American flag amid their teepees, but it did them no good. A triumphant Chivington and his men returned to Denver hoisting scalps. They were welcomed as heroes.
Some saw them otherwise. Soule and Cramer, horrified by what they had seen, wrote impassioned letters to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop. The Army held hearings several months later. Soule did not live long enough to be fully vindicated. He was assassinated in Denver the next April. Both Soule and Evans are buried at Riverside Cemetery, north of downtown Denver.
Among many accomplishments, Evans helped found both Northwestern University in Illinois and the University of Denver. In 2014, both universities commissioned reports examining the culpability of Evans in the massacre.
The Northwestern report was slightly more restrained, but both found Evans bore responsibility for helping create the circumstances. More than any other political official in Colorado Territory, said the DU report, Evans “created the conditions in which the massacre was highly likely.”
Soule’s grave is marked by a simple white tombstone along with other veterans. The grave of Evans is large and imposing. Last Memorial Day, I found flowers, a flag and a testimonial at the grave of Silas Soule. Others had visited, too. As for the tombstone of Evans, I saw nothing. He had remained silent in 1864, when leadership was needed.
Practicing daily gratitude is a habit I picked up from my spiritual mentor, Gottfried Müller; when Louise and I took a long hike through the trails of Forest Park here in Portland on Wednesday, for example, we stopped a few times to look around at the forest and just notice what an amazing world we live in and then to say “thank you” to all the life around us.
Every day, when we take our daily walk, we do this. Sometimes it’s our amazement at the clouds or the geese or the river or just the fact that we’re alive. I think of what my parents or my deceased brother would give for just a few minutes of what I’m experiencing and it fills me with awe and appreciation.
And I’m so grateful to you for reading and sharing my writings. You’ve helped build a real and meaningful community here. Thank you!
I always suspected that this daily practice of gratitude helped keep me sane in these insane times, but now I’ve discovered there’s actual science behind the mental health impacts of it.
As we celebrated Thanksgiving this week, science is revealing that our annual tradition of giving thanks might be more powerful than we ever imagined. Research shows that expressing gratitude doesn’t just make us feel good momentarily: it actually reshapes our brains in ways that enhance our well-being long after the holiday dishes are cleared away.
When you take a moment to count your blessings, your brain releases dopamine and serotonin, chemicals that create feelings of pleasure and contentment. It’s like turning on a happiness switch in your mind.
But what’s really fascinating is that this isn’t just a temporary boost; these moments of thankfulness create a positive feedback loop, training your brain to look for more reasons to be grateful.
Brain imaging studies have captured this process in action. When people express gratitude, they activate the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s command center for decision-making and emotional regulation.
This triggers a cascade of beneficial effects, including sharper attention and increased motivation. Think of it like building a muscle: the more you exercise gratitude, the stronger these neural pathways become, making it progressively easier to access positive emotions.
Perhaps even more remarkable is gratitude’s effect on stress. When you focus on appreciation, your brain actually dials down the production of cortisol, your body's primary stress hormone. This helps explain why grateful people often seem more resilient in the face of life's challenges; their brains are literally wired to handle stress better.
But the benefits don’t stop there.
Research conducted at Indiana University found that practicing gratitude can actually change the structure of your brain, particularly in areas linked to empathy and emotional processing.
It’s as if giving thanks regularly renovates your brain’s emotional architecture, creating lasting improvements in how you process experiences and relate to others.
These changes ripple out into nearly every aspect of life. People who practice gratitude regularly report sleeping better, probably because they’re replacing anxious thoughts with appreciative ones before bedtime.
They tend to have stronger relationships, likely because gratitude activates brain regions involved in social bonding and empathy.
Many even report improvements in their ability to solve problems and think creatively, suggesting that a thankful mind is also a more flexible one.
Want to harness these benefits for yourself?
Science suggests several effective approaches. Keeping a gratitude journal helps reinforce positive neural pathways, training your brain to focus on the good in your life. Expressing appreciation to others not only strengthens your relationships but also activates reward centers in your brain.
Even simply pausing throughout the day — my favorite practice — to notice and appreciate positive moments can help reshape your neural circuitry.
The most encouraging aspect of this research is that gratitude’s effects appear to be cumulative and long-lasting. Studies have found that people who regularly practice gratitude experience positive changes in brain function that persist months after they begin the practice. It’s like compound interest for your emotional well-being; small investments in gratitude today yield increasing returns over time.
As your brain becomes more adept at recognizing and appreciating positive experiences, you may find yourself naturally adopting a more optimistic outlook on life. This isn’t about ignoring life’s challenges or pretending everything is perfect. Rather, it’s about training your brain to maintain a sense of appreciation even while acknowledging difficulties.
So this Thanksgiving, as you shared what you were grateful for around the holiday table, you were doing more than participating in a cherished tradition.
You were engaging in a scientifically validated practice that can transform your brain and enhance your well-being. Each expression of thanks is like a small deposit in your neurological bank account, building toward a richer, more appreciative way of experiencing life.
In a world that often seems designed to highlight what’s wrong, cultivating gratitude might be one of the most powerful tools we have for training our brains to notice what’s right. And that’s something truly worth being thankful for.
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
.