Sunday, September 28, 2025


Republicans aren't paying a price for turning Charlie Kirk memorial into a political rally

Tucker Carlson even compared Kirk’s murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.


U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage to speak at a memorial service for slain conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, U.S., September 21, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
September 27, 2025
ALTERNET

The memorial services for Charlie Kirk last week and for Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002 illustrate how much our political culture has changed over the past two decades.

Both men were charismatic figures on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Wellstone died in a plane crash. Kirk was murdered on a college campus. Wellstone was an elected official. Kirk was a political agitator. They both lived interesting lives. But what’s fascinating is how their respective supporters, their opponents, and the media reacted to their deaths and, in particular, to the memorial services organized to eulogize them.

Wellstone, a former community organizer and political science professor at Carleton College, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1990, defeating a Republican opponent with a grassroots campaign that included clever TV ads emphasizing his low-budget operation and his high-energy activism. He won reelection six years later. At the time, he was the Senate’s most progressive member (Bernie Sanders was not yet in the Senate) and was known as the “conscience of the Senate.”

On October 25, 2002, Wellstone (along with seven others, including his wife) died in a small plane crash, one week before the election in which he was running for a third term. Minnesota law required that Wellstone’s name be stricken from the ballot and replaced by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. One day after the crash, the DFL selected former Vice President Walter Mondale as its Senate candidate.

On October 29, Wellstone’s family and friends organized a public memorial event at the Williams Arena in Minneapolis (the University of Minnesota’s basketball arena), which was broadcast live on national TV. High-profile Democrats (including former president Bill Clinton) and Republicans (including Senator Trent Lott) as well as Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (an independent) attended the service, but only Wellstone’s family and close friends spoke at the event.

Their remarks were not vetted or scripted. One of the speakers was Wellstone’s close friend and former campaign treasurer, Rick Kahn. He began his speech as a conventional eulogy, but it shifted into a call to action, suggesting that the best way to honor Wellstone’s memory was to keep organizing: “We’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize!...[T]ogether, we can and will continue to fight every one of his fights; and together we can and will achieve great victories in Paul Wellstone’s name.’’ Kahn then rallied the crowd by urging them to “keep Paul Wellstone’s legacy alive” by helping Mondale win the Senate election.

Republicans immediately attacked the Democrats for turning the memorial service into a political rally. They demanded “equal time” on TV to counter the event’s messages. Former Republican Minnesota congressman Vin Weber said, ‘‘The DFL clearly intends to exploit Wellstone’s memory totally, completely and shamelessly for political gain. To them, Wellstone’s death, apparently, was just another campaign event.

The Republicans were particularly rankled that two weeks earlier, Wellstone was among the 21 Senate Democrats (out of 50) to vote against the authorization for the use of US military force in Iraq, a key component of President George W. Bush’s rally-round-the-flag response to the 9/11 bombing. They also knew that if the GOP candidate (former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) defeated Mondale, it would flip the Senate, so they orchestrated a full-scale attack on the Democrats for politicizing the Wellstone memorial event.

The media echoed the Republicans’ (as well as Ventura’s) attack on the Democrats for “politicizing” the memorial event. The orchestrated backlash worked. A poll conducted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune a few hours before the memorial service found that Mondale was leading Coleman by eight points. But on election day, Coleman won by 2.2%. His victory ended the Democrats’ one-seat majority in the Senate. On election day, Republican Tim Pawlenty won a three-way race for Minnesota governor, while the GOP flipped one House seat and made gains in the state legislature.

Some journalists and professors began describing what occurred as the “Wellstone effect.” For example, after Senator Ted Kennedy, the key proponent of universal health insurance, died in 2009, Rush Limbaugh warned that Democrats would turn his memorial service into a “Wellstone memorial on steroids.” NBC News observed that ‘‘Anyone addressing the health care bill at the [Kennedy] service will tread a fine line between taste and politics...The dangers of politicizing a memorial event were illustrated by a 2002 memorial for Sen. Paul Wellstone.”

The memorial service for Charlie Kirk (at a football stadium in Glendale, Arizona) was obviously a political rally by MAGA Republicans to turn Kirk into a martyr for their cause, to keep his legacy and his right-wing organization Turning Point USA alive, and to exact vengeance and whip up anger against Democrats, liberals, “the left,” the media, and all those Trump views as his opponents. Kirk held no office, but he was close to Trump and Vice President JD Vance. His final speaking tour (which included the Utah event where he was killed) was clearly intended not only to build the MAGA movement but also to help Republicans win the 2026 midterm House elections that Trump is worried they could lose.

Trump used his 40-minute speech to highlight campaign talking points like tariffs, crime in Chicago, and fear-mongering about the unproven consequences of Tylenol as well as to call for revenge against his opponents.

“Charlie Kirk truly was ... he was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose,” the president said. “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

Several speakers praised Kirk’s mission to carry out a conservative Christian vision of the United States. “We always did need less government,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “But what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is that we also needed a lot more God.”

Tucker Carlson even compared Kirk’s murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The most vitriolic remarks came from Stephen Miller, Trump’s key consigliere, who the previous week vowed to avenge Kirk’s death by “go[ing] after the left-leaning organizations” that, he claimed, “are promoting violence in this country.”

At Kirk’s memorial service, Miller -- a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic -- declared: “Erika [Kirk’s widow] is the storm. We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion.”

“Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” Miller continued. “Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry,” he said, pulling “us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.”

“We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation, and we will defend this world,” he added.

Addressing “the forces of wickedness and evil,” Miller thundered. “You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity.”

“You have no idea the dragon you have awakened,” he warned, as the MAGA movement will strive to “save this civilization, to save the west, to save this republic, because our children are strong, and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong. And what will you leave behind? Nothing, nothing.”

Even if one believes that Paul Wellstone’s friends and family, acting out of grief, erred in politicizing the 2002 memorial service, nothing said at that event reflected the kind of hate-mongering, venom-spewing, and demonizing of opponents that we saw at the Kirk memorial, which was like a combination of a religious revival meeting and a KKK rally. Our culture has come to accept as normal the kind of hysterical rants and raves espoused by Kirk’s friends and colleagues, including Trump, Vance, and Miller.

Moreover, after the Republicans and much of the media ganged up to condemn the Wellstone memorial, the Democrats paid dearly. In contrast, Republicans appear to be paying no price for turning the Kirk event into a right-wing, Christian nationalist, white supremacist MAGA political rally.

Unlike the Republicans’ backlash against the Wellstone memorial service, which they claimed was illegitimate and even illegal, today’s Democratic leaders, liberals, and the mainstream media seem intimidated from telling the truth about the memorial service that echoed and honored Kirk’s outrageous views, which, polls show, are strongly opposed by most Americans. The failure of current Democratic leaders and the media to challenge this apocalyptic, white supremacist, Christian nationalist fever is part of the problem.
























This “Talk” to the Little Man was the quiet answer to gossip and defamation. For decades, the emotional plague has tried again and again to kill orgone research ...




Why Trump’s MAGA evangelicals are much worse than past 'Christian conservatives'


President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2016, Wikimedia Commons

September 26, 2025 
ALTERNET


Liberal Georgia-based journalist Zaid Jilani, who was raised Muslim, has a long history of criticizing the Religious Right. Jilani, back in the 1990s and 2000s, often argued that while there's nothing wrong with faith and religion, "theocracy" has no place in a constitutional democratic republic like the United States.

But in an op-ed published by the New York Times on September 26, Jilani lays out some reasons why he finds 2025's MAGA Christian nationalists much more troubling than the fundamentalist evangelicals he criticized in the past.

"As the George W. Bush years rolled on," Jilani recalls, "I joined my fellow liberal activists in watching documentaries like 'Jesus Camp,' which warned of an impending Christian theocracy. I argued vigorously for separation of church and state, and I waited on pins and needles for the end of a movement I viewed as stifling freedom of religion and freedom of expression. But I'm starting to miss the Christian conservatives I grew up with. Unlike the Christian Right of my childhood, today's variations — some of which see President Trump as a religious figure — seem incapable of being compassionate toward outgroups like mine."

Jilani recalls that after al-Qaeda's 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush was careful to make a distinction between jihadist and non-jihadist Muslims. Bush described Islam as a "great religion," making it clear that he didn't blame all Muslims for 9/11.

"I think back to the days right after September 11, when Mr. Bush — the politician most closely associated with the 21st-Century Christian Right — visited a mosque in Washington, D.C., to emphasize that Muslims were just as American as anyone else," Jilani explains. "It's easy to laugh this off, given what happened afterward — he set off a bungling war on terrorism that included an unnecessary war in Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Yet Mr. Bush set the tone for the millions of devout Christians who voted for him."

MAGA's "Christian nationalism," Jilani laments, "can be distinguished more by cruelty than kindness."

"These new Christian conservatives are represented by people like Matt Walsh, a popular right-wing Catholic commentator," the Georgia-based journalist warns. "Conservatives spent years working across the aisle on criminal justice reform. Mr. Walsh has floated the return of whipping and amputations as punishments and said that by resisting Mr. Trump's militarization of law enforcement in Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson had committed treason and should be 'given the requisite punishment for a capital offense'…. There is no issue where the current crop of Christian Right politicians departs more from the old than immigration."

Zilani, who is Pakistani-American, adds, "Christians like Mr. Bush condemned nativism. These new activists embrace it."


Trump's 'vengeance': Conservative explains why white evangelicals may be drawn to MAGA


ARE THOSE THE 'DEVILS HORNS' ?! 
THOSE ARE THE DEVILS HORNS SHE IS GIVING
( IN MEMORY OF OZZIE OSBORNE)

Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow, gestures next to U.S. President Donald Trump during a memorial service for slain conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium, in Glendale, Arizona, U.S., September 21, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole

September 22, 2025
ALTERNET


During a Sunday, September 21 memorial for Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk in Glendale, Arizona, a speech from his widow, Erika Kirk, was followed by a speech from President Donald Trump — who told attendees that unlike her, "I hate my opponents."

The following day on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough discussed Trump's call for revenge with one of his guests: New York Times columnist and fellow Never Trump conservative David French, who warned that the obsession with revenge is one of the things white evangelical Christians like about Trump.

French told Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, "You have, on the one hand, a church that will rise and rightly applaud the incredible words of Erika Kirk and then turn around and happily go to the polls not in spite of Trump's vengeance, but because of Trump's sense of vengeance….. If you've been paying attention to American religion and American politics over the last decade, it wouldn't surprise you to see that Erika Kirk speech and to hear the applause and then to hear the Donald Trump speech and hear the laughter and applause to that as well — and realize that, in many ways, that is what politics is doing to American Christianity."

French continued, "It is creating this face of vengeance. Because Americans know he has the power to work his vengeance because of the church. It is the church that put him into office — the evangelical church — more than any other American constituency. And so, what we watched unfold in front of us — when he spoke like that, this wasn't in contradiction of what so many Christians wanted out of their president here. It is exactly why so many Christians voted for this president…. That is the frustrating complexity of what is happening in this moment."

Scarborough, who was raised Baptist in the South, argued that the vengeance theme of Trump's speech was a major contrast to what former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) — a vehement critic of Trump — said about the U.S. president.

Scarborough told French, "This takes me back to practicing Catholic Nancy Pelosi saying that she prayed for Donald Trump every day. As Jesus commanded us in Matthew 5, you love your enemies. You pray for those who persecute you."


'Thousands of Charlie Kirks': 'Martyr for Christ' dominates GOP youth conference



U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recounted at the Texas Youth Summit on Friday how he texted Charlie Kirk upon hearing about the shooting, asking if he was OK. Credit: Mark Felix for The Texas Tribune
September 20, 2025

THE WOODLANDS — Thousands gathered Friday night to kick off a conference of young Republicans in which Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist killed last week, was memorialized as a “martyr” whose death is galvanizing youths across the nation.

Speaker after speaker, from state lawmakers to influential MAGA cultural tastemakers, shared stories at the Texas Youth Summit about how Kirk — who began rallying young conservatives as a teenager — made them and others feel like their Christian-guided views mattered and their perspectives were shared by many.

They called him a “hero,” “miracle,” and “martyr for Christ." Amid the mourning, they said that the fight Kirk had embarked on was far from over but one that could be won by the young people in attendance.

And it appeared, according to some of the speakers, that more people were learning Kirk’s name and his vision for a faith-led American future every day since his death.

The speeches caused roars of applause from the mostly young audience, some wearing white t-shirts that said “We are Charlie,” which glowed in front of bright red and blue stage lights.

“Be like Charlie,” Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the final speaker of the night, told the crowd, which had thinned by the time he took the stage past 10 p.m. but was still several hundred strong. The state’s junior senator recounted how he texted Kirk upon hearing about the shooting, asking if he was OK.

“I’m praying for you right now,” Cruz said he texted, adding: “Obviously, I never got an answer.”

Kirk was killed Sept. 10 while speaking at a Utah university, the first stop of his group’s “The American Comeback” tour. He often debated students who disagreed with him on his tours while firing up young conservatives.

“There's a lot of value in a bunch of young conservatives coming together and (feeling) like they're not alone. Charlie created that environment — single handedly,” U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston said in a video that was played. “No one else did that kind of thing.”

The memorial was just the latest instance of Texans gathering to share their sorrow over Kirk’s death. Vigils at college campuses, town squares and churches have drawn thousands, with speakers and attendees saying Kirk changed how they viewed politics, debating and their own beliefs. Others vehemently opposed what Kirk stood for but attended the homages to condemn his killing as an unacceptable act of political violence.

“We weren’t alive for JFK or MLK, and this is the first big assassination,” said Harley Reed, one of more than 1,000 who gathered last week at Texas A&M for one such candlelight vigil. “This is the first big movement, if you will, that we’ve seen interrupted in a way.”

Also grieving publicly are the state’s leaders, including some Republicans who are set to speak at the conference on Saturday. Some have also urged a close examination of reactions to Kirk’s death from educators and students; Gov. Greg Abbott, for one, has called for the expulsion of students who publicly celebrated Kirk’s death, prompting blowback from critics who say such calls run afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Such scrutiny has done little to slow the momentum that’s erupted among conservative youth who just became old enough to vote or will reach the threshold in time for next year’s midterms.

Turning Point USA, the group Kirk launched as an 18-year-old to organize other young conservatives, said it received an explosion of more than 50,000 requests to establish new chapters at colleges and high schools in the days after its founder’s death.

In Texas, where the GOP has dominated state government for longer than current college-age students have been alive, organizers of this weekend’s youth summit said they anticipated record-breaking attendance after getting an influx of interest leading up to the event.

“Charlie Kirk cannot be replaced,” Christian Collins, the summit’s founder and leader, said Friday night. “But what I will say is, what will happen in this community, and in this country, is thousands of Charlie Kirks will rise up.”

The event was another example of how Kirk’s death has invigorated a growing movement of young conservatives nationwide, and added fuel to efforts from Texas’ GOP leaders to turn the red state an even deeper shade of red.

State GOP leaders and lawmakers have pointed to that outburst of interest and solidarity as evidence of a Christian awakening among the state’s youth that they say will only grow stronger and usher in a new culture in America.

While the state’s leading young Republican organizations were once lukewarm on Trump, the voter bloc they represent proved crucial to Trump’s victory last year throughout the country.

The president has reportedly said that was thanks, in large part, to Kirk’s work.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/20/texas-youth-summit-republican-charlie-kirk-memorial/.

How a far-right influencer is using religion to plunder Charlie Kirk’s 'legacy'


Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas on October 24, 2018

September 19, 2025
  ALTERNET


Many right-wing media figures, from Fox News' Jesse Watters to "War Room" host Steve Bannon, continue to blame liberals and progressives for the murder of MAGA activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk — even though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and countless other Democrats vehemently condemned the murder in no uncertain times. But among themselves, right-wing media pundits are battling over the role that Kirk played in the MAGA movement.

In a video posted by the conservative website The Bulwark on September 18, two of their writers — Sam Stein and Will Sommer — examined the role religion plays in far-right MAGA influencer Candace Owens' efforts to exploit Kirk's "legacy."

Sommer told Stein, "She puts on a pretty good face about being this, like, aggrieved friend who's going to get to the bottom of this…. The fact is that Charlie Kirk's legacy is a very valuable thing — and in particular, the political capital that can be gained from it, and the money and the donors. And so, I think she is making a claim — and Tucker Carlson — to at least a slice of that legacy."

When Stein noted that "religion gets into this in a really profound way," Sommer elaborated on that point.

Sommer told Stein, "Religion here, I think, is something that is really volatile. And I think for some people in MAGA, what Candace Owens says about Charlie's religion is actually even more important than what she said about him and Israel. Because she says: So, Charlie was an evangelical Christian, and we've seen, in the aftermath of his murder, that there's this sense of, like, people saying, 'There's going to be a religious revival. The pews are going to be packed. Everyone's going to become Christian now.' But Candace says: Well, actually, Charlie…. was on the verge of converting to Catholicism."

Stein asked Sommer if there was "any evidence" of Kirk getting ready to become Catholic — to which he responded, "I believe his wife was originally Catholic, although she said, a year ago, she no longer was."





Texas Judge Overrules Jury to Send Anti-Genocide Activist to Jail for Graffiti

Now, as Raunaq Alam’s team attempts to appeal the judge’s decision, he reportedly continues to be targeted.

By Marwa Elbially
September 26, 2025

A Banksy mural depicting a judge beating a protester on the outside of the Royal Courts of Justice in London, England, on September 9, 2025.
Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
THIS WAS COVERED UP BY SECURITY THE SAME DAY


Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

The artist Banksy recently drew a mural at the Royal Courts of Justice in London depicting a judge in a traditional wig and a black robe, thrashing an unarmed protester with his gavel. The protester is lying on the ground in a defensive position, with one hand raised, while the other hand holds up a blank sign splattered with blood — the only red in the otherwise black-and-white mural. A judge promptly directed for it to be removed, only further highlighting the mural’s message regarding free expression.

A similar form of state repression, cloaked in the black robes of “justice,” was recently on display in Tarrant County, Texas, where the full power of the state and judiciary came pummeling down upon anti-genocide activist Raunaq Alam.

In March 2024, Alam was charged with a Class B misdemeanor of graffiti with a pecuniary loss of less than $750 for allegedly spray painting Uncommon Church’s exterior wall with “F*** ISRAEL.” The maximum custodial penalty for a Class B misdemeanor is 180 days in jail. This represents the lowest penalty range for offenses that result in jail time. But in a move that should chill free speech advocates everywhere, the county eventually brought new charges against Alam, including a hate crimes enhancement that could have led to 10 years in prison.

At the time of Alam’s alleged spray-painting, Uncommon Church was flying the State of Israel’s flag outside its building. Months before the graffiti was painted, the church posted a photograph of its pastor, Brad Carignan, alongside 11 Israeli soldiers carrying automatic weapons, on Facebook. The caption stated, “Pastor Brad made it safely to (near) the frontline to bring clean socks, sleeping bags and encouragement to the Israeli troops.”

The case took place in Tarrant County, the third-largest county in Texas and a bellwether for both the state and the nation. A demographic shift has helped transition the county from a once-reliable Republican stronghold to an electoral battleground, and the far right has expended significant resources to maintain its political footing there.

Related Story

Op-Ed |
In Gaza City, I Have Been Rendered Homeless in My Homeland
After our apartment was bombed, we tried to flee south but failed, returning to our ruined home only to be bombed again. By Dalia Abu Ramadan , Truthout September 24, 2025


Before the Texas legislature began its mid-decade redistricting effort this summer to dilute the voting power of people of color, County Judge Tim O’Hare blazed the trail, providing a test case for redrawing electoral maps in an off-census year. The new maps, which passed 3-2 along party lines, gerrymandered Commissioner Alisa Simmons, the only Black woman on the court, out of her district.

O’Hare also passed new rules of decorum to minimize dissent and quash protected speech during commissioner court meetings. Under this policy, people have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted.

It was in this climate that Alam’s case was presented to a grand jury for indictment in October 2024, seven months after the original misdemeanor was filed. The new charge alleged Alam had caused damage between $750 and $30,000, raising it from a misdemeanor to a state jail felony, which carries a maximum punishment of two years in jail. That indictment also included the hate crime enhancement, which, if found true, would increase the penalty range to a third-degree felony, carrying a maximum of 10 years in prison.

The political show trial was manufactured to criminalize speech by conflating legitimate criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism. The case was originally filed in County Criminal Court No. 5. Months later, it was transferred to County Criminal Court No. 9, Judge Brian Bolton’s court. Even when the case was indicted to a felony and the case was transferred to a felony district court, Judge Bolton was assigned to proceed over the trial. Though legal, it is unusual for a misdemeanor judge to preside over a felony trial. Further, First Assistant Prosecutor Lloyd Whelchel, an attorney with 29 years of experience who routinely handles death penalty prosecutions, represented the state once Alam was indicted. The jury trial was scheduled so the closing arguments and a possible verdict would be rendered on September 11, 2025. This was no run-of-the-mill prosecution; from the onset, even a cursory façade of neutrality was not afforded.

Months earlier, the same duo — Whelchel and Bolton — were involved in the prosecution of Carolyn Rodriguez, a local cop watcher charged with hindering proceedings by disorderly conduct. Rodriguez was ordered out of Commissioner’s Court by O’Hare after using expletives to challenge the new decorum rules and unlawful restriction of protected speech. Judge Bolton ruled that the prosecution had nothing to do with speech, accepting Whelchel’s argument that the charges were about Rodriguez’s disruptive actions, severely limiting the evidence attorney Mark Streiff was able to present to the jury. Rodriguez was convicted.

To categorize criticism of a nation-state committing genocide as racially motivated hate speech is intentionally designed to have a chilling effect on a very specific type of speech and dissent.

Hate crime legislation and enhancements were designed to protect marginalized groups from bias-motivated crimes. To bring higher charges against Alam, a racial and religious minority and a Bengali American descendant of genocide survivors, illustrates just how far the state can turn a law intended to protect a marginalized group into the opposite — a tool of oppression.

Judge Bolton upheld most of the prosecution’s objections, including barring defense counsel from presenting repair evidence, fully questioning the pastor about his support of the Israeli military, testimony from a doctor who personally witnessed the horror in Gaza, or arguing flag burning as First Amendment-protected activity. At the close of the evidence, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict: The hate crime enhancement was not valid. Despite the fact that defense counsel Adwoa Asante was hindered from providing a full and fair defense, the jury saw through the machinations and rejected the argument that criticizing a genocidal foreign government is hate speech. While the jury did find Alam guilty of criminal mischief of the building, they sentenced him to community supervision.

To the bewilderment of the jury, Judge Bolton unilaterally added 180 days of jail as a condition of community supervision. One juror even raised her hand for clarification since the jury had rendered a sentence that opposed jail time. Jail time can be added as a condition of community supervision, and in some cases, it is statutorily required to be added. However, this was not such a case. It supplanted the jury’s decision for the judge’s wrath — a clear and unequivocal rejection of the jury’s stated desires. Now, as Alam’s team attempts to appeal the judge’s decision, he reportedly continues to be targeted. At a press conference, his lawyer announced that Alam was being indicted on perjury charges.

To be clear, spray-painting private property is a criminal offense. But, as the jury found, what happened was not a hate crime. To categorize criticism of a nation-state committing genocide as racially motivated hate speech is intentionally designed to have a chilling effect on a very specific type of speech and dissent.

To quell dissent through criminalization is a distraction from the real issue: Israel is almost two years into its genocide of the Palestinian people. Israeli forces have systematically targeted hospitals, turned life-saving humanitarian food sites into killing fields, turned all of Gaza’s institutions of higher learning into dust, and forcibly displaced and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

However, in a misguided attempt to quash dissent, the state drew far more attention to Israel’s genocide. Supporters crowded the courtroom, and locals questioned spending state resources on prosecuting graffiti that had already been removed. Meanwhile, Israel’s continuous slaughter of Palestinians leaves a permanent bloody stain on our collective conscience.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Marwa Elbially is a civil rights and immigration lawyer.

Anti-Trans Policy Deserves Same Scrutiny as Trump’s Tylenol Disinformation

None of this is science-based.


As a trans journalist, I see corporate media outlets as inconsistent in their treatment of right-wing disinformation.

September 27, 2025

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on September 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C.Andrew Harnik / Getty Images


Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump and his celebrity health ministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz held a press conference to announce an evidence-free claim that pregnant women taking acetaminophen causes autism in children. Trump’s rambling speech provided no evidence other than his repeated assertions that pregnant women should not take the painkiller commonly sold under the brand name Tylenol.

Watching from afar, as a trans journalist who has been covering trans issues for about a decade, I found it interesting how many people — and corporate news outlets — questioned the obvious disinformation so quickly. The New York Times devoted several reporters to debunking the alternative reality the administration was trying to present when it comes to autism and Tylenol.

Those same outlets have not treated obvious disinformation from conservatives about transgender health care in the same way, instead portraying the handful of health providers who question the evidence-based standards of care developed over several decades as brave rebel truth tellers.

But there’s no real difference between an acetaminophen scaremonger like RFK Jr. and an anti-trans obsessive like J.K. Rowling. Neither are doctors, both have been poisoned by a steady stream of online propaganda and disinformation. They both spread lies as easily as they breathe, it’s just that certain segments of society feel a bit icky about the idea of trans people and so are more likely to listen to lies about my people.

None of this is science-based.

 Just this week, Mother Jones reported that Gordon Guyatt, known by colleagues as the “godfather of evidence-based medicine,” rebuked the anti-trans health care political group Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Despite having an association with the group in the past, Guyatt explained that the scientific basis for gender-affirming care for minors “not different from most of medicine,” and that it’s not always possible to run the rigorous double blind studies that are required for a thorough certification of some medical treatments.

Double blind studies require that neither the researchers nor the research participants know who is receiving the treatment of concern in the study. In the case of trans health, within a matter of weeks, both participants and doctors will know who has puberty blocker/hormone treatment and who has a placebo, thus invalidating the double blind portion of the study. Everyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the scientific method can grasp this, and yet those who oppose trans care for youth insist that all of such care must be suspended until a long-term study of this kind can be conducted.

They’re really just after an indefinite pause to the treatment they’re opposed to on political grounds. That doesn’t stop them from continuing to lie to an increasingly enthralled press and political sector, including some Democrats.

Anti-trans activists frequently point out the statistically higher percentage of trans people who are also autistic compared to the general population as another reason to override our autonomy as free and equal people by denying us health care. Like with trans people, those who seek to “cure” autism envision a world where there are no autistic people. It’s just another effort to stamp out the uniqueness of the human condition.

Related Story

Op-Ed |
FDA’s Arbitrary Restrictions on Vaccines Are Right Out of Anti-Abortion Playbook
Anti-vaxxers are copying a core anti-abortion strategy: if you can’t make it illegal, make it inaccessible instead. By Lauren Rankin , Truthout September 23, 2025


I long for the days when those in the corporate media will be able to see Trump’s lies about trans health care as easily as they can see Trump’s lies about Tylenol and autism. Until then, I’m standing alongside my autistic siblings against this heinous eliminationist health care agenda.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Katelyn Burns is an independent journalist and columnist for MSNBC and Xtra Magazine. She was the first ever openly trans Capitol Hill reporter in U.S. history. She co-hosts the Cancel Me, Daddy podcast and is a cofounder/owner of The Flytrap, a feminist media collective. She also runs the Burns Notice newsletter.

















DESANTISLAND

Ivermectin is back in a big way — in Florida


(REUTERS)

September 25, 2025 

As the debate over vaccine mandates heats up in Florida, there’s a push in the Legislature and the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis to broaden the use of ivermectin.

A Republican legislator from Spring Hill has filed legislation to allow the over-the-counter sale of ivermectin suitable for human use even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals.

Ivermectin is an effective treatment for parasites in animals and for use by humans to treat parasites such as head lice and scabies, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The FDA has not approved Ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19, and so far recommends against taking it for COVID-19, instead suggesting people get vaccinated for protection.

Nevertheless, there was buzz during the pandemic about using it for treatment for COVID-19.

HB 29 sponsor Rep. Jeff Holcomb, R-Spring Hill, did not immediately return Florida Phoenix’s request for comment. If approved, Florida would join the ranks of Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, and Texas in approving the medication for over the counter sales.

The governor, First Lady Casey DeSantis, state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and Agency for Health Care Administration Secretary Shevaun Harris held a press conference at the University of South Florida Health College of Medicine to recognize World Cancer Research Day and to highlight $60 million in new cancer research grant opportunities.

There, the first lady said she expected some portion of the new grant funding to be used for cancer research on ivermectin.

“I know we should look at it. I know we should look at the benefits of it. We shouldn’t just speculate and guess,” DeSantis said.

Ladapo, seconded the idea.

“There’s been a lot of chatter about it, and this very simple drug that happens to be very safe, by the way, has unfortunately, you know it’s so much it’s been weighed down by all this politics, especially during the Biden administration.”

Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for cancer treatment.

The FDA also warns large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. “Even doses of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma, and even death.”

Ladapo and DeSantis defend no mandate push

Meanwhile, Ladapo and his boss DeSantis defended their push to eliminate vaccine mandates from Florida law, rules, and regulations.

“I hope that we continue to reject the normal and we pursue a path that feels righteous, that feels like we’re actually, you know, aiming toward the thing that we want to improve,” Ladapo said.

“That opportunity is there. Thankfully, we have leadership, uniquely in this state, to do it. And I hope it spreads like, like all those minor viruses that my critics are afraid of, or something.”

The minor viruses Ladapo referred to includes measles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 1,514 confirmed measles cases this year as of Sept. 23. Six of those confirmed cases were in Florida. There were 11 confirmed measles cases in Florida in 2024.

Measles and other disease outbreaks occur as the percentage of school-age children in Florida who are vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella dips. While the target rate for MMR vaccination is 95%, Florida’s 2024-2025 rate was 88.8%.

That’s a near 5% point change from the 2019-2020 year, a KFF analysis shows, and well below the targeted 95% needed for herd immunity.

Ladapo and DeSantis avoided directly answering whether their children have been vaccinated. Ladapo said reporters should be asking substantive questions and likened the questions about the children to “silly games.”

“I actually don’t care about sharing information about that. I really don’t care at all. But I won’t. And I won’t because I’m not going to participate in the silly games that so much of the media chooses to partake in instead of the substantive parts of the issues.”

In addition to defending his anti-vaccine mandate push, Ladapo appears on board with the Trump administration’s announcement that autism rates are up because pregnant women are taking acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, during their pregnancies.

“They acknowledge that not all the studies show harm, but some of them do show relation. And it’s not a total explanation for autism by any means, but it does appear to be that it’s reasonable to conclude that it may be contributing to the prevalence of autism in children,” Ladapo said.

When asked whether he intended to issue any guidance he said: “We’re still looking at it. So, we may have some more guidance, but it would probably be very much in line with where the FDA is.”



Children Are in the Crosshairs of Trump and McMahon’s Attack on Public Education

The pair’s efforts to return education to the states appear motivated not by improving educational outcomes, but by creating tax breaks for the rich while privatizing public education and weakening teachers’ unions, a pillar of the Democratic Party.




US President Donald Trump signs executive orders relating to education, alongside US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick (far left) and US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon (right), in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on April 23, 2025.
(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Andrew Kordik
Sep 27, 2025
Common Dreams

After surviving a contentious US Senate confirmation hearing, Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO turned secretary of education, received a profound first directive from President Donald Trump: “Put yourself out of a job.” Like other appointees, Mrs. McMahon has done exactly as ordered by a president who accepts nothing less.

As Secretary, McMahon has championed Trump’s executive order dismantling her department and delivering its K-12 responsibilities to state and local governments. She has fired 1,315 department employees, targeting jobs in the Office for Civil Rights and the Institute of Education Sciences, groups that investigate civil rights complaints in schools and provide advice on best practices in teaching. As a result, the department’s staff has been nearly halved since January.

RECOMMENDED...



Trump Ed Dept. Partners With Right-Groups to Spread White-Washed Civics Lessons in ‘Schools Across the Nation’

And now Secretary McMahon is spiking the ball in a 50-state tour called “Returning Education to the States.” More than a celebration of the administration’s defeat of brainy bureaucrats at the Department of Education, the tour touts the passage of the “Educational Choice for Children Act” (ECCA) as part of the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The act creates a national opt-in voucher system for students to attend private or religious schools, to be funded by an extraordinarily generous dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations.

The problem is that in these related cases—the attacks on the department of education and the creation of a national voucher system—Secretary McMahon and President Trump are not acting in the interests of students, nor do they seem to be thinking about them at all. These efforts to return education to the states appear motivated not by improving educational outcomes, as we’ll explore, but by creating tax breaks for the rich while privatizing public education and weakening teachers’ unions, a pillar of the Democratic Party.

But First, a Little Backstory...

To fully grasp the stakes of the attack on the Department of Education, we must remember why the federal government got involved in education in the first place. Conservatives rightly note that the Constitution does not mention education, leaving it instead as a reserved power for the states. They’re also correct that despite providing only 10% of total public school funding, the role of the federal government in education has grown significantly over the past half-century.

Yet federal power in education grew neither by accident nor by conspiracy, but in response to systemic failures that states could not and in some cases would not address.

In 1965, following the Civil Rights Act and amid the War on Poverty, the Johnson administration sought to tackle two forms of intransigence: the South’s resistance to school integration and the persistence of poverty amid plenty. A former schoolteacher himself, President Lyndon Johnson proposed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which directed federal funds, called Title I, to low-income schools and students. Crucially, it tied Title I funding to compliance with desegregation orders. This strings-attached model became the foundation of the federal approach to K-12 education and is critical to understanding its outsized voice.

When Secretary McMahon announced that her “Returning Education to the States” tour would kick off in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, it sounded like yet another state’s rights dog whistle.

Flash forward a decade: When President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education in 1979, conservatives saw it as the fulfillment of a politically motivated campaign promise to secure support from the National Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the country. Politics was surely part of the calculus, which conservatives have long resented.

Yet beyond the politics of the moment, the new department was also created to increase efficiency and effectiveness, allowing the federal government to consolidate its education-related functions into a single agency. Navigating the two largest streams of K-12 funding—Title I and IDEA—would be less complicated under its purview. Continuing the strings-attached model, the department established an Office of Civil Rights to investigate whether schools receiving funds were in compliance with federal civil rights laws. But this last piece represented a continuation of federal oversight that some states resented, especially across the South.

So in 1980, when Ronald Reagan campaigned against the new department and called for returning control to the states, he appealed—intentionally or not—to two groups. The first were earnest conservatives who, after decades of government expansion, sought a renewed federalism that would respect greater state and local autonomy. The second were those who felt the federal government had overreached, in schools and elsewhere, by enforcing civil rights laws in the South. Reagan’s advisors seemed to understand this double-meaning and tapped into it with dog whistles, directing the Gipper to open his 1980 campaign with a “state’s rights” speech in Neshoba, Mississippi, a town made infamous by the 1964 murders of three prominent civil rights activists.

President Reagan was ultimately unable to get rid of the Department of Education. Instead, Reagan decided that if he couldn’t kill the department, he would render it useless by appointing leaders, like Secretary William Bennett, who did not believe in its purpose. This was the template for Trump’s appointment of both Betsy Devos and Linda McMahon.
Back to the Present

When Secretary McMahon announced that her “Returning Education to the States” tour would kick off in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, it sounded like yet another state’s rights dog whistle. Compounding that feeling is the fact that the secretary’s layoffs in March targeted the department’s Office for Civil Rights, leaving it unable to perform its oversight and investigative duties and leading to a long list of civil rights cases that may never be reviewed.

But more than civil rights oversight is at stake. The Institute of Education Sciences, which researches best practices in teaching and provides comparative data about educational outcomes, was also targeted in the Secretary’s layoffs. The institute additionally oversees the National Assessment of Educational Programs (NAEP) tests, which are used to gauge academic achievement by various measures across the country.

None of this is in the interests of students.


President Trump and Secretary McMahon have shown no consideration of the fact that, as research suggests, many of these programs will fail students, affecting millions of children nationwide.

The growing backlog of cases in the Office for Civil Rights does nothing to protect vulnerable students, just as the effective shuttering of the Institute of Education Sciences does nothing to improve teaching and learning. But rendering the Office for Civil Rights useless does give cover to states to do as they please—and if doing so hurts test scores, a dataless Institute of Education Sciences will lack the information critical for accountability.

Secretary McMahon and President Trump have also expressed interest in turning Title I, the largest stream of federal money for K-12 education, into block grants. Doing so, as Project 2025 advises, would give states greater discretion over how the funds are used. Without vigorous oversight, it is likely that some states would not direct the money toward low-income schools and students. The president has already issued guidance for how states can redirect Title I money into voucher programs and, according to Politico, has worked with House Republicans to propose a $5.2 billion cut to the program for fiscal year 2026.

But the most immediate push for vouchers comes in an overlooked part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” called the “Educational Choice for Children Act” (ECCA). It establishes the first national voucher system, allowing students in states that opt in to use vouchers to send students to private or religious schools. The program is funded through federal tax credit. These breaks are an unusually generous dollar-for-dollar credit on any donation to Scholarship Granting Organizations. And, shockingly, donations can include stocks that will be valued at their pre-capital gains amount, meaning donors will save more from the donation than they would make from cashing out the stock.

More than an appealing program for the wealthy, the ECCA voucher program is politically appealing to Republicans because it undermines public schools—and their teachers’ unions—in states that opt in. When students accept vouchers to leave for private schools, the traditional public school they previously attended loses that money, forcing them to continue providing the same services for all students but with less funding. And while conservatives frame this as “school choice,” the choice lies equally with private schools that, unlike public schools that are required to educate every student, have the right to reject applicants on the basis of talent, character, and even disability—leaving public schools to educate only the most challenging students.

In other words, the program sets up public schools to fail—and when they do, they will likely be blamed for their own failure, leading to additional disinvestment and greater failure.

One thing is clear: The ECCA voucher program, like the rest of Trump and McMahon’s K-12 policy, isn’t about helping students, nor is it even about education; it’s about fattening pockets and weakening political opponents. The tax credit is a boondoggle for the wealthy at a cost of billions to the public. But the credit is also a tool for attacking a pillar of the Democratic Party by undermining traditional public schools and teachers’ unions. Children are in the crosshairs of this battle but under Trump, the Republican Party is unwilling to value them above entrenching their own political power and financial interests.

It is a tragic moment in K-12 education. To be clear, there are valid debates about school choice and vouchers. There have even been successes in certain targeted voucher studies, and we should learn from them. But overwhelmingly, recent studies show that voucher programs have yet to scale well and have consistently led to lower test scores. Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio have large, longstanding voucher programs. In the past decade, each has witnessed a decline in math and reading scores for students entering from public school.

In 2016, researchers at Tulane University found that voucher users who performed “at roughly the 50th percentile” before entering the program fell “24 percentile points below their control group counterparts in math after one year.” Martin West, professor of education policy at Harvard and a 2012 campaign adviser to Mitt Romney, described the results as “as large as any” he’s “seen in the literature.” Results are similarly poor in Ohio, where the erstwhile voucher-supporting Thomas B. Fordham Institute concluded, “Students who use vouchers to attend private schools have fared worse academically compared to their closely matched peers attending public schools.”

Even in the best cases of scaled-up experiments, as in Florida and Arizona, results are mixed. Some studies suggest slight academic improvement while others range from no benefit to moderate academic decline. And yet without nuance or humility, the Trump administration is all-in on vouchers as the future of education, at least in the Republican-led states. President Trump and Secretary McMahon have shown no consideration of the fact that, as research suggests, many of these programs will fail students, affecting millions of children nationwide.

If the administration truly had a non-ideological interest in vouchers as part of a commitment to improving educational outcomes, they would recognize the shortcomings of many recent voucher experiments and propose more targeted voucher programs that expand on areas where they’ve shown some success.

But they haven’t done that because it’s not about students. And for all the wrong reasons, we’re about to scale vouchers across much of the country at a time when the Department of Education, the leading K-12 oversight body, is on life support.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Andrew Kordik is an educator, a union rep, and a recipient of the Above & Beyond Outstanding Teacher of America award.
Full Bio >
'Acting like the Gestapo': Former judge rips Trump admin


Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

September 28, 2025  
ALTERNET

Dana Leigh Marks, a former U.S. immigration judge, has strongly criticized President Donald Trump's handling of immigration courts, warning that the administration's tactics have turned U.S. immigration courts into dangerous zones.

In an interview with The Guardian published Sunday, Marks, 71, said of the current climate: “I have seen my entire career destroyed by Trump in six months. I’m flat out terrified on all fronts.”

Marks retired from San Francisco’s Immigration Court in December 2021, leaving behind a widely respected legacy as a leader, mentor, and advocate.

She described ICE agents arresting immigrants outside their court hearings as “acting like the Gestapo.”

She urged immigration lawyers to warn clients. “If I were an immigration practitioner now, I’d tell my clients that they have to act like they’re in a war zone … Be prepared for any eventuality, because it is so random and so chaotic.”

Marks accused the Trump administration of intentionally undermining immigration courts. She said the government is “attacking” immigration courts “on all fronts” in order to prove they’re “dysfunctional” and thus justify eliminating them entirely.

She called the courts “canaries in the coalmine,” warning, “what’s happening to them is an illustration of what might happen to other court systems if we don’t stop it.”

Regarding a recent shift in how judges are selected, Marks called the administration’s use of military lawyers as temporary immigration judges “absolutely unprecedented,” cautioning, “I don’t want to slam military lawyers, but there is the concern that they’re being picked because there’s a perception that they will just follow orders.”

She characterized political intrusion into the courts as “a slow creep that now has gone to light speed.”

On the structure of the immigration court system itself, she said: “Deep in my bones, I always felt the placement of the immigration court in the Department of Justice was wrong. The boss of the prosecutor should not be the boss of the judge.”

She described how ruling “on precedent is the core of our legal system” is now being ignored, saying, “What kills me, as a lawyer, is that Trump turns everything on its head and blows through clearly established legal precedent as if it doesn’t exist.” And grimly about the administration’s reliance on disorder she quipped: “If you build by chaos, even if you’re right in what you construct … it’s going to crumble.”

Marks warned that rather than resolving backlogs, the infusion of military judges will “screw up the records” and “make appeals go wild.” She said that under the current pressure and lack of support, immigration judges are being asked to perform “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting,” juggling high-volume dockets, interpreters, courtroom tech, verbatim notes, and immediate rulings with minimal time or staff.
America's battle over free speech


Issued on: 26/09/2025 - 

14:07 min
From the show




This week FRANCE 24's media show Scoop looks at growing pressure in the United States on broadcasters and journalists. Disney briefly suspended comedian Jimmy Kimmel amid threats from the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On Tuesday the "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" show returned with record ratings. What does all this mean for the future of the media and the press? Our guest is Conor Fitzpatrick from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The White House Wages War at Home

Trump is a King George of the modern era, testing constitutional limits and mobilizing the coercive power of the state against the citizenry.



Protesters hold signs and flags and a large balloon with an image of US President Donald Trump during the nationwide “Hands Off!” protest against Trump and his adviser, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in downtown Los Angeles on April 5, 2025.

(Photo by Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images)

Common Dreams

President Donald Trump has treated the US military less as an instrument of national defense than as a personal tool for enforcing political will. National Guard units have been deployed to Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and other cities under circumstances that critics argue constitute intimidation rather than legitimate security operations. Citizens and green card holders have reportedly been detained without clear legal authority, raising urgent questions about the erosion of civil liberties. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has been rhetorically rebranded as the Department of War, signaling a broader offensive posture not just abroad, but potentially at home.

Trump presents himself as a modern Washington or Jefferson, the fearless guardian of American virtue. Make America Great Again promises a return to a mythic past. In practice, however, his administration functions as a laboratory for authoritarian experimentation, exposing the fragility of constitutional and institutional safeguards designed to survive the ambitions of overreaching executives.

George Washington could have claimed lifetime rule; he refused. Trump refused to accept defeat in 2020, attempted to subvert electoral results, and incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Washington built a democracy capable of outliving him; Trump has tested one that explicitly rejected him. Law, the Founders warned, is the scaffold of liberty. Trump has repeatedly tested those boundaries, obstructing justice, dodging subpoenas, and converting the Justice Department into a tool for personal protection.

The deployment of National Guard forces to US cities highlights a deeper problem: the militarization of domestic governance. Trump has framed these deployments as necessary for “security,” yet the timing, targets, and accompanying rhetoric—such as memes depicting him as a cavalry commander in Apocalypse Now—signal political theater intended to intimidate and assert personal authority over the citizenry. While he laterdenied plans to “go to war on Chicago,” the casualness of the threat reveals a disturbing comfort with the idea of domestic coercion.

The central question is not abstract: Will Americans exercise the tools the Constitution provides to resist authoritarian drift?

Thomas Jefferson warned that democracy cannot survive without an independent press. Trump calls journalists “the enemy of the people,” excludes them from briefings, and spreads misinformation to undermine public trust. James Madison designed a system of checks and balances to prevent executive overreach. Trump treats Congress and the courts as obstacles, delegitimizing oversight and eroding judicial independence. Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong but accountable executive is inverted: Presidential power becomes indistinguishable from personal empire.

Some defenders argue that Trump remains constitutionally constrained, that executive orders, emergency declarations, or selective enforcement are permissible exercises of presidential discretion. Yet repeated incidents, illegal detention of residents, militarized policing in domestic spaces, emergency declarations used to bypass Congress, demonstrate a pattern of authoritarian experimentation rather than lawful discretion. These are not isolated incidents; they are structural tests of the system’s resilience.

The consequences for democracy are tangible. Norms are eroded incrementally: The legitimacy of elections is challenged, opposition figures are threatened, and civil liberties are subordinated to political calculation. Militarized policing and the casual threat of domestic war are tools of coercion, not patriotism. Democracy does not collapse in a single moment; it atrophies when citizens fail to defend institutions designed to protect them.

Trump’s reorientation of the military, alongside his willingness to violate norms of civilian oversight, illustrates a critical tension: The executive branch is designed to be strong but accountable. When accountability is discarded, the instruments of the state—courts, the military, law enforcement—become mechanisms for consolidating personal power. This undermines the very social contract that binds citizens to the state.

From a class perspective, this militarization has profound implications for working people and marginalized communities, who disproportionately bear the brunt of aggressive policing and state coercion. The deployment of troops in urban areas, framed as protection against “threats,” often intersects with systemic inequalities, reinforcing patterns of surveillance and control over populations that lack political power.

The Founders, for all their limitations, provided tools for resistance: the vote, civic participation, oversight, and the defense of separation of powers. These mechanisms remain available, but they are contingent upon citizen engagement and political literacy. Trump is neither Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, nor Hamilton. He embodies the archetype of executive overreach that classical republicanism sought to preclude—a King George of the modern era, testing constitutional limits and mobilizing the coercive power of the state against the citizenry.

The central question is not abstract: Will Americans exercise the tools the Constitution provides to resist authoritarian drift? The blueprint exists, but it requires active defense. Democratic institutions are not self-sustaining; they depend on the vigilance, courage, and collective action of citizens. Failure to act risks normalizing domestic militarization and the gradual erosion of civil liberties.

In this sense, Trump’s presidency is both a warning and a test. It challenges us to confront the vulnerabilities of our political system, to insist upon accountability, and to recognize that democracy is not merely procedural, it is relational, contingent on a society willing to defend it against those who would wield power as an instrument of personal dominion.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

George Cassidy Payne is a writer, educator, and social justice advocate. He lives in Irondequoit, New York.
Full Bio >