The war on evidence. Trump makes up his own truth….

Trump makes up his own truth when facts don’t match what he wants

Bob Sheak, August 3, 2025

In this post, I identify 6 examples, there are more, that illustrate how Trump pays little attention to verifiable facts when it suits him.

————–

#1 – Attacks on Science

Brett Wilkins considers a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists [UCS], citing that Trump made 400+ unfounded attacks on science in his first 6 months of his second presidential tour (https://commondreams.org/news/trump-attack-on-science).

Wilkins notes that it is “part of a larger strategy to strip public protections, consolidate power, and remove scientific evidence from policymaking.” He continues. “The 402 attacks are nearly double the 207 UCS said that Trump oversaw during his first full term, and over four times the number committed during eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency. UCS said the Obama administration carried out 19 attacks on science, while former President Joe Biden oversaw just two attacks.”

The UCS defines an attack on science as “an action, statement, or decision that originates from an elected official or political appointee in a federal agency that results in the censoring, manipulation, forging, or misinforming of scientific data, results, or conclusions conducted within the government or with federal funds.”

Wilkens refers to the costs. “People are already paying the price of these attacks on science: children unnecessarily exposed to lead, families denied clean air, and lives needlessly lost in preventable disease outbreaks,” UCS noted. “Dismantling science harms every member of the U.S. public—but especially Black, Brown, Indigenous, rural, and low- and-moderate-income communities.”

To stop such attacks and “protect science and the public good, UCS offers two recommendations. One, pass the Scientific Integrity Act,  “introduced in February by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.)—which would require federal agencies to uphold evidence-based policymaking free from political interference”; and. two, the Experts Act, “legislation proposed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to limit industry influence on science-based rulemaking.”

Wilkins also quotes Darya Minovi, the report’s lead author, who said that “the pace and severity of the administration’s attacks on science is extremely alarming.”

“‘These attacks are about power,’ she continued. ‘By silencing science that does not align with its agenda to line the pockets of polluters and billionaires, the Trump administration is stripping the public of its right to information, participation, and protection.’”

———–

#2- Attacking the science on global warming

Wilkins’s evidence is hardly unusual. Trump continues to judge news and federal agency reports, not according to their accuracy, but according to whether they conform to his particular self-interests. This hostile inclination toward facts is revealed in a report by Trump’s partisan Energy Department. Maxine Joselow and Brad Plumer, write on this issue (https://nytimes.com/2025/07/31/climate/trump-climate-skeptics-science-report.html). Here is the title of the report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”

Joselow and Plumer point out that the report, “which is meant to support the Trump administration’s sweeping efforts to roll back climate regulations, contends that the mainstream scientific view on climate change is too dire and overlooks the positive effects of a warming planet.” The report makes the following wild assertions.

“Sea level rise is not accelerating. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be good for plant growth. The computer models used to predict global warming tend to exaggerate future temperature increases.”

“Climate scientists said the 151-page report misrepresented or cherry-picked a large body of research on global warming. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth​ and the payments company Stripe, called the document a ‘scattershot collection of oft-debunked skeptic claims​’ that ‘are not representative of broader climate science research findings.’”

Joselow and Plumer continue.

“The report demonstrates the extent to which President Trump is using his second term to wage a battle against climate change research, a long-held goal of some conservative groups and fossil fuel companies. While the first Trump administration often undermined federal scientists and rolled back more than 100 environmental policies, officials mostly refrained from trying to debate climate science in the open.”

However this time Trump officials have gone much further.

“The Environmental Protection Agency this week cited the Energy Department report in its proposal to repeal a landmark 2009 finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to public health. That determination, known as the endangerment finding, underpinned the agency’s legal authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants and other industrial sources of pollution.

“The new report also comes months after the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. That analysis, known as the National Climate Assessment, was set to explore how rising temperatures will influence public health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the economy.

“‘It is a coordinated, full-scale attack on the science,’ said Dave White, who directs the Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation at Arizona State University. ‘This was present in the first Trump administration, but it’s being exacerbated in the second.’”

A fringe argument

“The vast majority of climate scientists agree that carbon dioxide, which is released by the burning of fossil fuels, is accumulating in the atmosphere and raising global temperatures. This warming is increasing the risk of destructive storms, droughts, wildfires and heat waves around the globe.”

“For instance, the report suggests that solar activity may be an ‘underestimated’ contributor to warming, citing a recent paper that has been sharply criticized. In contrast, a 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was compiled by hundreds of scientists, determined that human activity is responsible for essentially all of the global warming seen to date, while natural factors like sunspots have played little role.”

“Experts said they were struck by how quickly the Energy Department’s report was put together. When the federal government has previously compiled National Climate Assessments, it has convened hundreds of scientists who spend years gathering research and go through several rounds of peer review.”

“In contrast, the five scientists assembled by the Energy Department began work in early April and finished by a May 28 deadline, according to the report. ‘The short timeline and the technical nature of the material meant that we could not comprehensively review all topics.’”

————–

#3 -Trump and his administration attack the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Ashleigh Fields reports that “Statisticians blast Trump over BLS firing: ‘Dangerous precedent’” (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5433583-trump-bis-firing-precedent-controversy). Here’s some of what she reports.

“Statisticians railed against President Trump on Friday following his decision to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner Erika McEntarfer for ‘inaccuracies’ and ‘incompetence’ after presenting a low job growth report for the month of July.”

Fields quotes former BLS chief William Beach, who

“slammed the ‘totally groundless’ rebuke alongside the Friends of BLS, an organization that advocates on behalf of the agency which he co-chairs.”

“Trump objected to the BLS report because “the agency lowered May and June job growth numbers by the initial 258,000 positions reported.

The organization also published a strongly worded statement condemning the shift in leadership at BLS, denying Trump’s accusations that McEntarfer deliberately reported “fake” numbers to tarnish his administration’s standing. 

“This baseless, damaging claim undermines the valuable work and dedication of BLS staff who produce the reports each month,” a Friday statement on the organization’s website reads.

“This escalates the President’s unprecedented attacks on the independence and integrity of the federal statistical system. The President seeks to blame someone for unwelcome economic news,” they added. “The Commissioner does not determine what the numbers are but simply reports on what the data show.”

Here’s what Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY.”

Trump added, “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes. But competence and qualification have nothing to do with Trump’s decision. He is especially annoyed that the stock market responded negatively to this news and as of Saturday morning [Aug 2], the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 542 points, Nasdaq Composite dropped 2.3 percent and the S&P 500 decreased 1.6 percent of its value.” 

————-

#4 -Trustworthy US Jobs Info Is the Latest Victim of Trump’s War on Facts

Robert Reich also writes on “Trump’s War on Facts, Common Dreams, Aug 2, 2025 (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-attack-bis).

Reich was U.S. secretary of labor during much of the 1990s. One part of the Labor Department is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He recalls,

“I was instructed by my predecessors as well as by the White House, and by every labor economist and statistician I came in contact with, that one of my cardinal responsibilities was to guard the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Otherwise, this crown jewel of knowledge about jobs and the economy would be compromised. If politicized, it would no longer be trusted as a source of information.

“Trump didn’t like the fact that the BLS revised downward its jobs reports for April and May. Revisions in monthly jobs report are nothing new. They’re made when the bureau gets more or better information over time.”

“Yet with no basis in fact, Trump charged that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, ‘rigged’ the data ‘to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.’”

“Then he ordered her fired and replaced with someone else—presumably someone whose data Trump will approve of.

“How can anyone in the future trust the data that emerges from the Bureau of Labor Statistics when the person in charge of the agency has to come up with data to Trump’s liking in order to stay in the job? Answer: They cannot. Trump has destroyed the credibility of this extraordinarily important source of information.”

Additionally, Reich comments on how Trump’s attempts to purge truth is not limited to just one agency.

“Trump hates facts that he disagrees with. That’s why he’s dismembering the Environmental Protection Agency, which has repeatedly shown that climate change isn’t a ‘hoax,’ as Trump claims, but more like a national emergency. It’s why Trump is attacking American universities, whose scientists are developing wind and solar energy, and whose historians have revealed America’s tragic history of racism and genocide of Indigenous people. He is killing off the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which are showing the sources of sickness and disease and how we can guard against them.”

—————–

#5 – The Gilded Lie: Trump’s Ballroom

Jesse Mackinnon reports on this “lie” in an article in Common Dreams, Aug 03, 2025 (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-s-ballroom).

Here are some details. “U.S. President Donald Trump’s $200 million plan to construct a new golden ballroom at the White House is not just a monument to narcissism. It is statecraft by spectacle, financed by national rot. The timing is not subtle. It arrives alongside his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill,’ a federal budget that slashes Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and climate programs, all while inflating the national deficit past $40 trillion. In this juxtaposition—architectural self-glorification for the ruling executive, fiscal starvation for the governed—we are not witnessing innovation.”

Mackinnon writes,

“The ballroom is a symptom. A projected $200 million marble-and-gold performance space, modeled loosely on Versailles’ Hall of Mirrors, will sit at the center of Trump’s renovated West Wing. It will host foreign dignitaries, Republican fundraisers, and presidential photo ops. This is how kleptocracy dresses itself—in borrowed grandeur, gilded walls, and florid illusions of permanence.”

“A president calls himself ‘king’ on social media and receives thunderous applause from his base. He designs a ballroom while communities lose clinics. He throws gala dinners while food pantries see record demand. The White House is not a palace, but it is being remade into one.”

“Trump’s defenders will call the ballroom symbolic. They are right. It symbolizes a state that has abandoned the moral obligations of government and replaced them with architecture. It is the spatial embodiment of policy by spectacle. The Roman emperors built circuses. Louis built Versailles. Trump builds ballrooms. The continuity is not ideological. It is psychological.”

“The question is not whether America can afford another ballroom. The question is whether it can survive the regime that thinks it should build one.”

————

#6 – The Golden Dome fantasy

Melvin Goodman considers Trump’s whacky proposal for a golden dome national missile defense system (https://counterpunch.org/2025/07/21/the-waste-and-futility-of-the-golden-dome-national-missile-defense-system).

Goodman reminds readers that (1) the U.S. is responsible for half of global spending on defense, committing more than $1 trillion dollars on defense, and (2) an addition hundreds of billions

The United States is responsible for half of global spending on defense.  The Trump administration is committed to spending more than $1 trillion dollars on defense, and this figure doesn’t include the hundreds of billions “devoted to the intelligence community, the Department of Energy, the Veterans’ Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security.”  There is huge waste in the defense budget, and the major culprits in this department are the unneeded modernization of U.S. strategic weaponry and the so-called Golden Dome national missile defense.  The enormous cost and technological deficiencies of the U.S.-supplied, European-based missile defense system adds to the huge bloat in U.S. defense spending.

“The Golden Dome missile defense system, as proposed by President Trump, is estimated to cost $175 billion. This cost is just for the initial three-year period, with ongoing operational and sustainment costs potentially pushing the total figure much higher. Some estimates from organizations like the Congressional Budget Office suggest a total cost between $161 and $542 billion over two decades. Since programs were first launched in the 1950s to build systems capable of intercepting incoming nuclear or conventional weapons, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on various missile defense programs.

“Over the years, NMD [National Missile Defense] has been a technical flop, having failed most of its tests.  The NMD system has flaws such as an adversary’s ability to use shorter range ballistic and cruise missiles that could ‘underfly’ NMD.  The U.S. system could be defeated by numerous unsophisticated countermeasures and decoys that would overload the NMD system and create confusion.  Moreover, the U.S. system will never be tested in a realistic battle environment, and there is no assurance that a U.S. system could be effective against all of the many varieties of countermeasures.

“Even a flawed NMD system will create instability in the nuclear community.  Russia would fear that the United States would feel protected by the so-called shield, and China would fear that its smaller nuclear arsenal would be compromised.  The level of instability could lead such non-nuclear states as Japan and South Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and thus weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty that has kept the number of nuclear states to nine.  If unchecked, proliferation would have no logical stopping point.”

Goodman refers to alternatives to national missile defense, particularly the pursuit of arms control and disarmament.  The United States missed a major opportunity in the 1990s and 2000s, when Russia was weak and open to a strategic dialogue and China was still committed to minimal strategic deterrence. Moreover, the last arms control agreement between the United States and Russia—the New Start Treaty—is scheduled to expire in January 2026.

“The U.S. retreat from arms control and renewed commitment to NMD will only worsen the problem of nuclear proliferation as nuclear nations will pursue greater deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles and non-nuclear states, such as Japan and South Korea, could consider the deployment of nuclear weaponry.  The absence of any nuclear dialogue at present and the strained relations between the United States and both China and Russia are major contributors to the current state of international instability.  The Trump administration’s cut backs at the Department of State and the National Security Council as well as the politicization of the intelligence community will make it more difficult for the United States to enter a serious and substantive dialogue on any aspect of arms control.”

————

Concluding thoughts

There is little doubt that Trump is not limited in his rhetoric and policy-making by the best evidence. It is bad for democracy. It may indicate, for example:

The turmoil and human suffering to come in 2025

The turmoil and human suffering to come in 2025
Bob Sheak December 3, 2025

The Presidential Election

Trump barely won the presidential election in November. Although he claims that his victory gave him a mandate to implement an extreme right-wing agenda, the numbers say otherwise. His margin of victory was the smallest of any presidential election since 1900. And we should bear in mind that Trump’s vote is unfairly buttressed by widespread right-wing gerrymanding in “red” states. James M. Lindsay cites the following “official” numbers in an article for the Council for Foreign Relations (https://cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers).

“Early election coverage described Trump’s victory as a landslide. But whether you go by the Electoral College vote or the popular vote, it was anything but. The 312 Electoral College votes that Trump won are just six more than Joe Biden won in 2020, twenty less than Barack Obama won in 2012, and fifty-three less than Obama won in 2008. Trump’s Electoral College performance pales in comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s landslide victory in 1936 (523 electoral votes), Lyndon Johnson’s in 1964 (486), Richard Nixon’s in 1972 (520), or Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 (525). In terms of the popular vote, more people voted for someone not named Trump for president than voted for Trump in 2024, and his margin of victory over Harris was 1.5 percentage points. That is the fifth smallest margin of victory in the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900.”

Despite such a narrow victory, Trump’s claims he won a massive victory and continues to promise to implement an extreme right-wing agenda once he is in office.


Trump’s top agenda items

They include the following: (1) tariffs, (2) the deportation or detention of all undocumented residents, (3) tax cuts for the wealthy, (4) pardons for many (if not all) who participated in the insurrection, and (5) revenge on his political and media “enemies.” Under the influence of Elon Musk, Trump appears now to be open to allowing some high-skilled foreign workers to enter the country under the H-1B program. The present article will consider #s 1 and 2. But note, first, that he has the support of Republicans, large swaths of the rich and powerful, and his unquestioning base of tens of millions of Americans. But the billionaires play a disproportionate role.

Trump’s inner support team

Trump is being influenced by wealthy advisers and by those who support his right-wing extremism. One of his chief advisers in the presidential transition, ending on January 20, is multi-billionaire Elon Musk. Musk supported Trump’s presidential campaign with contributions of 200-250 million dollars. He is not the only billionaire in Trump’s entourage. New York Time’s journalists, Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, identify “the Silicon Valley Billionaires Steering Trump’s Transition (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-elon-musk-silicon-vallley.html). The journalists tell us that the “article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people with insight into the transition, including people who have participated in the process. Most spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships with Mr. Trump.”

Here’s some of what they report.

“The week after the November election, President-elect Donald J. Trump gathered his top advisers in the tearoom at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, to plan the transition to his second-term government.

“Mr. Trump had brought two of his most valued houseguests to the meeting: the billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk and the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison.”

The journalists continue.

“Mr. Trump has delighted in a critical addition to his transition team: the Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires who have been all over the transition, shaping hiring decisions and even conducting interviews for senior-level jobs. Many of those who are not formally involved, like Mr. Ellison, have been happy to sit in on the meetings.”

“Their involvement, to a degree far deeper than previously reported, has made this one of the most potentially conflict-ridden presidential transitions in modern history. It also carries what could be vast implications for the Trump administration’s policies on issues including taxes and the regulation of artificial intelligence, not to mention clashing mightily with the notion that Mr. Trump’s brand of populism is all about helping the working man.”

“The tech leaders in Mr. Trump’s orbit are pushing for deregulation of their industries and more innovative use of private sector technologies in the federal government, especially the defense industry. About a dozen Musk allies took breaks from their businesses to serve as unofficial advisers to the Trump transition effort.

“Broadly, the group is pushing for less onerous regulation of industries like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, a weaker Federal Trade Commission to allow for more deal-making and the privatization of some government services to make government more efficient. Mr. Musk himself has called some executives at major public companies and asked how the government is thwarting their business — and what he can do to help.”

“These tech leaders have played a far broader role than simply contributing to the nascent Department of Government Efficiency — the Musk-led effort, abbreviated as DOGE, that is intended to effectively audit the entire government and cut $2 trillion out of federal spending. Mr. Musk’s friends are also influencing hiring decisions at some of the most important government agencies.”

“Inside the Trump transition team’s headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., the billionaire Marc Andreessen, a tech investor who decades ago founded one of the first popular internet browsers, has interviewed candidates for senior roles at the State Department, the Pentagon and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Jared Birchall, the head of Mr. Musk’s family office with no experience in foreign affairs, has interviewed a few candidates for jobs at the State Department. Mr. Birchall has been involved in advising the Trump transition team on space policy and artificial intelligence, helping to put together councils for A.I. development and crypto policy.”

“Shaun Maguire, another Musk friend, is now advising Mr. Trump on picks for the intelligence community. Mr. Maguire, a brash Caltech Ph.D. in physics who is an investor at Sequoia Capital, has been a staple of the Trump transition over the last month, including interviewing potential candidates for senior Defense Department jobs.”

These examples represent just a small slice of Trump’s rich supporters.

“The transition offices have been crawling with executives from defense tech firms with close ties to Mr. Trump’s orbit, such as Palantir, which was co-founded by Peter Thiel, and Anduril, the military technology startup led by Palmer Luckey. Several SpaceX executives have been asking questions about matters that go well beyond space policy, and interrogating federal spending across government agencies, people with direct knowledge of the talks say.”

1 -Trump on tariffs

DeArbea Walker, assistant editor at Forbes, reports on Trump’s proposed tariffs and their effects on consumers (https://forbes.com/sites/dearbeawalker/2024/12/26/how-consumers-can-prepare-for-trumps-new-tariffs).

Walker writes that “A tariff is a tax on imported goods that companies pay to the government when they import products to the U.S….”

“‘That extra cost has to get covered one way or another, either by coming out of the importing company’s margins or by being passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices,’ Forbes contributor Joe Moglia says. ‘If the tariffs are too high, there may be no choice other than raising prices.’

Trump’s tariff proposals

Tariffs on China,, Canada, and Mexico

“Trump has proposed 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Mexico and Canada, to stop the flow of fentanyl and migrants across the U.S. borders.

“During the presidential campaign, Trump said he’d impose at least a 60% tariff on imports from China. After the 2024 election, he said he’d add 10% “above any additional tariffs” on all goods coming from China until they stop fentanyl production.”

“Trump’s rationale for his proposed tariffs includes restoring manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and, some experts say, using tariffs as a trade negotiating tool. In addition to the economic motivations, Trump cites security: He has insisted that Mexico and Canada stem the flow of illegal drugs and migrants over the border.”

Tariffs on EU

“Trump recently threatened nonspecific tariffs against the European Union if the trade bloc didn’t step up U.S. oil and gas imports.”

Effects of tariffs on consumers

“Weekly grocery bills are likely to get more expensive if President-elect Donald Trump follows through in imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China. Everything from avocados to garlic will go up.

“That new car you’re eyeing—or even your next grocery run—could cost more after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. Trump plans to sign an Executive Order on day one that would impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and threatens additional tariffs on products from China and elsewhere.” He initially claimed that domestic consumer prices would not go up, but later acknowledged they could (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-reneges-on-promise-that-tariffs-wont-raise-costs-for-consumers).

“Tariffs on raw materials like steel or aluminum could send the prices of cellphones and laptops through the roof, according to True Tamplin, a Forbes personal finance contributor. A 10 percent tariff on a $1,000 laptop would add $100 to its prices.”

Walker also refers to a list of goods compiled by Forbes contributor Frank Holmes, that could become more expensive as a result of Trump’s tariffs.

“Groceries, like avocados, tomatoes, garlic, and other produce from Mexico.
Electronics and appliances, including washing machines, laptops, phones and TVs, which are made from imported parts from Canada and China
Clothing, shoes and other everyday goods made abroad
Home improvement supplies like wood, steel and paint
Cars like the Nissan Sentra and Mercedes-Benz GLB are assembled in Mexico.”

In addition, Walker writes, “Industries with lots of exposure to imported goods—retail, electronics and even agriculture—could face significant headwinds.”

Spillover effects

Walker notes, “There’s also the risk of the spillover effect. Retailers importing the goods will increase the price to absorb the cost of the tariff, however, domestic producers, who aren’t impacted by the tariffs, will feel emboldened and may raise their prices too.” This was the case during Trump’s first term when dryers, not subjected to tariffs, rose 12%.

On balance, tariffs are costly for domestic residents and businesses. Mark Williams summarizes this point (https://bu.ed/articles/2024/would-trumps-tariffs-send-prices-soaring).

“Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, temporarily protecting domestic markets, and they can raise incentives for onshore manufacturing and sales. Short-term, there could be some production gains. However, as Trump proved during the 2018 tariffs on imported steel, they did little to materially increase the number of jobs in US steel plants. Moreover, once tariffs were slapped on China, they quickly retaliated by making many US products more expensive; this eventually led to a reduction in the number of US export jobs.”

Tariffs are not popular among Americans

In a Newsweek magazine article, Suzanne Blake reports that a majority of Americans do not like tariffs, specifically Trump’s proposal (https://newsweek.com/donald-trump-bad-news-tariff-plan-inflation-poll-2001523). Here’s the crux of what she writes.

“A majority of Americans are bracing themselves for President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs, according to a poll that was published on Monday.

“In a WalletHub Fed Rate survey of 200 Americans this month, 74 percent of Americans said Trump’s possible tariffs would likely lead to more inflation down the line as it remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.”


2 – The deportation or detention of all undocumented residents

Trump’s plans for his first day in the White House includes the mass deportation or detention (and eventual deportation) of virtually all eleven plus million undocumented residents. Here are some facts from Pew Research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us).

“Unauthorized immigrants live in 6.3 million households that include more than 22 million people. These households represent 4.8% of the 130 million U.S. households.

“…some facts about these households in 2022 [the latest available]:
 In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.
 Almost 70% of these households are considered “mixed status,” meaning that they also contain lawful immigrants or U.S.-born residents.
 In only about 5% of these households, the unauthorized immigrants are not related to the householder or spouse. In these cases, they are probably employees or roommates.”

“Of the 22 million people in households with an unauthorized immigrant, 11 million are U.S. born or lawful immigrants. They include:
 1.3 million U.S.-born adults who are children of unauthorized immigrants. (We cannot estimate the total number of U.S.-born adult children of unauthorized immigrants because available data sources only identify those who still live with their unauthorized immigrant parents.)
 1.4 million other U.S.-born adults and 3.0 million lawful immigrant adults.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim considers Trump’s plans for day one of his presidency in an article for MSNBC, Dec 27, 2024 (https://msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-day-one-deportations-jan-6-pardons-tariffs-rena185019). Here’s some of what she reports on Trump’s “immigration” plans.

One of Trump’s most extreme campaign promises was to carry out “the largest mass deportation program” in the country’s history beginning on Day 1 of his presidency. It’s unclear how such a such a large-scale operation could be executed, but immigration officials have said it would be a huge logistical and financial effort. Economists have also warned that such a program would cause an “economic disaster” for the U.S., which relies heavily on migrant labor.

“Trump told NBC News in November, Lim notes, that there would be ‘no price tag’ for his mass deportation plans.” That is, Trump insists he will have the government spend as much as it takes to effectuate his mass deportation plans.

Trump wants to end “birthright citizenship”

Lim continues. “In a move that could face a prolonged legal fight, the president-elect has also said that he wants to end birthright citizenship through executive action on his first day to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Birthright citizenship is a protection enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but Trump has said that he would consider changing the Constitution to rescind the rule.” It will take more than Trump’s assumption that he, as president, can change the constitution. Why? Amending the Constitution is a power that lies with Congress, not the president. Trump’s plan would result in children being separated from their parents or, in some cases, ending up in the foster care system, in the care of other family members, or even incarcerated.

Using the military to assist in mass deportation

Nonetheless, Trump seems determined to push ahead on mass deportation, even to use the military in such a massive effort.

Charlie Savage and Michael Gold report on Trump’s plan to use the military to assist in the deportation (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/16/us/politics/trump-military-mass-deportations.html). They report as follows.

“President-elect Donald J. Trump confirmed on Monday that he intended to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military in some form to assist in his plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“On his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump responded overnight to a post made earlier this month by Tom Fitton, who runs the conservative group Judicial Watch, and who wrote that Mr. Trump’s administration would ‘declare a national emergency and will use military assets’ to address illegal immigration ‘through a mass deportation program.’”

According to Savage and Gold, “In interviews with The New York Times during the Republican primary campaign, described in an article published in November 2023, Mr. Trump’s top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said that military funds would be used to build ‘vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers’ for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries.

“The Homeland Security Department would run the facilities, he [Miller] said.
One major impediment to the vast deportation operation that the Trump team has promised in his second term is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, lacks the space to hold a significantly larger number of detainees than it currently does.”

The Trump team believes that such camps could be built expeditiously and thus enable the government to accelerate deportation process of undocumented people who fight their expulsion from the country. The assumption is that more people would voluntarily accept removal instead of pursuing a long-shot effort to remain in the country if they had to stay locked up in the interim.

“Hard-right members of Congress and staunch supporters of Mr. Trump have expressed broad support for his proposal for mass deportations. Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, chimed in on social media on Monday to back using the military for such an effort, saying Mr. Trump was ‘100% correct.’
Mr. Miller has also talked about invoking a public health emergency power to curtail hearing asylum claims, as the Trump administration did during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Deportation without Congressional action

“Mr. Trump’s team said it had developed a multifaceted plan to significantly increase the number of deportations, which it thought could be accomplished without new legislation from Congress, although it anticipated legal challenges.
Other elements of the team’s plan include bolstering the ranks of ICE officers with law enforcement officials who would be temporarily reassigned from other agencies, and with state National Guardsmen and federal troops activated to enforce the law on domestic soil under the Insurrection Act.

“The team also plans to expand a form of due-process-free expulsions known as expedited removal, which is currently used near the border for recent arrivals, to people living across the interior of the country who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years.

“And the team plans to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship.

“Mr. Trump has already signaled his intent to follow through on his promises with personnel announcements. He named Mr. Miller as a deputy chief of staff in his administration with influence over domestic policy. And Mr. Trump said he would make Thomas Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and was an early proponent of separating families to deter migrants, his administration’s ‘border czar.’”

“Mr. Homan told The New York Times in 2023 that he had met with Mr. Trump shortly after the now president-elect announced that he would seek office again. During that meeting, Mr. Homan said, he ‘agreed to come back’ in a second term and would ‘help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.’ In response to a question on the problem of separating children from their parents, Homan said parents who lose their immigration cases “are going to have to make a decision what you want to do: You can either take your child with you or leave the child here in the United States with a relative.”
That is, if there is a relative available and one who can afford the responsibility of caring for an additional child or children.

Questions about Trump’s deportation plan

“Asked about the proposal, Sabrina Singh, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, declined to comment, calling it ‘a hypothetical.’ In general, she added, such a plan would typically undergo ‘a rigorous process’ before being enacted, but she declined to elaborate.”

Critics

Savage and Gold cite immigrant advocates who have assailed Trump’s deportation plan, raising alarms about the potential fallout.

“‘President-elect Trump’s dystopian fantasies should send a chill down everyone’s spine, whether immigrant or native-born,’ said Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy organization. ‘Not only is what he is describing in all likelihood illegal, this move would be the exact opposite of the legacy of service in which my family members were proud to participate.’”

“Robyn Barnard, the senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, asserted that the consequences would be far-ranging. ‘Families will be torn apart, businesses left without vital employees, and our country will be left to pick up the pieces for years to come,’ she added.

“Congressional Democrats responded with a similar level of incredulity, asserting that such a move was all but certain to violate federal laws preventing the use of the military on American soil.

“‘We’re pursuing whatever we can do to make clear that the Insurrection Act should not permit that use of the military,’ said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, referring to the 1807 law that grants presidents emergency power to use troops on domestic soil to restore order when they decide a situation warrants it. Under that law, ‘if there is no threat to public order of a fundamental, far-reaching kind, it would be illegal,’ he added.”

Separations

Jacob Soboroff, who visited detention sites during Trump’s first presidential term, published his finding in a book titled Separated: Inside an American Tragedy. Here is part of an article reviewing the book on July 7,2020, by Kirkus Reviews (https://kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jacob-soboroff/separated-tragedy).

“Separating migrant minors from their families has been a hallmark of the current administration—and, writes the author, ‘an unparalleled abuse of the human rights of children.’ His narrative begins in June 2018 in Brownsville, Texas, where he toured a former Walmart that had been converted into a ‘shelter’ to house some 1,500 migrant boys, many of them caught with their families trying to enter the U.S. By virtue of the administration’s vaunted ‘zero tolerance’ policy, these children represent what Soboroff calls ‘an avoidable catastrophe.’ His sketches of the detention centers are consistently affecting and haunting. As he noted at the time, ‘this place is called a shelter, but effectively these kids are incarcerated.’ The policy of separation was foreshadowed in Trump’s blustery rhetoric during the 2016 campaign—but more by his lieutenant Stephen Miller, who loudly voiced ‘vitriol for undocumented immigrants.’ It was up to Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen to enact it, even after she was warned that family separations would constitute a violation of the constitutional principle of fair treatment. Miller’s faction won the day, and family separation became policy. Startlingly, when a federal judge ruled against the policy and ordered the government to reunite detained families, Customs and Border Patrol admitted that it had planned to separate ‘more than 26,000 children between May and September 2018’ alone. Naturally, the administration has denied the policy even as, Soboroff notes, the principals involved who remain in the administration are now the very people who are coordinating the government’s bungled response to COVID-19. And even though the policy has theoretically been terminated by executive order, thousands of migrant children are still detained in tent cities and other facilities across the border, in some cases without their families for years.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump wants to transform the US in ways that will give him incomparable presidential power. However, his plans, flawed and undemocratic as they are, will generate opposition as well as support. Who knows which side will prevail. But his ambitions are inherently flawed and, if implemented, likely to cause economic chaos and suffering among large segments of the population. The big question is whether such effects will lead to the buildup of opposition forces strong enough politically to prevent Trump from succeeding in pushing his extreme economic and immigration plans.

Judicial rulings boost fascism

Bob Sheak – July 5, 2024

Rulings by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court favor Trump and right-wing, anti-democratic interests and values, threatening to upend an already weakened American democracy. The right-wing bias of the court goes back to Trump’s successful nominations of three reactionary justices to the court while he was president. As it stands now, there are six right-wing justices on the court and 3 “liberals.”

In one of its most disturbing recent rulings on June 2022 the court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 law that gave women the right to an abortion. The story of this ruling is told in masterful detail by Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer in their book, “The Fall of Roe, The Rise of a New America” (publ. 2024).

In this post, the contention about the court’s right-wing bias is exemplified by three recent Supreme Court rulings dealing with expanding gun ownership rights, deregulation, and presidential immunity.

————-

Bump Stocks

Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Gun Bump Stocks

Abbie VanSickle reports on this issue (https://nytimes.com/2024/06/14/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-bump-stocks.html).

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks, which enable semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds rivaling those of machine guns.” The case against the bump stock law was brought by Michael Cargil, “a gun shop owner in Texas, backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, an advocacy group with financial ties to Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes. The organization primarily targets what it considers unlawful uses of administrative power.”

The 6-3 decision broke down along ideological lines. Justic Clarence Thomas wrote the decision and identified the main justification for it, arguing that “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device by issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns.” But, as subsequent commentary and analysis have noted, and as liberals on the court pointed out, bump stocks do transform an assault weapon into a weapon that fires like a machine gun.

Liberal dissent

VanSickle points out that “Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.” The three dissenting judges, all Democratic appointees, argued that the majority’s reasoning served to ‘legalize an instrument of mass murder.’”

“Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench, a practice reserved for profound disagreements and the first such announcement of the term. ‘The majority puts machine guns back in civilian hands,’ she said.

“‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,’ Justice Sotomayor wrote. ‘A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

“The congressional law outlawing machine guns is named ‘the National Firearms Act of 1934.’ Under that law, ‘Congress outlawed machine guns, defined as ‘any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ That definition was expanded under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun, a category heavily regulated by the A.T.F.”

Biden opposes the court’s ruling to allow the device and has urged Congress to ban the device.

———–

The Chevron decision

This decision is an example of how Trump and right-wing forces want to extend deregulation measures by the federal government. Now they have the Supreme Court in their corner.

The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and supported by the five other conservative justices, could make it easier to block climate and wildlife regulations involving “the environment, public health and other fundamental aspects of American life.” It replaces the authority and expertise of executive branch agencies with the judgements of the courts, and of the Supreme Court as the final rule enforcer or maker.

Matthew Daly informs readers that the Chevron precedent was made 40 years ago and “has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state” (https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment).   

Maxine Joselow, staff writer who covers climate change and the environment, considers some of the implications (https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-environmental-rules).

What did the Supreme Court decide?

“The pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce —challenged a federal rule that requires the herring industry to cover the costs of observers on fishing boats.

“In the decision released Friday [June 26, 2024], the Supreme Court struck down the rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, finding it to be overly burdensome.”

“The decision effectively overturns a long-standing precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.”

What is the Chevron doctrine?

“The doctrine says that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. It was established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.”

Environmental groups challenged the rule, saying it violated the Clean Air Act and would cause more air pollution. But in the unanimous 6-0 1948 decision, “Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the court should defer to the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act, and to other agencies’ interpretations of other statutes.”

Who supported overturning Chevron?

“A wide array of conservative advocacy groups have urged the court to overturn Chevron. But petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch has played a particularly influential role.

“Both cases were backed by conservative legal organizations — the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance — that have received millions of dollars from the Koch network, founded by Charles Koch and his late brother, David Koch. Charles Koch is the CEO of Koch Industries and a fierce critic of federal regulations.

Environmental groups wanted the retention of the Chevron rule.

“Two heavyweights in the environmental movement — the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council — both submitted amicus briefs urging the justices not to overturn Chevron. The environmental law firm Earthjustice also filed a joint brief in defense of the doctrine on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation, Ocean Conservancy and Save the Sound.

“Additional support for Chevron came from a wide range of other individuals and groups, including Democratic senators, the American Cancer Society and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.”

The ruling will reduce efforts to combat climate change

Joselow cites David Doniger, senior strategic director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He “argued the Chevron case. Doniger said the ruling released Friday could prevent agencies from using older environmental laws to tackle newer environmental problems — such as climate change — as they arise.”

What right-wing interest groups want

“‘The real goal of the interest groups on the right that are backing this litigation is to enfeeble the federal government’s ability to deal with the problems that the modern world throws at us,’ Doniger said. ‘We could end up with a weaker federal government, and that would mean that interest groups would be freer to pollute without restraint.’”

The decision reverses efforts by the Biden administration

“…President Biden’s signature climate law gave the EPA more authority to curb planet-warming emissions,’ Doniger said. For the first time, the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants that the EPA can regulate under the Clean Air Act.”

How the Supreme Court’s Chevron Decision Benefits Big Oil and Gas

L. Delta Merner, lead scientist on climate litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, considers how the Chevron ruling benefits big oil and gas in an article published on July 1, 2024 (https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/how-the-supreme-courts-decision-benefits-big-oil-and-gas).

“Last Friday [June 28, 2024], the Supreme Court overruled the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, fundamentally changing the landscape of federal regulatory power.”

“Ironically, the downfall of the Chevron doctrine will give Chevron and other major oil and gas corporations more latitude to slow down and block regulations, allowing them to pollute with near impunity. At the end of the day, this decision means that courts will play a more active role in interpreting regulatory statutes, undermining scientific expertise, slowing regulatory processes, and creating obstacles at a time when urgent action is needed to address the climate crisis.”

Understanding the Chevron Doctrine

“Under Chevron, when a statute was ambiguous, courts would typically side with the agency’s interpretation, recognizing the specialized expertise of agencies in their respective fields. This doctrine has played a crucial role in enabling agencies to enforce regulations on complex issues such as environmental protection, public health, and consumer safety. The ambiguity in statutes is often intentional, acknowledging that Congress isn’t equipped to design prescriptive policies across the whole suite of issues before them—let alone in a way that can evolve as science and technology evolve over time. This intentional ambiguity enables expertise to shape rulemaking as needed. During the 40 years Chevron was law, federal courts cited the doctrine more than 18,000 times.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling

“Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, declared that courts must now exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, rather than deferring to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. He emphasized that this change does not retroactively affect past cases decided under Chevron deference but will influence all future regulatory interpretations.”

“Lobbying for Favorable Decisions: Judges will have more leeway and more need to rely on Amicus, or ‘Friend of the Court’ briefs in writing opinions. Fossil fuel companies and their attorneys will have the incentives and funding to file such briefs aggressively. The views expressed by oil companies will have equal weight compared to agency scientists and experts. It should be noted that the plaintiffs in both cases leading to the overturning of Chevron were represented pro bono by attorneys from conservative law firms with ties to the Koch brothers.”

The upshot

“By employing a range of tactics, these corporations can delay public health and environmental protections, effectively postponing climate accountability cases for years. This strategy not only prevents plaintiffs from achieving justice through the courts but also allows these companies to use the courts to delay essential regulations. During this time, they can continue their operations with minimal restrictions, further exacerbating environmental and public health issues.”

————-

Supreme Court Delivers Anti-Democracy Win to Trump in Immunity Case

Chris Walker reports for Truthout, July 1, 2024, on how Trump benefits from the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity (https://truthout.org/articles/supreme-court-delivers-huge-win-for-trump-in-january-6-case). Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and focuses on both national and local topics.

Benefits Trump

“Following 123 days of delay in the pre-trial stage of the case regarding former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling on Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, granting him a huge win and creating an unprecedented burden for prosecutors.

The Court found that a president is presumed to have immunity for acts that fall within their office’s authority, and should have wide leverage to argue that their actions as president were consistent with those protections. While the Court stated that such standards wouldn’t apply to non-official acts, the ruling gives tremendous leeway for future presidents to facilitate illegal actions without criminal consequence, so long as they’re done using constitutionally granted tools within the executive branch.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, offered the following self-serving rationale for the decision.

“The system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Chief Justice Roberts explained the rationale for the immunity ruling. “‘The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law….But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.’

‘The President therefore,” Roberts argued, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.’”

Trump’s thirst for revenge

“Indeed, in public statements over the past year, Trump has promised ‘revenge’ against his adversaries if he’s elected in November, which he would be able to pursue without criminal consequence under the standard created on Monday.”

David Corn refers to it as an “obsession.” (https://motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/trumps-obsession-with-revenge-a-big-post-verdict-danger). “Three days after a New York City jury turned Donald Trump into the first former president branded a felon, the onetime reality television host told Fox News, ‘My revenge will be success.’ This above-the-fray rhetoric was not to be believed, for Trump, through much of his life, has exhibited an intense obsession with vengeance and seeking retribution against those he considers his foes and detractors.

“In subsequent interviews, Trump adopting contradictory stances on the matter of retaliation. Appearing on Newsmax, he said that if he is elected his political opponents might face prosecution.

“Despite all this back-and forth, the historical record is clear: Trump has long had a love affair with revenge—to such an extent that this fixation should be added to the list of concerns reasonable people ought to have about a Trump restoration. If Trump, with his authoritarian impulses, returns to the White House, it is rather likely he will use his power to extract payback—for this conviction, the other civil and criminal cases filed against him, and all perceived slights and assaults. There will be a revenge-a-thon.”

Corn points out, “Commenters on pro-Trump websites called for violence against the judge in Trump’s hush-money/election-interference case and against liberals in general. Trump supporters also tried to dox the jurors—setting them up as targets—and posted violent threats against the prosecutors. John Eastman, the indicted lawyer who helped Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election (and whose law license has been suspended in California and Washington, DC), came close to justifying violence when he warned that if Trump is sentenced to prison, Trump supporters will be ‘taking matters into their own hands’ and ‘seeking remedies on their own.’”

“All these responses—and other similar reactions—were extremely Trumpian. Throughout his presidency, Trump condoned and encouraged violence. And for decades, Trump has cited revenge as one of his key motivators. He has even touted it as crucial to his success.”

The liberal dissent

Walker [cited earlier] notes that Justice Sonia Sotomayer authored the liberal view.

““Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” Sotomayor continued.

“The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.

Sotomayor condemned the Court’s conservative bloc for essentially stating that a president cannot be prosecuted if they’re using their constitutionally granted powers.”

Walker continues citing Sotomayor.

“‘The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity,’ Sotomayor added. Quoting precedent established by the conservative justices in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, she went on, ‘This official-acts immunity has ‘no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.’”

She is quoted as follows. “This historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this Nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. With nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash.”

Sotomayor concluded her dissent by adding, “Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law.”

Further objections to the immunity ruling

“‘Welp, that’s all folks. The President is immune from prosecution so long as he says he committed crimes as part of his ‘official’ duties,” said The Nation’s Elie Mystal. ‘So ends the part of the American experience where our leaders were bound by the rule of law. Thanks for playing.’”

“The Supreme Court originally stalled the case in February, agreeing at that time to hear an appeal from Trump’s lawyers over claims that his ‘presidential immunity’ should have protected him from being charged in the first place. That argument rested on the dubious premise that Trump had been acting in his capacity as president during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that his attempt to usurp the Electoral College process through the use of fake electors was somehow a legitimate part of his job as then-head of the executive branch.

“The Supreme Court did not rule on Monday whether Trump’s actions were official. But their decision will return the case to the lower court, where those arguments will be made. Even if the lower court determines that the former president wasn’t acting in an official capacity when he ordered the mob of his loyalists (some of whom he knew were armed) to the Capitol, Trump can appeal the ruling to the High Court, which will have the final say on whether or not his actions were official.”

Concluding thoughts

The principal implication of this analysis is that very right-wing Supreme Court cannot be counted on to rule on the basis of the best evidence or to uphold the integrity of the presidency or executive branch agencies. If Trump wins the presidential election in November, this court will likely continue to make decisions that are extreme, that undermine American democracy, and that threaten to enshrine Trump as a king. What is worrisome is that Trump as president would be in a position to nominate persons to replace older justices who favor extremist remedies. What is also worrisome is that he and his allies will manipulate the law and law enforcement to punish his opponents and critics. Will we hear a knock on our door in January 2025?

The escalation of right-wing violence and intimidation

Bob Sheak, Feb 24, 2024

Introduction

This post continues my criticisms of Trump and his allies. Here, I compile evidence supporting the view that they want to undermine the political processes of the country in ways that will end any hope of strengthening liberal and progressive democracy and replace it with an anti-democratic, autocratic (authoritarian, fascist) alternative. Their efforts are intensifying. If they should succeed in the 2024 elections, America’s democracy will be seriously, perhaps irreparably, corrupted. Meanwhile, they will do their best to keep Biden and Congressional Democrats from winning legislatively, distract and frighten people with cultural wars, and generally attack their opponents.

 What Trump and his allies want

 The Republicans want a society in which there is a strongman leader and have been steadfast in their support of Trump, the Republican Party, and seemingly content to be driven by grievances and conspiracy diatribes that reflect the worst aspects of America’s history and society.

 They want revenge against their Democratic opponents, appear little interested in supporting democratic institutions, are willing to live with political chaos as long as they or their leaders have political power, and dismiss or reject policy proposals that address important issues such as the climate crisis, corporate power, poverty, civility in public discourse. They have no regard for the common good or the civic norms of fairness.

 Little regard for verifiable evidence

 They also live in a post-truth world (see Lee McIntyre’s book Post Truth or Cass R. Sunstein’s book, Liars: Falsehoods and  Free Speech in an Age of Deception). McIntyre describes Trump’s no-viable-evidence “strategy” as follows.

 “1. Raise questions about some outlandish matter (‘people are talking,’ ‘I’m just reporting what I read in the newspapers’), for instance, Obama was not born in the United States or that Obama had Trump wiretapped.

 “2. Provide no evidence (because there isn’t any) beyond one’s own conviction.

 “3. Suggest that the press cannot be trustedbecause they are biased.

 “4.This will lead some people to doubt whether what they are hearing from the press is accurate (or at least to conclude that the issue is ‘controversial’)

 “5. In the face of such uncertainty, people will be more prone to hunker down in their ideology and indulge in confirmation bias by choosing to believe only what fits their preconceived notions.

“6. This is the ripe environment for the proliferation of fake news, which will reinforce items 1 through 5.

 “7. Thus, people will believe what you say just because you said it. Belief can be tribal” (p. 15).  Indeed, the Republican Party, led by Trump, has become the party willing to use any means, including violence and intimidation, to achieve their anti-democratic goals. Power, not truth, is the ultimate goal.

 Trump’s electoral base

 Trump’s political power in the Republican Party is based on his electoral base of millions of voters, perhaps at present representing 30-40% of the Republican electorate. Without its support, Trump’s power evaporates.

 Trump has so far been able to unify disparate right-wing forces into an unquestioning populist base of support for himself. This populous base includes advocates of unfounded and conspiratorial views of society, some committed to the use of violent methods to achieve their goals, along with overlapping special interest groups devoted to maximum gun rights, closed borders, Christian nationalism, white supremacy.

 This is a population that generally takes Trump’s word as definitive, while rejecting the views and evidence from scientists, experts, the “dark state” of government civil servants, and the “fake news.” Emotions and ideology trump evidence. Indeed, some see Trump as chosen by God. They love his admonitions invoking “law and order” and his disparaging statements on the “black lives matter” movement and immigration. And, of course, his continues to rant about “the big steal,” referring to his misbegotten, discredited, view that he won the 2020 presidential election.

 Many of the Trump supporters accept the idea that the Democrats are “radical socialists” and electing them will take the country down a path where all individual “freedoms” are lost.

 Trump’s base is motivated less by economic distress than by ideological commitments and special interests. Robert A. Pape, political-science professor at the University of Chicago and Keven Ruby, Senior research associate of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, find that “a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more ‘normal’ Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election” (https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/617895).

 A quick overview of their goals

 Trump, his massive electoral base, the Republican Party, and their allies push or go along with policies that are anti-democratic, even unlawful, including:

 (1)a strong unitary executive; (2) the disregard or hollowing out of the rule of law; (3) the political cleansing, curtailment, or elimination of programs advanced by Democrats or other opponents; (4) the institution of a xenophobic border policy; (5) the forced removal or imprisonment of undocumented residents; (6) the creation and support of alternative media based on right-wing partisan goals and values; (7) the support of programs that disproportionately benefit the rich and power; (8) the criminalization of dissent; (9) the use of the military to deal with dissenters (use of the insurrection act); (10) alliances with Putin and other autocratic leaders, and (11) an end to US participation in NATO

 In this post, I will focus on domestic issues that show the anti-democratic thrust of Trump and his allies.

 #1 – A dictatorship where the ends justify the means

If Trump wins the presidential election, he says that he wants to create a dictatorship – a goal with fascist overtones.

 Robert Reich argues that the Republican Party is already a fascist party (https://commondreams.org/opinion/the-united-states-now-has-a-fascist-political-party). Here are key points from Reich’s article.

I hate to say this, but America no longer has two parties devoted to a democratic system of self-government. We have a Democratic Party, which — notwithstanding a few glaring counter-examples such as what the Democratic National Committee did to Bernie in 2016 — is still largely committed to democracy. And we have a Republican Party, which is careening at high-velocity toward authoritarianism. Okay, fascism.”

Reich continues. “We are witnessing the logical culmination of win-at-any-cost Trump Republican politics — scorched-earth tactics used by Republicans to entrench their power, with no justification other than that they can.

“Democracy is about means. Under it, citizens don’t have to agree on ends (abortion, health care, guns, or whatever else we disagree about) as long as we agree on democratic means for handling our disagreements.

“But for Trump Republicans, the ends justify whatever means they choose —including expelling lawmakers, rigging elections through gerrymandering, refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and denying the outcome of a legitimate presidential election.”

“Without two parties committed to democratic means to resolve differences in ends, the one remaining (small-d) democratic party is at a disadvantage in seeking ends it deems worthy. The inevitable result: Eventually it, too, sacrifices democratic means to its own ends.”

Reich concludes: “I don’t believe Trump alone is responsible for the birth of modern Republican fascism, but he has legitimized and encouraged the vicious rancor that has led much of the GOP into election-denying authoritarianism.”

 #2 – Trump’s anti-democratic record and rhetoric

At a campaign reception in Boston on December 5, 2023, Biden spent part of a speech making a case against Trump’s threat to U.S. democracy. It is a useful summary (https://whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/01/05/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-weston-ma). Here’s some of what the president said.

 “Listen to what he’s [Trump’s] actually saying these days.  He’s saying it out loud.  He says, ‘2024 is the final battle.’  He goes on to say, ‘I am your retribution.’  He talks about, quote, ‘We’re a failing nation.’ He goes on to say — and these are all quotes — ‘Either they win or we win.  And if they win, we no longer have a country.’“Trump proudly proclaims himself an election denier.  You know, he’s the only losing candidate in American history to — not to accept the will of the American people.”

“The same man who encouraged supporters to go to the Capitol on January 6th, who for hours sat in the private dining room I have off the Oval Office watching him threaten his own vice president who refused to break his oath to the Constitution.

“And now, the same man promising pardons to those convicted felons and insurrectionists — ‘if I’m elected’ — he’s going to pardon them.  That’s what he says. “The same man who said it was time for, and I quote, ‘termination of all rules, regulation, and articles, even those… in the Constitution.’  This guy means it, and he’s saying it out loud. “Now his supporters are saying he should invoke the Insurrection Act — you know, the use of the U.S. military on domestic soil — against political opponents to — and in American cities.” “If — he said — if he’s returned to office, he said he’ll go after those who oppose him and root out what he called the ‘vermin.’  American vermin.  A phrase you may recall from history used in the ‘30s in another country — a specific phrase with a specific meaning, and it echoes the language you’ve heard in Germany in the ‘30s. “And it wasn’t the first time he used the language of the ‘30s.  Trump also said — and he talked about, quote, ’the blood of our country is being poisoned…. What in God’s name is going on?” “Trump’s new Speaker supports a national ban on abortion under any circumstances.  And as we’ve just seen, radical bans in states all across America have been supported by them.”

 “And Trump has vowed again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would mean 40 million Americans would lose their health insurance, parents couldn’t keep their kids on their insurance plans up to — under age 26, and 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied health insurance. It’s the 51st time they will have tried it.  Not a joke. 

“Extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress will not support the essential assistance to Ukraine unless we fi- — we follow the most draconian actions possible to keep immigrants out of America, building walls and the like. On my very first day, I sent a comprehensive immigration bill to Congress asking for a significant increase in the number of — of folks at the border — a significant increase in all the security we needed in terms of hi-tech [high-tech] stuff. But the Republicans refused to act.  They wouldn’t act — they won’t act on it.  I don’t think they want to solve it.  I think they want to keep it as a problem without the tools to make it any better. 
#3 – Trump’s reelection would mean chaos for the country

 There has been some reporting on how Trump says he wants to be a “dictator.” Contrariwise, William Cooper argues that his presidency is more likely to produce “chaos” than a dictatorship (https://cnn.com/2023/12/11/opinions/trump-elections-2024-dictator-cooper/index.html).

“Trump himself is on the bandwagon, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity Tuesday night that he would be a dictator, though only on ‘day one’ of his presidency. ‘We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling,’ he said. ‘After that I’m not a dictator.’ Last month, he used the rhetoric of history’s worst dictators against his political opponents, vowing to ‘root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.’”

Cooper argues that, while Trump as president will have the power to cause social, economic, and political chaos, he will not be a dictator, even for one day.

“The widespread fear that Trump will actually be a dictator, however, is misplaced. If Trump wins the 2024 election, American democracy might be suspended, at least temporarily. But it won’t be replaced by a dictatorship, which is a coherent and recognizable system of government. Instead, if Trump wins, my view is that American democracy will be replaced by American ‘chaosracy’ — an incoherent, volatile and unpredictable mix of some government institutions that function democratically and some that don’t.”

For example, “The federal bureaucracy can’t simply be ‘purged.’ Valid federal legislation authorizes and funds government agencies — and powerful unions protect their workers — so the courts won’t allow federal employees to be fired en masse absent duly enacted legislation. Republican presidents have long tried to shrink the administrative state. They’ve failed miserably.

“Trump-appointed judges, all confirmed by a majority of the Senate, have shifted the federal courts sharply to the right. But they have also shown their independence and ruled against Trump repeatedly. The Supreme Court allowed a New York prosecutor to receive Trump’s tax returns, denied Trump’s effort to end DACA and rejected Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“The Senate, furthermore, still has to confirm, by majority vote, all executive-level presidential appointments (including at the Department of Justice). Trump can’t just appoint, for example, Rudy Guliani as attorney general, Steve Bannon as secretary of defense or Michael Flynn as secretary of state. And pardons only apply to federal offenses, offer no protection under state law and may be voided in court if they are preemptive and not specific. They are hardly a license to go about committing major crimes. Just look at Bannon, who was pardoned by Trump in his border wall case and later convicted for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 committee in Congress.

“Unlike a dictator, Trump wouldn’t control most government activity — at the federal, state or local level. If the Democrats take the House in 2024, would Trump control how they vote on legislation? Would he force state court judges to govern how he wants them to? Local school boards?”

“Given his historic unpopularity ratings, the resistance to a second Trump term will likely be fierce at every level of government.”

But, Cooper writes, “[t]he one way Trump could actually achieve a dictatorship is if he commandeered the military to use force — or its threat — throughout the country on his behalf. But there’s no reason whatsoever to think he could pull that off. Trump has long had strained relations with military leaders, including his secretaries of defense John Mattis and Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

“As we saw with Milley — who actively opposed Trump’s attempt to reverse the 2020 presidential election results — military leaders won’t just obey Trump’s illegal initiatives. The military doesn’t ‘take an oath to a wannabe dictator,’ Milley said in his departing speech last September. ‘We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America — and we’re willing to die to protect it.

#4 – MAGA’s violent threats are warping life in America

 David French compiles evidence on how “MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America,” involving attacks on Democratic – and indeed all – opponents with the goal of driving them out of politics so that Republicans, led by Trump and other reactionaries, can dominate the political system at all levels (https://nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html).

 French refers to examples at all levels of the socio-political system.

 At the national level

He refers to a new book by journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman titled Find Me the Votes, in which they “report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, ‘Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?’

French adds: Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.”

 French also points out that “Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.”

 He continues. “The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats afterit ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.

 “Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.”

 At the sub-national level

 “In2021,” French writes, “Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, ‘We know who you are’ and ‘We will find you.’

My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists.” [Doxing is a form of cyberbullying that uses sensitive or secret information, statements, or records for the harassment, exposure, financial harm, or other exploitation of targeted individuals.] People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.”

 This intimidation “is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.”

 The ominous result. “The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.”

 #5 – Trump and allies plot militarized mass deportations, detention camps

 Heather Cox Richardson offers this summary in her missive of Feb 19, 2024.

 Trump has promised his supporters that in a second term he would launch ‘the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’ To deport as many as ten million of what he called ‘foreign national invaders,’ Trump advisor Stephen Miller explained on a November podcast, the administration would federalize National Guard troops from Republican-dominated states and send them around the country to round people up, moving them to ‘large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,’ that would serve as internment camps.”

 Isaac Arnsdorf, Nick Miroff, and Josh Dawsey also delve into the immigration issue (https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/20/trump-mass-deportation-immigration).

 “As president, Trump sought to use military planes and bases for deportation. Now, he and his allies are talking about a new effort that current and former officials warn could be impractical and dangerous.”

 “Trump pledges that as president he would immediately launch ‘the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’ As a model, he points to an Eisenhower-era program known as ‘Operation Wetback,’ using a derogatory slur for Mexican migrants. The operation used military tactics to round up and remove migrant workers, sometimes transporting them in dangerous conditions that led to some deaths. Former administration officials and policy experts said staging an even larger operation today would face a bottleneck in detention space — a problem that Trump adviser Stephen Miller and other allies have proposed addressing by building mass deportation camps.”

 Arnsdorf and his colleagues continue. “Throughout his current campaign, the former president has exerted his influence on the immigration policy debate on several fronts. He pressured congressional Republicans to reject a bipartisan compromise to expand enforcement funding and powers, arguing that it would give the Democrats a political victory and that it was not restrictive enough. He has also escalated his use of dehumanizing language to describe migrants, accusing them of ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ and calling the record unauthorized border crossings an ‘invasion,’ an ‘open wound’ and a source of imminent terrorist attacks.

“But his deportation proposal is one part of his emerging platform that experts, current and former government officials and others described as especially alarming, impractical and prone to significant legal and logistical hurdles.

 “‘You’re talking about officers in tactical gear going into communities, being videotaped in the streets, putting kids in car seats, carrying baby formula. Then what do you do with those families?’ said Jason Houser, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s chief of staff from January 2022 until March 2023. ‘Are you going to go into neighborhoods in Philly, New York, Baltimore and start tugging people out of communities? That’s what they want. It puts law enforcement and the communities at risk.’

 “Reflecting on the ideas Trump and his team discussed during his presidency, Houser said, ‘Their ideas were psychotic.’”

 “While advisers agree on border security, building a wall on the southern border and deporting migrants who have committed crimes after entering the country as winning political issues, one adviser expressed concern that promising to deport massive numbers of people who haven’t been convicted of a crime could hurt Trump in a general election campaign. Trump’s language and proposals are already under heavy criticism from the Biden campaign, as well as pro-immigration and civil liberties groups.”

 “The Trump campaign has also said he would sign an executive order on his first day in office to withhold passports, Social Security numbers and other government benefits from children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States. The idea of challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship would be sure to draw a court challenge. The proposal has been raised by Trump and Miller before, but the specific promise of an executive order indicated the campaign has put further effort into fleshing it out.”

“The pool of potential deportees is large. There are about 11 million immigrants in the United States without legal status, according to the most recent estimates. Nearly 7 million of those are known to ICE, which maintains a vast database of people eligible for deportation whose asylum claims and immigration cases are still pending.

“A smaller subset of that caseload — about 1.3 million people — remain in the United States despite having received a deportation order from an immigration judge. These potential deportees, if taken into custody, are the easiest for the government to send home, because they have already received due process. But ICE often doesn’t know where they are.

“Beyond those challenges, there are other major logistical and operational obstacles to the kind of mass deportations Trump has promised. The first is available personnel: ICE only has about 6,000 deportation officers nationwide. The amount of time it takes to recruit, hire, screen and train a new deportation officer is about two years, according to current and former ICE officials.

 “Detentionspace is also squeezed. The Biden administration is using about 38,000 beds at immigration jails and other facilities that hold migrants awaiting deportation. During the Trump years, the number exceeded 50,000, but never reached the kinds of capacity levels necessary for the kind of mega-deportation system Trump envisions.

 “Some ICE officials said the agency could find more available beds in county jails. But Trump surrogates have gone further, suggesting they would put migrants in “camps” or “tents.”

 “To arrest and deport families with children, the preparations are even more time-consuming. An operation targeting 20 to 30 families for arrest takes two to three weeks of planning, said Houser, the former ICE chief of staff. For ICE to reach a target of 300,000 to 500,000 deportations per year — a far more modest goal than Trump’s — Houser said the agency would need two to three times as many deportation officers as ICE has.

“‘You’re talking about building a major logistics apparatus that would still have to meet court and legal requirements for health care and child care,’ he said.

ICE officers and staff are burned out by the pace and intensity of their work over the past several years, according to a veteran DHS official who was not authorized to speak to reporters. For other law enforcement agencies, the drain on their resources would come at the expense of other legitimate priorities, the former DHS official said, and the operation would have to be continuous to deter new arrivals.

 “‘It feels shortsighted, stupid and an enormous waste of money,’ the official said.

Another problem is so-called ‘recalcitrant countries’ that limit or refuse to take back deportees. Nations such as Venezuela and Cuba are already under U.S. economic sanctions, leaving Washington with reduced leverage to compel them to take more deportation flights.

“Even other nations that remain U.S. allies in Latin America set conditions on the number of flights and deportees they’re willing to accept. Passenger manifests have to be sent several days in advance. It’s not as simple as loading hundreds of people into a military transport plane and dropping them off wherever the president wants.”

“Trump pledged to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million people after his 2016 win but never came close to hitting those targets. At his administration’s high-water mark in 2019, ICE carried out 267,258 deportations and returns, Department of Homeland Security data show.”

“As the number of people in ICE custody jumped 22 percent in Trump’s first two years, the DHS inspector general uncovered ‘egregious violations of detention standards,’ including inadequate medical care, expired food, lack of recreation, moldy bathrooms and inadequate clothing and hygiene supplies. A separate inspector general’s investigation found ‘dangerous overcrowding’ in an El Paso facility, where a cell built for 25 people held 155.

 “In June 2018, reporters and human rights activists toured a facility in McAllen, Tex., where children slept under foil sheets surrounded by chain-link fencing, after DHS acknowledged separating children from their parents at the border. Public outrage over an audio clip of a sobbing child forced Trump to halt the practice. DHS later identified 4,227 separated children, 3,147 of whom were reunited with their parent as of November 2023.

 “Asked in 2023 whether he might reimpose family separation as president, Trump declined to rule it out and defended the policy. ‘I know it sounds harsh,’ he said in a CNN town hall. When you say to a family that if you come we’re going to break you up, they don’t come. And we can’t afford to have any more.’”

 “As the president’s top adviser on immigration matters, Miller advocated for invoking the Insurrection Act to mobilize the Department of Defense, according to the former officials. Pentagon officials balked at the idea of using military bases and planes, current and former officials recalled, citing concerns of getting mired in an open-ended commitment or compromising troop readiness.”

#6 – Trump’s second presidency would mean more gun violence

 Brett Samuels takes up this issue in an article for The Hill on Nov 2, 2023

(https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4319050-biden-trump-gun-violence-2024). Samuels refers to a memo the Biden campaign shared with the public. The memo, titled “Trump’s America in 2025: More Guns, More Shootings, More Deaths,” cites past Trump comments to argue the Republican front-runner would allow more firearms in schools and push for a national concealed carry law.” 

“In a speech at an annual NRA meeting earlier this year, Trump vowed to protect the Second Amendment and argued the rise in school shootings was a result of widespread mental health problems in the country. 

“He said if elected, he would support putting more guns in schools to protect them from future shootings, proposing a new tax credit to reimburse any teacher for the cost of a concealed carry firearm and training from a qualified expert.

“Trump also said he would ask Congress to pass a bill to create “national concealed carry reciprocity.”

At the same time, “President Biden has repeatedly pushed for congressional action on gun control and has taken executive action to try and address the problem, giving his campaign a clear contrast with what it views as a record of inaction from Trump.

“Since taking office, the president has signed executive actions to target the proliferation of ghost guns, which are difficult to track, and to bolster background checks. Biden in September established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to focus specifically on the issue of mass shootings. He has repeatedly called on Congress to reimpose a ban on assault weapons.”

Biden in 2022 signed bipartisan legislation that enhanced background checks for gun purchasers between the age of 18 and 21, made obtaining firearms through straw purchases or trafficking a federal offense and clarified the definition of a federally licensed firearm dealer, among other measures.”

The president has the backing of major gun safety groups for his 2024 reelection, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady and Team ENOUGH, Community Justice Action Fund and Giffords.

Joe Biden is, hands down, the only candidate in this race who has both the track record and the guts to stand up to the gun lobby and protect Americans from gun crime,” Peter Ambler, Giffords co-founder and executive director, said in a statement.”

Concluding thoughts

 Trump and his allies want to undermine U.S. democracy. If they win control of the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress, they will have ample opportunity to do this.

 U.S. history is, at least in part, a history of violence against indigenous people, people of color (especially, African-Americans), immigrants, workers and unions, women’s rights, and others. It is reflected in the Civil War, as southern white plantation owners and their government and grassroots supporters fought a losing and bloody war to expand slavery in the west. Adam Hochschild recaptures the government’s suppression of war opponents, socialists, and trade unions during WWI in his book, American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis. Kevin M. Krouse and Julian E. Zelizer edit a collection of essays by historians “to take on the biggest legends and lies” in American history. The book’s title: Myth America. Dana Milbank analyzes the “twenty-five year crack-up of the Republican Party” in his book, The Destructionists. Dan Pfeiffer focuses his book on the “big lie” promoted by right-wing media (Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook, and the Mega Media are Destroying America). Among the most troubling books is the book by Malcolm Nance, They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency.

 Malcom Nance does not mince words. He is a globally renowned expert on terrorism, extremism, and insurgency and best-selling author. He offers the following description of Trump’s electoral base in his book titled They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency (publ. 2022). This base is anti-democratic and willing to accept violence if necessary to achieve their goals.

 “The Trump worshipping base has become an openly fascist movement. It endangers the nation with near constant threats to take up arms and create political instability through violence. The goals of TITUS [Trump Insurgency in the United States] are not just to alter and coopt the national dialogue but to dismantle the framework of government and the Constitution itself. They openly advocate the destruction of America’s diversity, multiculturalism, and equality. They continue to demand that an unelected dictator be put back into office. They want a strongman who will impose the will and ideology of forty million misguided people over the voices and lives of all other Americans” (p. 241).

 

The extremism built into Trump’s policies and electoral appeal

Bob Sheak, Jan 24, 2024

The elements of political extremism are present and intensifying in the U.S. including: (1) a leader who is widely accepted as such on the Right, (2) who is willing to use violence against opponents, (3) who thinks he is above the law, (4) who is viewed as a “strongman”, (5) who is defied by some supporters, (6) who wants to severely limit immigration, (7) who has support of many among the rich and powerful, (8) who advocates a militarized foreign policy, (9) who benefits from biased constitutional “pillars,” and (10) who ignores, disclaims, or belittles existential threats.

#1 – Trump is, so far, the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, supported by an electoral base of true believers that numbers in the tens of millions, along with wide swaths of the corporate community. Many in his base are drawn to him because they dubiously believe his first presidential term was successful, that a second term will be equally successful, and because he promises in a second term to seek revenge against his opponents, pursue a punitive and restrictive immigration policy, eliminate restrictions on gun ownership, promote Christian Nationalism, support white supremacy, and go along with those who want to ban abortion. Many of the rich and powerful and corporate oligarchs love that if re-elected Trump will lower taxes, eviscerate the Justice system, end the security of tens of thousands of federal government workers, and find ways to punish his opponents, even violently.

#2 – Violence

Thom Hartmann says that revenge Trump seeks may translate into violence. He calls Trump and his political allies “fascists and bullies all” (https://commondreams.org/opinion/donald-trump-classic-fascist-bully). Here’s some of what he writes in this Jan. 17 article.

“Trump dreams of revenge. It’s what fascists do.

“Because fascism trickles down from fascist leadership, it’s what Trump’s cult members are dreaming of, too. As are his toady lawyers.

“Yesterday, for example, Trump’s lawyer argued before the DC Appeals Court that if Trump became president again he could order Seal Team Six to assassinate Joe Biden or Liz Cheney and nobody could do anything about it.”

#3 – Above the law

There are currently 91 criminal counts against Trump. Ali Velshi has published a book. The Trump Indictments, that includes the texts of all of them. In his Introduction, Velshi refers to the multiple indictments that are included in four cases. Trump’s supporters often view the charges as “witch hunts” with no merit, but they have so far been unsuccessful in proving their case in the courts.

One, of the cases is about the efforts of Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which led to the Jan.6 riots at the Capitol. Another case involves Special Counsel Jack Smith’s charge Trump illegal mishandling of sensitive government documents that Trump took to his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida and his attempts to obstruct the government from retrieving them. A third, the Georgia case, “alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to overturn the state’s election results and subvert the will of Georgia voters.” The fourth case “alleges that in 2017, Trump falsified Trump Organization business records related to reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments to the adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels” (pp. viii-xi).

Trump’s lawyers want to delay the court proceedings, hoping that Trump’s re-election in November 2024 will then give him the power to put an end to these legal cases. He has also promised that as President he will pardon many or all of the over 700 persons already convicted for their participation in the Jan.6 riots.

What is so troubling is that Trump and his myriad supporters want a strongman [i.e., Trump] in the White House and could care less about whether the U.S. remains a democratic society governed by free and fair elections.

#4 – Viewed as a strongman

Zeynep Tufekci, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, considers how Trump’s voters crave a “strongman” President (https://nytimes.com/2024/01/14/opinion/trump-voters-iowa-caucus.html).

“I first began attending Trump rallies eight years ago, to try to better understand a candidate who was then being described as a joke — someone with little to no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency — and came away struck by his mix of charisma and powerful command of audiences.”

“I recently started going to Trump rallies and following his supporters’ online political conversations once again, to try to better understand something else: his base, and specifically the question of authoritarianism and the American voter.

The authoritarian label has been attached to Trump by critics for years, especially after he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, which culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

“What I wanted to understand was, why? Why Trump? Even if these voters were unhappy with President Biden, why not a less polarizing Republican, one without indictments and all that dictator talk? Why does Trump have so much enduring appeal?”

Tufekci talked to more than 100 voters. No one mentioned the word “authoritarian.” He continues: “But Trump is an authoritarian, projecting “qualities that many voters — not just Trump voters — admire: strength, a sense of control, even an ends-justify-the-means leadership style….They are seen as having special or singular strengths, and ‘I alone can fix it’ power.”

What he “heard from voters drawn to Trump was that he had a special strength in making the economy work better for them than Biden has, and that he was a tough, ‘don’t mess with me’ absolutist, which they see as helping to prevent new wars.

His supporters also see him as an authentic strongman who is not a typical politician, and Trump sells that message very well to his base.”

“Trump’s vulgar language, his penchant for insults (“Don’t call him a fat pig,” he said about Chris Christie) and his rhetoric about political opponents (promising to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”) are seen as signs of authenticity and strength by his supporters. All the politicians say things like that in private, countless Trump supporters asserted to me and argued that it’s just Trump who’s strong and honest enough to say it out loud — for them, a sign that he’s honest.”

“…Trump leans heavily on the message that he alone is strong enough to keep America peaceful and prosperous in a scary world. Right after his recent landslide re-election, Orban said his party had won despite everyone being against them, and now he would ensure that Hungary would be “strong, rich and green.” In Iowa, Trump praised Orban himself before telling a cheering crowd: ‘For four straight years, I kept America safe. I kept Israel safe. I kept Ukraine safe, and I kept the entire world safe.’”

“So what about democracy, then? I pressed many Trump supporters about the events around Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol. I didn’t encounter a single outright supporter of what happened, but many people explained the events away. Increasingly separate information environments and our fractured media ecology shape the way people view that day.

“Some Trump supporters told me that whatever happened was carried out by a fringe faction that did not represent Trump’s base.

“Many also didn’t trust the government or traditional media’s telling of what happened on Jan. 6.

“It’s easy to see why Trump’s political message can override concerns about the process of democracy for many. What’s a bit of due process overstepped here, a trampled emoluments clause there, when all politicians are believed to be corrupt and fractured information sources pump very different messages about reality?

“Politicians projecting strength at the expense of the rules of liberal democracy isn’t a new phenomenon in the United States, or the world. Thomas Jefferson worried about it. So did Plato. Perhaps acknowledging that Trump’s appeal isn’t that mysterious can help people grapple with its power.”

#5 – The deification of Trump

On January 17, 2024 in his weekly column for the New York Times, Thomas B. Edsall reviewed the opinions and research findings of experts, many of them political scientists, on a variety of political and economic topics. The focus in this column is on “the deification of Donald Trump”

(https://nytimes.com/2024/01/17/opinion/trump-god-evangelicals-anointed.html). Edsall writes:

“Trump, his family and his supporters have been more than willing to claim that Trump is ordained by God for a special mission, to restore America as a Christian nation.

“In recent weeks, for example, the former president posted a video called ‘God Made Trump’ on Truth Social that was produced by a conservative media group technically independent of the Trump campaign. He has also screened it at campaign rallies.

“The video begins as a narrator with a voice reminiscent of Paul Harvey’s declares: ‘On June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said: ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God gave us Trump.’”

“Why was Trump chosen? The video continues:

“God had to have someone willing to go into the den of vipers. Call out the fake news for their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s. The poison of vipers is on their lips. So God made Trump.

“The video claims to quote God directly:

“God said, “I will need someone who will be strong and courageous. Who will not be afraid or terrified of wolves when they attack. A man who cares for the flock. A shepherd to mankind who won’t ever leave or forsake them. I need the most diligent worker to follow the path and remain strong in faith. And know the belief in God and country.”

“The ‘God Made Trump’ video was created by the Dilley Meme Team, described by Ken Bensinger of The Times as

an organized collective of video producers who call themselves ‘Trump’s Online War Machine.’ The group’s leader, Brenden Dilley, characterizes himself as Christian and a man of faith, but says he has never read the Bible and does not attend church. He says that Mr. Trump has ‘God-tier genetics’ and, in response to the outcry over the ‘God Made Trump’ video, Dilley posted a meme depicting Mr. Trump as Moses parting the Red Sea.

The video, along with Eric Trump’s claim that his father ‘literally saved Christianity’ and the image Trump himself reposted on Truth Social of Jesus sitting next to him in court, raise a question: Does Trump believe that he is God’s messenger or are his direct and indirect claims to have a special relationship with God a cynical ploy to win evangelical votes?”

#6 – Anti-Immigration

Philip Bump, who writes columns for the Washington Post, posted on Jan 15 2024 that “Half of Americans agree with Trump’s ‘poisoning the blood’ immigration rhetoric” (https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/15/trump-poisoning-blood-immigration-policy).

“There’s always been a symbiosis between Donald Trump and right-wing rhetoric. His 2016 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination was successful — surprisingly successful — because of his willingness to embrace arguments and assertions that were considered beyond the pale for his more traditional opponents.

“By picking out and then defending (to whatever extent was necessary for his audience) claims about immigrants and terrorism, among other things, he tapped into a strain of argumentation that was often kept out of sight. He helped bring the rhetoric into the mainstream.

“On Sunday [Jan. 14, 2024], CBS News presented the results of a new poll conducted by the polling firm YouGov — results that offered a stark example of this pattern, of how even extreme right-wing arguments are now barely outside the norm.

“Respondents were asked by YouGov whether they agreed with Trump that immigrants entering the United States illegally had the effect of ‘poisoning the blood’ of the country. This is not just right-wing rhetoric, mind you, but a reflection of some of the most extreme racial politics in modern history. It is an explicit depiction of immigrants as dangerous, but specifically in the context of posing a threat to national identity. It is the language of fascism.

Nearly half of Americans agreed with it.

“That was largely because more than three-quarters of Republicans agreed with Trump’s framing. Fewer than half of Democrats and independents agreed.

Interestingly, when the comments weren’t attributed to Trump, support was lower. Republicans were 10 points more likely to indicate agreement with Trump when they were told it was Trump with whom they were agreeing. Democrats were slightly less likely to agree.”

#7 – Trump’s appeal to the rich and powerful

Robert Reich gives us an insight on how the rich and powerful endorse Trump, focusing on Jamie Dimon, the chair and CEO of one of the largest and most profitable banks in the United States and one of the most influential CEOs in the world

(https://commondreams.org/opinion/donald-trump-jamie-dimon-groveling-fascism). The article was published on Jan. 20, 2024.

On Wednesday [Jan. 17, 2024], “speaking from the World Economic Forum’s confab in Davos, Switzerland, Jamie Dimon…heaped praise on Donald Trump’s policies while president. Dimon said:

“Take a step back, be honest. He was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues.”

Reich argues that Dimon supports Trump because “he thinks Trump has a good chance of becoming president, and Dimon wants to be in his good graces.”

“So now, Dimon — like Republican lawmakers across America, like other leaders of American institutions — feels it necessary to cave into the integrity-crushing intimidation of a Trump administration, and lick Trump’s backside.

And when Dimon does this, you can bet many other CEOs and financial leaders will now follow his example.”

Reich refers to and challenges Dimon’s reasons for embracing Trump’s efforts in the forthcoming 2024 presidential election that are not “kind of right,” but mostly or entirely wrong.

Kind of right about NATO? Trump wanted the U.S. to withdraw from NATO — and may get his way if he becomes president again. This would open Europe further to Putin’s aggression.

Kind of right on immigration? Even the conservative CATO Institute found that Trump reduced legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Trump refused to grant legal status to children of immigrants born in the United States or who grew up in the U.S. He banned Muslims from America, and when the Muslim ban was found to be unconstitutional, banned people from Muslim countries. He fueled the flames of nativism by describing poorer nations as ‘shit holes’ and has used Nazi terms to describe foreigners as ‘poisoning the blood’ of Americans.

Grew the economy quite well? In fact, under Trump the economy lost 2.9 million jobs. Even before the pandemic, job growth was slower than it has been under Biden. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%. The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016. The number of Americans lacking health insurance rose by 3 million. The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.

Tax reform worked? Trump’s tax cut conferred most of its benefits on big corporations and the rich, while enlarging the budget deficit. Giant banks and financial services companies got huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.

…these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57% of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90% of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded. Eventually, the tax cuts are projected to grow to more than 100% of the increase.

Right about China? As the Brookings Institution found, Trump’s China policy only made China less restrained in pursuit of its ambitions. Confrontation has intensified, areas of cooperation have vanished, and the capacity of both countries to solve problems or manage competing interests has atrophied.

#8 – A militarized foreign policy

Glenn Kessler considers evidence rebutting Trump’s claims that during his presidency there were no terrorist attacks and no wars (https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency).

No terrorist attacks – false

Kessler identifies evidence to the contrary writing: “But Trump is wrong when he claims there were no terrorist attacks during his presidency. Laying aside domestic terrorism by right- or left-wing groups, the authoritative Global Terrorism Database maintained by the University of Maryland shows two major incidents tied to Islamist militants that resulted in fatalities.

Dec. 6, 2019: “A member of the Saudi Air Force, identified as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, opened fire on a classroom in the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Four people, including the assailant, were killed and eight others were injured in the attack. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the incident. Alshamrani posted criticism of U.S. wars and quoted Osama bin Laden on social media hours before the attack.”

Dec. 17, 2017: “An assailant driving a Home Depot rental truck entered a bike path in an attempt to run over civilians on the West Side Highway in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States. Following the initial attack, the assailant exited the vehicle and was shot by a police officer after displaying imitation firearms. At least eight people, including two citizens from the United States, five Argentinian tourists, and one Belgian tourist, were killed and 13 other people, including the assailant, were injured in the attack. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed that the assailant, identified as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, was ‘one of the caliphate soldiers;’ however, sources doubted the veracity of this claim. Authorities also recovered a note from the vehicle in which Saipov pledged allegiance to ISIL.”

“Both of these incidents garnered enormous attention, and Trump himself commented on the cases at the time. He even called the Saipov case a “terrorist attack” in his 2018 State of the Union address.

The other case listed in the database that Trump referenced in his address (the 2019 incident had not yet happened) was this one, though it did not result in fatalities:

Dec. 11, 2017: “A suicide bomber detonated explosives [a pipe bomb] at Port Authority Bus Terminal between Seventh and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States. In addition to the assailant, three civilians were injured in the blast. Akayed Ullah, a jihadi-inspired extremist, claimed responsibility for the incident and stated ‘They’ve been bombing in my country and I wanted to do damage here,’ and ‘I did it for the Islamic State.’ In April 2021, Ullah was sentenced to life plus 30 years.”

“Ullah, who came to the United States from Bangladesh in 2011, had obtained a green card as the child of a sibling of a U.S. citizen. Saipov, from Uzbekistan, arrived in the United States in 2010 through the diversity visa lottery.

“The database also lists four other incidents attributed to jihadi-inspired extremists, though no one was killed except, in two cases, the assailant.

No wars – false

Trump said at his farewell address as president that “he was the first president in 72 years not to have any wars.” Trump ignores Jimmy Carter’s presidency, from 1977 to 1981. Carter “not only never formally declared war or sought authorization to use force from Congress during his presidency, but military records show not a single soldier died in hostile action during his presidency. Eight military personnel died during the 1980 Iranian hostage rescue mission, but the military deems those as non-hostile deaths. (A helicopter collided with an aircraft.) A marine and an army soldier were also killed when a mob burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.”

On Trump’s watch, “At least 65 active duty troops died in hostile action in Trump’s presidency, the records show, as he ramped up commitments in Iraq and Syria to fight the ISIS terrorist group while also launching airstrikes on Syria as punishment for a chemical weapons attack. (During the town hall, Trump bragged, “We beat ISIS, knocked them out.”) Trump also escalated hostilities with Iran, including the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Trump said at the time the strike was carried out in accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of 2001.”

“Trump often has a poor memory and a tenuous grasp on history, as these examples yet again show. There were jihadi-inspired terrorist attacks in the United States during his presidency, as he himself noted at the time. It’s also false to claim that he’s the first president since 1948 not to have had any wars on his watch. Jimmy Carter earns that honor.”

#9 – The pillars of minority (right-wing) rule have grown.

This is the position taken by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book, Tyranny of the Minority(publ. 2023). The anti-democratic pillars they consider, that favor Republicans, include the following.

#1 – The Electoral College “distorts the popular vote in two ways.

First, nearly all states (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska) allocate Electoral College votes in a winner-take-all manner. This means that if a candidate wins a state by a narrow margin of 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent, the candidate will receive 100 percent of the state’s electoral votes. This disproportionality creates problems when state’s electoral votes are aggregated in the Electoral College, because it allows the loser of the national popular vote to win.” This was exemplified in the 2016 presidential election in four swing states. “Donald Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by narrow margins…which allowed him to capture all 46 of those states’ electoral votes. Hillary Clinton won New by 1.7 million votes., carrying its 29 electoral votes. Summing up the votes in those four states, Clinton won the popular vote by 1.6 million votes, but Trump won the Electoral College vote among those states by 46 to 29. The loser won.” (p. 173).

Second, there is also a “small-state” bias in the Electoral College that favors Republicans. The number of presidential electors allocated to each state is equal to the size of  its congressional delegation: the number of representatives in the House plus the number of senators.” The effect is that “U.S. presidential elections have not been very democratic in the twenty-first century. Between 1992 and 2020, the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in every presidential election except 2004,” but “won the presidency three times during this period” (p. 175).

Third, the Supreme Court represents “a third pillar of minority rule.” “The court’s partisan bias is indirect but nevertheless is consequential. Given the nature of the Electoral College and the Senate, Supreme Court justices may be nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senate majorities that represent only a minority of Americans. And given the Republican advantage in the Electoral College and the Senate, such justices are more likely to be Republican appointees” (pp. 176-177).

Four, “an electoral system that manufactures artificial majorities and sometimes allows parties that win fewer votes to control legislatures. Nearly all U.S. congressional and state legislative elections employ a first-past-the-post (or winner-take-all) system….the Democratic Party’s voters are concentrated in metropolitan centers, whereas Republican voters, based in small towns and suburbs, tend to be more evenly distributed. As a result, Democrats are more likely  to ‘waste’ votes racking up large majorities in urban districts while losing in most non-urban ones” (p.178).

#10 – Ignoring rising existential threats

Ralph Nader addresses this issue in article published on Jan. 15 2024https://commondreams.org/opinion/omnicides-that-threaten-humanity

Nader Identifies 5 Omnicides that threaten humanity, including (1) the growing climate crisis, (2) viral and bacterial pandemics that are looming larger by the decade, (3) the “perils of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are not being confronted with the requisite international arms control treaties, (4) “Artificial Intelligence” or “A.I.” is viewed by leading scientists and technologists as the ultimate tool capable of advancing an out-of-control doomsday future. Machines replicating themselves and turning on their creators is no longer science fiction.” – (5) Political and corporate power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. In most countries, the political economy has converged into an ever-maturing Corporate State which President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned about in a 1938 message to Congress:

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

Kleptocratic regimes come in various styles, depending on the nation’s stage of development, and operate by stealing from the future to enrich and entrench themselves in the present. Both in so-called developed and developing countries, they are displacing any semblance of modestly functioning democracies able, with the primacy of civil values and the rule of law, to foresee and forestall these approaching omnicides.

Concluding thoughts

To defeat Trump and Republicans in the November 2024 elections will require a big turnout of Democratic voters along with a good share of Independents. It will require that Biden’s domestic and economic policies, progressive tax policies, and  his support of workers and unions are widely recognized. It will require that his attempts to deal with the climate crisis, his support for reproductive rights, Social Security and Medicare, his position on banning assault weapons and instituting other restrictions on gun ownership, his rejection of white supremacy, will also boost his chances for re-election in November 2024. It will require, additionally, that the “minority” biases built into the election system will not be sufficient to unduly suppress the center/left vote.