Trump wants more nuclear weapons and protection against them

Bob Sheak, Nov. 4, 2025

Testing nuclear weapons is a bad idea

Chris Walker reports on “Trump’s Push to Resume Nuclear Weapons Testing Rests on Falsehoods,” November 3, 2025 (https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-push-to-resume-nuclear-weapons-testing-rests-on-falsehoods). Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin. Here’s some of what he writes.

“This past week, President Donald Trump called on the Department of Defense (DOD) to restart nuclear weapons testing ‘immediately, citing false claims about other countries’ nuclear arsenals and testing.”

“Despite Trump’s suggestion that other countries are testing nuclear weapons, only one country, North Korea, has even tested such weapons in the 21st century. Indeed, most countries ended their nuclear weapons testing in the 1990s. (The U.S. suspended tests in 1992.)”

Walker writes, “Notably, Project 2025 (the policy blueprint for the Trump administration developed by the Heritage Foundation during last year’s presidential election) includes sections that discuss nuclear testing. For example, the document calls on Trump to reject the international Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It also encourages the Trump White House to ‘move to immediate test readiness’ when it comes to the country’s nuclear arsenal.”

Opposition

Walker cites The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

If the U.S. re-starts testing its nuclear weapons, this will accelerate a new nuclear arms race, as other nuclear weapons states do the same.”

“CND calls for more global pressure to create diplomatic space for new treaties to be established, to push for nuclear weapons states to abide by nuclear disarmament obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the ratification of the CTBT by all the nuclear weapons states,” the organization continued.

Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on the American people. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker.

———-

Tom Engelhardt offers criticism of Trump’s decision

(https://counterpunch.org/2025/09/08/a-potentially-world-ending-president). Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear and other books. Here’s some of what he writes

Nuclear war would end the world as we know it

He points out that the world now has “an estimated…an estimated 12,000 or so nuclear weapons of various kinds on this planet — enough, that is, to do in an almost unimaginable number of planets. Worse yet, two of the countries that possess them, India and Pakistan, only recently came close to launching a full-scale war with each other, even exchanging rounds of conventionally armed missiles, before agreeing to a ceasefire. And keep in mind that, if those countries were to use nuclear weaponry against each other in what would still pass for a ‘limited’ nuclear war, it would most likely result not just in almost unimaginable local destruction but planetary devastation. Massive clouds of dust from those nuclear explosions could potentially block the sun, leaving us in what has come to be known as nuclear winter in which more than two billion people on this planet might indeed die.”

———-

Dan Drolletee Jr, the executive head of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists considers Trump’s proposal to start testing nuclear weapons (https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/the-experts-respond-to-trumps-proposal-to-start-testing-our-nuclear-weapons-on-an-equal-basis/#report-heading).

He points out that “Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media site, that he had instructed the Department of War (formerly the Defense Department) to return to ‘nuclear testing’ — although it’s unclear whether he was referring to testing a nuclear delivery system (such as a rocket) or testing a nuclear explosive device (the actual bomb itself). Those are two very different things that Trump seems to be confused about.”

“In the words of prominent nuclear weapons expert Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (who is one of the lead authors of the “Nuclear Notebook” column, published regularly in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists):

‘It’s hard to know what he means. As usual, he’s unclear, all over the map, and wrong.’ Kristensen then goes into detail, debunking a series of Trump’s assertions in his social media post.” “For example, even if China was to up the number of its warheads dramatically, that would still amount to less than a third of what the United States and Russia each already have.”

Kristensen also notes, the US already tests its missiles (without nuclear payloads) to ensure that they can launch safely and correctly: “If by testing he [Trump] means nuclear explosive testing, that would be reckless, probably not possible for 18 months, would cost money that Congress would have to approve, and it would certainly trigger Russian and Chinese and likely also India/Pakistan nuclear tests. Unlike the US, all these countries would have much to gain by restarting test testing.”

Drollete cites veteran national security reporter Walter Pincus,

“People today seem to have forgotten—if they ever knew—what a single nuclear weapon can do. The inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, whose home was turned into a nuclear proving ground, have certainly never forgotten.”

———-

Norman Solomon, the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, the author of War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, and a cofounder of RootsAction.org, writes here on how

“the Dangers of Nuclear War Have Never Been Higher” (https://thenation.com/article/world/nuclear-war-military-spending-doomsday).

He is particularly concerned about Trump’s decision to resume nuclear weapons’ testing. Here’s some of what he writes.

“The dangers of nuclear war have never been higher, but political pressure to prevent it is at low ebb. Eighty years after the atomic age began with the Trinity bomb test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, words can’t possibly be adequate to describe the extent of global horrors that today’s nuclear arsenals are capable of inflicting. But mainstream US media outlets and partisan politics are routinely oblivious to the threat of oblivion.

“Despite the efforts of individuals and groups striving for arms control, the national discourse ignores the likely results of nuclear buildups—which continue to boost the actual risks of annihilation. Pronouncements from the nuclear establishment about a need to ‘maintain deterrence’ and ‘modernize’ usually go unquestioned as to the underlying assumptions. Senators and representatives praise nuclear systems with components produced in their state or district.”

“More than 700 scientists signed a letter last summer,” Solomon writes, “going beyond the focus on cost to urge the complete elimination of America’s ICBMs. The letter, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, explained that ‘the US could eliminate the land-based leg of the triad tomorrow and the US public would only be safer for it.’”

“The history of the last eight decades [since the US dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan]tells us that Americans will go along with astronomical spending for nuclear weaponry if they believe it makes them safer.

“Unless we effectively make the case that the opposite is true, the nuclear arms race will continue to play out in media and politics as a pricey necessity.

In recent years, numerous activists and groups have given priority to calling for abolition of nuclear weapons. It’s a position that occupies the highest moral ground, famously seized by the Nobel laureate scientist George Wald in a widely reprinted 1969 anti-war speech at MIT. ‘Nuclear weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a balance of terror is still terror,’ he said. ‘We have to get rid of those atomic weapons, here and everywhere. We cannot live with them.’”

There are profits

Solomon writes, “Meanwhile, for the corporate beneficiaries of a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget and an out-of-control nuclear weapons program, the more hostility toward Russia and China the better. And the country that first brought atomic weapons into the world is continuing to lead the way toward thermonuclear destruction.’

Nuclear weapons await launch by accident, if not intention

“For those of us who have lived in the era of nuclear bombs for many decades, still being alive can seem close to miraculous. Luck and collective efforts for sanity must have been factors. Now, the generations with most of their lives potentially ahead are in a world that could instantly make that impossible. The heightened militarism of American politics is threatening to seal their fate.”

———-

Trump dreamily thinks of protection against foreign enemies. Calls for U.S. Iron Dome are “a Fantasy”

Dr. Laura Grego, takes this position, Common Dreams, Jan 29, 2025

(https://commondreams.org/newswire/calls-for-u-s-iron-dome-a-fantasy). She is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Shortly after being elected president, “Trump issued an executive order mandating development of a hugely expensive, unrealistic and counterproductive homeland missile defense system. Comparisons to Israel’s Iron Dome are inaccurate and such a system has a low likelihood of success, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).”

Grego continues.

“President Trump’s vision of an Iron Dome over America is a fantasy. The apparent successes of Israel’s Iron Dome system are not relevant to US homeland defense. Iron Dome defends small areas from short-range nonnuclear missiles. It’s a vastly easier task than defending the whole country against missiles that travel 100 times further and seven times faster than those Iron Dome is built for.

“Homeland missile defense requires an entirely different kind of defense, and because ICBMs carry nuclear-armed missiles, it needs to be very reliable and effective. Invoking Iron Dome is just marketing, trying to manufacture credibility for something that has never worked.

“Over the last 60 years, the United States has spent more than $350 billion on efforts to develop a defense against nuclear-armed ICBMs. This effort has been ineffective against a real-world threat. A UCS-MIT technical analysis found that even a less-developed country such as North Korea could use long-understood countermeasures to fool midcourse defenses like the current homeland defense system, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. Proposals to get around those weaknesses by building space-based missile defenses have repeatedly been abandoned because they are expensive, very technically challenging, and readily defeated. Trump’s idea of a space-based missile defense is a bad investment.”

———-

Concluding Thoughts

Trump is again – and again – advocating policies that, if advanced, would be ineffective and harmful to the country. When it comes to nuclear weapons’ policies, the wrong decisions could destroy not only the US but all nations. And given his power, he could well launch these weapons with little or no restraint against any supposed enemy (e.g. China). He has said he is against war, but his rhetoric and decisions contradict that position.

There is opposition to such policies, but it appears too weak to sway the president. He will do what he wants to do, perhaps in a moment of anger, distraction, or mental breakdown.

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).